Clinton (first term) and Nixon were both elected as President of the United States with only a mere 43% of the popular vote. No one seems to be contesting Clinton as being the legitimate President from such an outcome....yet to this day, Bush's presidency is still contested!
Why is this victory so hard to swallow for the Liberal!!????
2007-12-31 08:35:38 · 12 answers · asked by Kiker 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Point of Fact:
Clinton only received 43% of the popular vote in 92.
2007-12-31 08:46:15 · update #1
TroubleMaker, are you seriously telling us that Gore ducked out because he was threatened with his life?! Well, I was expecting wackos, but just not this early in the day.
2007-12-31 08:47:39 · update #2
Shilo. The point is that Libs balk that Bush lost the popular vote, and yet he maintained a HIGHER popular vote than Clinton! Moreover, in the end Bush had more electorial votes, whether you want to confess to Florida or not.
Libs hate to lose at their own game. Look at the WA state governor's election. How does a democrat become Governor when she lost 2 of the 3 recounts?!
2007-12-31 08:54:21 · update #3
Interesting point about the absentee ballots. I was expecting more people to bring that up. Why where there tens of thousands of Absentee ballots denied, large coming from overseas servicemen and women?! Could it be that this demographic historically voted Republican?!
2007-12-31 08:56:24 · update #4
Shilo. If a party is claiming foul for tampering with an election, it is absolutely appropriate to demostrate other hypocritical examples.
2007-12-31 09:00:27 · update #5
Moreover, the Electorial College was an issue of contention in the Clinton/Bush election year, and was favored by the Dems. The elections results under the College later turned against the Dems and they then cried foul!!
So what is it? And be honest! What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?!
2007-12-31 09:02:36 · update #6
Decent point Ken
2007-12-31 09:38:06 · update #7
Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.0% of the vote) against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote).
Even though he did not win over 50% of the popular vote, he still received the majority of the popular vote between the three candidates.
In the 2000 election, Bush received 47.9% of the popular vote while Gore received 48.4%. This means Gore receive MORE of the popular than Bush.
Way to try and misuse statistics...
Nice try...
****UPDATE
Come on Kiker, Aren't you going to respond to my answer?
You are misconstruing the argument from the democrats. They are concerned with the fact that Bush won the election even though Gore beat him in the number of popular votes. While Clinton only had 43% of the popular vote, he still had more popular votes AND electoral votes than any of the other two candidates.
It is also inappropriate to compare the popular votes from these two elections as in one election the popular vote was split between two candidates and in the other three candidates.
Redefining the argument of others to fit your own presuppositions is not appropriate.
I see that you have now decided to start changing the direction of your original question as I have proven you wrong. Sorry, I'm not going to play that game. Bye bye now.
2007-12-31 08:43:45 · answer #1 · answered by Sordenhiemer 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
How do you know what percentage of votes Bush got in 2000? They never finished counting in Florida!
2008-01-03 14:44:10 · answer #2 · answered by typre50 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ok, so i know floridians are dumb (and yes, i currently reside in this state, so i can dis us) and i know there was a lot of crap going on with that election.
but c'mon - how many years ago was that?! and bush is president now.
so get over it
2008-01-01 01:52:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmmmm good point
2007-12-31 19:02:40 · answer #4 · answered by MiMi ♥ 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There wasn't any question that Clinton won sufficient electoral votes to win. There were 3 candidates (Bush, Clinton, and Perot) and Clinton won 370 (vs. Bush 168) electoral votes. The percentage of the popular vote doesn't matter.
The vote count between Bush and Gore (271 to 266 electorals), however, was so close and so many legal maneuvering occurred, that it's hard to know exactly what happened. And with the GOP power in Florida, at that point in history, there are legitimate reasons to be somewhat uncertain that everything was done honestly.
2007-12-31 17:14:44 · answer #5 · answered by Ken 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The difference is Clinton finished first, while Bush finished second. Clinton won, Bush lost. Clinton accepted his victory, Bush stole the election. Or do you still believe Bush won Florida that time?
Note also that after seven years of Clinton, this country was never better off; while after seven years of Bush, this country is in a hell of a mess. Last time we had a George Bush, we were also in a hell of a mess, and it took a Clinton to clean it up. And it will again. Unless it's Obama, which I can definitely live with.
2007-12-31 16:52:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the the liberals would have counted all the absentee ballots from our men and women in service overseas.....the election would not even have close...talk about screwing the people in the military who are about 80% for Bush..both Democrats and Republicans..Happy New Year..the Democrats are in power and are doing a great job at uniting the county....
2007-12-31 16:52:23 · answer #7 · answered by gvh 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think, in general, liberals are a bunch of "cry babies" that have a "gimme, gimme" attitude about life in general.
The "entitlement" mentality is very pervasive in our society and if things don't change, and FAST, we are ALL S.O.L.!!!
2007-12-31 16:45:47 · answer #8 · answered by mr.richie 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
More people voted for Bush than against, more against Clinton than for...
Liberals swallow lots, just not truth.
------------------
Wow, Trouble with the facts...nazis, gore threatened...what a loon. Gore was told not to break the law...a difficult concept for dishonest democraps.
2007-12-31 16:42:49 · answer #9 · answered by RockHunter 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If Bush had actually won the Florida delegates instead of stealing them maybe no one would care .
Truth is Al gore gave up or was told to get out or be killed .
He is still shaking in his boots .
Bush family connected to the murderous Nazi's , the drug cartels , and daddy Bush was in the CIA and has numerous allies who can make almost anything happen .
You have to wonder about Edwards son and what may have really happened .
2007-12-31 16:42:44 · answer #10 · answered by TroubleMaker 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋