NationStates Jolt Archive

"Bush's victory was the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."

Despite claims of an overwhelming Bush victory, what say you to the above claim?

Well, duh. No one was predicting a landslide. Though compared to what people were expecting, it was a landslide.

2000...1960...1948

2000...1960...1948

None of those involved an incumbent...though 1948 did. Except I think Truman actually had a decent margin of victory that time.

"Bush's victory was the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."

Despite claims of an overwhelming Bush victory, what say you to the above claim?
Are you libs that desperate to salvage some dignity out of the debacle you underwent on Nov 2nd? That is just as pathetic as the statement by Ron Reagan Jr., to the effect that the highest number of people in American electoral history had voted against George Bush...only to then add that even more people had voted FOR George Bush.

None of those involved an incumbent...though 1948 did. Except I think Truman actually had a decent margin of victory that time.
Harry Truman was the incumbent in 1948...and he barely squeaked by, making the picture of him holding a newspaper saying "Dewey wins!!" all the more significant.

Well, duh. No one was predicting a landslide. Though compared to what people were expecting, it was a landslide.

I'd have to say I'd agree with this statement. Unfortunately. :headbang:

Harry Truman was the incumbent in 1948...and he barely squeaked by, making the picture of him holding a newspaper saying "Dewey wins!!" all the more significant.
Yet he beat Dewey 303-189. Yeah, that was a squeaker. :p

2000...1960...1948
In 1960, Kennedy beat Nixon 303-219. You can consider that close if you want.

Here are the closest American elections
1) 1876: Hayes beats Tilden 185-184.
2) 2000: Bush beats Gore 271-267.
3) 1796: Adams beats Jefferson 71-68.
4) 1916: Wilson beats Hughes 277-254.
5) 1800: Jefferson beats Adams 73-65.
6) 2004: Bush beats Kerry 286-252.

There have been 55 elections. This was the 6th closest one.

Yet he beat Dewey 303-189. Yeah, that was a squeaker. :p

In 1960, Kennedy beat Nixon 303-219. You can consider that close if you want.

Here are the closest American elections
1) 1876: Hayes beats Tilden 185-184.
2) 2000: Bush beats Gore 271-267.
3) 1796: Adams beats Jefferson 71-68.
4) 1916: Wilson beats Hughes 277-254.
5) 1800: Jefferson beats Adams 73-65.
6) 2004: Bush beats Kerry 286-252.

There have been 55 elections. This was the 6th closest one.
'nuff said.

It's really not much more meaningful than the fact that this is the first election since 1988 in which the winning candidate had a majority of the popular vote. I think the most significant fact that the Democrats can take away from this is that they selected one of the weakest candidates available. With the exceptions of Braun and Sharpton, practically any of the others could have won this election.

I think the most significant fact that the Democrats can take away from this is that they selected one of the weakest candidates available. With the exceptions of Braun and Sharpton, practically any of the others could have won this election.
I don't think Dean could have won it. They'd shred him as "too liberal for America". Edwards, they would have gone after his inexperience. Lieberman is just a bore, and they'd attack him with the New England liberal label. I think Kerry was the best of the bunch (although the thought of a Dean presidency is exciting, he really couldn't get elected.)

Are you libs that desperate to salvage some dignity out of the debacle you underwent on Nov 2nd? That is just as pathetic as the statement by Ron Reagan Jr., to the effect that the highest number of people in American electoral history had voted against George Bush...only to then add that even more people had voted FOR George Bush.
Most popular votes recieved:

1) Bush Jr.
2) Kerry
3) Reagan
4) Gore

It's really quite meaningless given population increase. 4 years from now we'll have two new top vote getters.

What jumps out at me is that Bush has had two close elections. I don't know if anyone else has had to earn their election both times the way he had to. Nixon might have had a bit of a fight from Humphrey but he murdered McGovern. Reagan squashed Carter and Mondale. Eisenhower slapped Stevenson into next week two straight times. Clinton walked on Bush and Dole both. Roosevelt had two easy victories to start out and then things got a little tougher for him...what with people cheesed about him serving more than two terms. Wilson won fairly easily in 1912 but had to earn it in 1916. That about covers the 20th century as well as the 21st...not quite sure about before that, but no one comes to mind.

I don't think Dean could have won it. They'd shred him as "too liberal for America". Edwards, they would have gone after his inexperience. Lieberman is just a bore, and they'd attack him with the New England liberal label. I think Kerry was the best of the bunch (although the thought of a Dean presidency is exciting, he really couldn't get elected.)

Edwards might have been youthful and easy enough to relate to for people to vote for him. That's what Bush had for him - he seemed down-to-Earth. Edwards could have pulled the same thing. Clark was a moderate an a general, and I have no clue why the Dems didn't pick him. An Edwards/Clark ticket would have won.

I don't think Dean could have won it. They'd shred him as "too liberal for America". Edwards, they would have gone after his inexperience. Lieberman is just a bore, and they'd attack him with the New England liberal label. I think Kerry was the best of the bunch (although the thought of a Dean presidency is exciting, he really couldn't get elected.)

Dean, by virtue of the "liberal" perception (he's not really that liberal by any objective measurement), probably wouldn't have had 9% of Democrats voting against him. He and Kucinich (a real liberal if I've ever seen one) were both straight shooters with specific plans for America, not just the "litany of complaints" that Kerry tried to pass off as a plan. Both could have made the election exciting and gotten out the younger voters who mysteriously failed to show up on election day. Kucinich would almost certainly have carried Ohio. Lieberman, Clark and Gephart had the advantage of being moderate without seeming weak on the issues.

Kerry suffered mainly from the following labels: flip-flopper, meeting-skipper, extreme liberal, and bore. Each of those could probably be said of at least one other candidate, but all of them applied to a single candidate? Only John Kerry.

OK, remember this - in 2008, Hillary Clinton vs. Condaleeza Rice - call me psychic (or psycho, whatever). :)

OK, remember this - in 2008, Hillary Clinton vs. Condaleeza Rice - call me psychic (or psycho, whatever). :)

The odds are slim that Republicans would be enthusiastic about a pro-choice, pro-affirmative action black woman on their ticket. In fact, I think that the only way they'd vote for Rice is if the other option was someone that they really hated. Hillary Clinton would fit that role nicely.

The odds are slim that Republicans would be enthusiastic about a pro-choice, pro-affirmative action black woman on their ticket. In fact, I think that the only way they'd vote for Rice is if the other option was someone that they really hated. Hillary Clinton would fit that role nicely.


I think it's fairly clear at this point that either side will vote for whoever gets put on the ticket for them.

The following list misses the single closest election in history. When Andrew Jackson ran for the presidency for the first time, against John Quincy Adams, the result was a dead-even, perfect electoral tie. Neither candidate won the election and, as a result, the decision went to the House of Representatives (as the Constitution dictates in case of an electoral tie). Adams was elected by the House, but was dealt a a narrow defeat by Jackson in the rematch four years later. This following election was also very close (closer than Wilson-Hughes) and marks the first and only time in history that a defeated presidential candidate successfully beat the man who defeated him in the next election.

As another interesting historical note, Hayes vs. Tilden was the first election in history where (as has often been repeated in elections since) 'the wrong man won'. The electoral counts initially came out as a tie and the Republicans, (knowing they would lose in the Democratic House) made a bargain with several key Southern states. In return for them switching their electoral votes to Hayes, Hayes would pull federal troops out of the Southern states still under Reconstruction's martial law. Not surprisingly, that extra electoral vote turned up for Hayes.

Yet he beat Dewey 303-189. Yeah, that was a squeaker. :p


In 1960, Kennedy beat Nixon 303-219. You can consider that close if you want.

Here are the closest American elections
1) 1876: Hayes beats Tilden 185-184.
2) 2000: Bush beats Gore 271-267.
3) 1796: Adams beats Jefferson 71-68.
4) 1916: Wilson beats Hughes 277-254.
5) 1800: Jefferson beats Adams 73-65.
6) 2004: Bush beats Kerry 286-252.

There have been 55 elections. This was the 6th closest one.

The odds are slim that Republicans would be enthusiastic about a pro-choice, pro-affirmative action black woman on their ticket. In fact, I think that the only way they'd vote for Rice is if the other option was someone that they really hated. Hillary Clinton would fit that role nicely.

My point exactly, so again, I'm psychic (or psycho, whatever) :D

The odds are slim that Republicans would be enthusiastic about a pro-choice, pro-affirmative action black woman on their ticket. In fact, I think that the only way they'd vote for Rice is if the other option was someone that they really hated. Hillary Clinton would fit that role nicely.
Was not aware she was pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. Source, please.

Was not aware she was pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. Source, please.
Pro-choice: http://www.legalmomentum.org/news/ib/02_march/president.shtml

Pro-AA: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/rice.action/index.html

If you want more sources, use your search engine.