Friday, November 05, 2004
Mandate? Hardly . . .
Is this a great GOP victory? Consider:
-Bush got the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson.-He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2-party race)
-He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).
-He will have won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA--assuming the last two go his way) by only 161,989 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).
fascinating . . .
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/763/1369564
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mandate? Hardly . . . :
Comments
http://www.multied.com/elections/1996pop.html
This link says different, and `96 wasn't a 2 party election with Perot getting 8% of the vote.
Posted by: Jason Welcker | Nov 8, 2004 4:35:12 PM
What about the 1960 election? That was a 2-party election and it the popular vote differential was much smaller than 2004.
Posted by: Lloyd | Nov 23, 2004 3:05:04 PM
Eh.
Clinton didn't get 50% of the popular vote in 96, so I guess your definition of (2-party) is fairly broad.
Posted by: David Potts | Nov 7, 2004 3:48:05 PM