[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: completely off topic



>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:54:21 -0500 (EST)
>From: Jeff House <jjthandmeh@juno.com>
>
>Alan M said:  [Bush: 49% -- Clinton: 43%]
>
>I cannot resist this hanging curveball.  Why are Limbaugh followers
>comparing the 2000 election to the '92 election in this illogical manner?
>Wait, that's right, Limbaugh is the chief right rhetoric manufacturer whose
>words and arguments are repeated by his followers without question or
>further thought.  If you want a more complete and accurate comparison
>(something that Limbaugh is incapable of) you must also say that Clinton
>received the MOST VOTES in '92 of the 3 main candidates.  GW "Shrub" Bush
>received less votes that Gore - albeit by a very slim margin.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware that Al "Egor" Gore outpolled GW 
"Shrub" Bush in the popular vote, and since this uproar did not 
happen in 1992, we could probably deduce if we don't actually 
remember, that Clinton received the most votes in '92.  I'm no 
Limbaugh fan, but facts are facts, and Bush is coming in with a 
higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did.  And the 
reason I (as opposed to a hypothetical Limbaugh fan) am mentioning it 
is because I remember the sweeping claims made in '92 that Clinton 
had a "mandate" from the American people coming into the job...so by 
the Clinton team's own rhetoric, one could say that Bush now has more 
of a mandate than Clinton ever did, despite Gore's slim margin.

Now if anyone want's to pursue it further, and has the time to look 
up the figures, find me:

Total US Population
Total registered voters
Vote totals for the major candidates

for 1992, 1996, and 2000 and we'll be in a better position to talk 
about what Clinton's 43% vs. Bush's (and Gore's) 49% means.

Cheers,
-- 
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true."
    --Howard Stern, 5/25/00