a bit over half of them, actually.....
Nope all of them!
a bit over half of them, actually.....
in the sense that the White House is a building and not a person, I will grant you the first....in the sense that Obama is not a person but an aspect of your imagination that doesn't exist in real life, I will grant you the other.....A. Neither the White House or Obama is liberal.
Nope all of them!
the statistic currently the most important....100% of Americans are in trouble because liberals control Congress and the White House.....
C. You don't speak for the American people who are MUCH more satisfied with the direction of the country and the administration than they were during the Bush years.
in the sense that the White House is a building and not a person, I will grant you the first....in the sense that Obama is not a person but an aspect of your imagination that doesn't exist in real life, I will grant you the other.....
I disagree, I belive that 100% of Americans are finally in less trouble because liberals control Congress and the White House.
You simply do not know politics. You know propaganda and bumper-stickers, but most certainly not politics if you classify Obama as a liberal .. or even worse, a socialist.
You're free to parrot your programing all you want. I defend your right to be a parrot .. just don't confuse it with human thinking.
I remember Bush in 2000, who has ever said that one was a landslide?are we talking popular or electoral...remember bush in 2000
There must be some republican viral chain email that went around with this 3% number, because I've seen this three percent number quoted numerous times in cyberspace.
Obama won by 7% points. Not 3%. Which is a landslide, in the context of modern american politics. Mike Dukkakis, who was considered to be blown out of the water, only lost by around 7% as I recall.
First it was 7 points solely if you round down McCain's number while rounding up Obama's (the actual percentages: Mccain 45.7% Obama 52.9%)... secondly, Dukakis was "blown out of the water" because he lost nearly every single state in the electoral college, not because of the percentage in the popular vote. Every state hated Dukakis, except a tiny region in the northeast, 3 states in the midwest and 2 states in the northwest. McCain outdid Dukakis by about double his votes in the electoral college.
The 3% swing is based on the 6% difference between Obama and McCain, if 3% voted McCain rather than Obama the result would have been a statistical tie.
With all due respect, that is a completly ridiculous comment.
A. Neither the White House or Obama is liberal.
B. The vast majority of the American know full-well where the crisis we face came from. The name "George Bush" was hardly spoken by REPUBLICANS.
C. You don't speak for the American people who are MUCH more satisfied with the direction of the country and the administration than they were during the Bush years.
First it was 7 points solely if you round down McCain's number while rounding up Obama's (the actual percentages: Mccain 45.7% Obama 52.9%)... secondly, Dukakis was "blown out of the water" because he lost nearly every single state in the electoral college, not because of the percentage in the popular vote. Every state hated Dukakis, except a tiny region in the northeast, 3 states in the midwest and 2 states in the northwest. McCain outdid Dukakis by about double his votes in the electoral college.
The 3% swing is based on the 6% difference between Obama and McCain, if 3% voted McCain rather than Obama the result would have been a statistical tie.
"First it was 7 points solely if you round down McCain's number while rounding up Obama's (the actual percentages: Mccain 45.7% Obama 52.9%)."
You need to brush up on your math, bro. 52.9 minus 45.7 is 7.2%, so I actually rounded down the margin of Obama's victory.
At any rate, that's just arithmetic...the point is you and other republicans I've noticed have consistently quoted this 3% margin of victory. Where are you getting that 3% number? Drudge?
And the point wasn't about the electoral college. The electoral college is 535 people. It doesn't represent the popular will of the nation. Grind was saying that the alleged 3% margin of victory, with regard to the popular vote, was an indication of democratic "weakness" within the electoral population at large.
With regard to who people wanted to be president (not who 535 electoral college persons voted for), Obama's margin of victory was on the scale of Poppy Bush's margin over Dukkakkis. Which was 53.4 to 45.6% according to Wiki.
First, yup... 7.2%... My math sucked. Very not normal for me."First it was 7 points solely if you round down McCain's number while rounding up Obama's (the actual percentages: Mccain 45.7% Obama 52.9%)."
You need to brush up on your math, bro. 52.9 minus 45.7 is 7.2%, so I actually rounded down the margin of Obama's victory.
At any rate, that's just arithmetic...the point is you and other republicans I've noticed have consistently quoted this 3% margin of victory. Where are you getting that 3% number? Drudge?
And the point wasn't about the electoral college. The electoral college is 535 people. It doesn't represent the popular will of the nation. Grind was saying that the alleged 3% margin of victory, with regard to the popular vote, was an indication of democratic "weakness" within the electoral population at large.
With regard to who people wanted to be president (not who 535 electoral college persons voted for), Obama's margin of victory was on the scale of Poppy Bush's margin over Dukkakkis. Which was 53.4 to 45.6% according to Wiki.
I deleted that post for a reason.
I deleted that post for a reason.
we apparently live in different worlds......mine is the one that isn't imaginary.....
Try reading comprehension. They did not state Obama's margin of victory was 3%. They stated the SWING was 3%. Again, technically it is 3.6%. But that is what they are referring to.