Quote of the Day
James Taranto unearthed this gem:
“More Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history.”–Howard Dean, Nov. 3
Now there’s looking at a glass half full!
James Taranto unearthed this gem:
“More Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history.”–Howard Dean, Nov. 3
Now there’s looking at a glass half full!
That’s strange, I don’t remember seeing an against Bush box to check on my ballot. If anyone explicitly had this option I would be interested in hearing about it. ….
Hmmmmm, didn’t think so.
Frankly, this is no less idiotic than the tripe that Hannity and others are spouting about Bush receiving more votes for President than anyone else, ever in US history.
If you put both statements, which are both true, side-by-side, you can see how stupid they both are. The political glitterati continue to speak in non sequiturs.
Political discourse will, as always, be forever driven by the idiots on both sides.
I’m sure Mr. Dean is equally dismayed that Clinton won that way…
If memory serves, more Americans voted against the eventual winning presidential candidate in the past three elections – I guess it doesnt matter that the 2004 tally is the first outright majority in the same timespan.
Boyd: Yeah, both are silly statements when one considers that the population keeps expanding. Obviously, Bush’s victory in 2004 doesn’t compare to Reagan’s in 1984. Still, winning in a race like this one where turnout was at incredibly high levels for this era is an impressive thing.
But if we attribute the rise in raw numbers to simple population increase, what does this say to the effectiveness of the GOTV efforts?
What bother’s me is the lie that Howard Dean gets a free pass on. (not that it isn’t done all the time).
The ballot is proof that the voter cast a vote FOR Bush or FOR Kerry. It is not proof that the voter was against anyone. (Even though that may SOMETIMEs be the case)
Both statements are meaningless however the statement that Bush got more votes FOR him is at least true.
Now if Dean had said that Kerry accumulated more FOR votes for himself than any other candidate that still lost the election, then the statement would be true.
By that metric, Clinton should never have been allowed to take office.
Actually, as I believe Taranto noted the following day, Dean is only right by accident — because he didn’t specify a middle initial.
The combined vote for Clinton and Perot in 1992 exceeds the vote for Kerry in 2004.