George W. Bush "lost the popular vote." So did JFK.

Wall Street Journal ^

[avalon]

Momentous historical events have a way of putting political spats in perspective. The bitter debate over whether George W. Bush actually won Florida largely ended after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By the time media recounts, which found that Mr. Bush's victory was indeed legitimate, were released, they seemed like an afterthought.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Hmmmmm. Interesting.

[pdjplano]

only intellectual idiots say that a President is legitimate ONLY IF they get the majority of the vote.

That isn't the way this country works, and hasn't been since the formulation of the country.

It is a loser's argument (IMHO, of course :))

[trebb]

It is a loser's argument (IMHO, of course :))

Agreed - the Electoral College is a part of the system and the Dims only problem with the system is when they can't subvert it for their own gain.

[MrConfettiMan]

Yawn.

The title of the article is misleading as 95+% of the text discusses the Kennedy-Nixon election.

[ken5050]

and of course they never mention Bubba in 92.....and look at all the judges he nominated..

[Warren]

Just makes it sweeter. Let the loony libs cry about algore getting more votes.
To the libs: Bush IS president.
If ya don't like it, suck on it til ya do!

[Yardstick]

I'm bookmarking this little nugget.

[metesky]

IIRC, the week before the 2000 election all of the media outlets and the Gore campaign itself were pumping the Constitutional value of the Electoral College. The line was that W would win the popular vote and Gore the Electors.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Right. The libs' high priest and deity X42 won only 43% of the vote in 1992 - a "majority" of the US apparently preferring a president, not named clinton.

[BillyBoy]

In contrast to the Republicans, only one RAT candidate for President has gotten over 49% percent of the "popular" vote since 1964, and that's Jimmy Carter, who got a whooping 50% of the vote in 1976.

"Popular Vote" totals of some RAT presidents:

Clinton/Gore 1992 44,909,806 votes 43.01%
Kennedy/Johnson 1960 34,226,731 votes 49.55%
Truman/Barkley 1948 24,179,345 votes 49.07%
Wilson/Marshall 1912 6,293,152 votes 41.84%
Cleveland/Stevenson 1892 5,551,883 votes 46.05%
Buchanan/Breckenridge 1,836,072 votes 45.28%
Polk/Dallas 1844 1,339,494 votes 49.54%

Of course, this doesn't stop blowhard Michael Moore from coming on TV to scream "Governor Bush" has no manadate because "a majority of Americans voted against him". How come all the "progressive" Bush hating socialists aren't demanding the entire PRESIDENCY of Woody Wilson be overturned? After all, a MAJORITY of Americans (almost 60%!!) voted Republican instead of him. Both Roosevelt and Taft, for instance, denounced he proposal to nationalize the railroads as "rank socialism". And we all know how many Bush-Perot supporters (which constituented 57% of voters in 1992,BTW) supported Bubba's plan for Hillary Care and the like. A majority of "the American people" voted for conservative-minded Texans in 1992. The idiot Bush haters never started a lynch mob when Clinton pushed socialism against the "will of the people"

But we all know "mandates" only matter when a REPUBLICAN loses the 'popular' vote, right?

[Rubber_Nose]

It always bothers me when I hear people say that Gore won the popular vote by 500,000. The correct statement is that Gore won the popular vote that ‘was counted’ by about 500,000. If I remember correctly, there was a least 1,000,000 write-in votes that were not counted in California. It was decided that it was not worth the time and money to count these votes because Gore won the state by about 1,300,000 votes.

If these votes had been counted, and assuming that a large percent of these votes were military, the outcome of the popular vote may have been different.

[ntnychik]

If I remember correctly, there was a least 1,000,000 write-in votes that were not counted in California. It was decided that it was not worth the time and money to count these votes because Gore won the state by about 1,300,000 votes.

If these votes had been counted, and assuming that a large percent of these votes were military, the outcome of the popular vote may have been different.

That would explain why democrat-majority California hypocritically didn't bother to "count all the votes." Are these uncounted ballots still in an archive somewhere?