4 ms·

That didn’t happen with Bush, who conjured up a premise with multiple lies in order to justify going to war. And then 3 years later, he got re-elected.

mcv 5y ago
That was by far the most disappointing US election. Electing a bad president is clearly a risk of democracy, but re-electing a bad president, that's incomprehensible. And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes.
- adventured 5y ago
  > And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes. That election was 2004 of course. Reagan got 58.8% in 1984, so two decades prior (decades as you noted). Obama got 52.9% in 2008. And prior to that for a Democrat? More than two decades prior, wherein Jimmy Carter barely scratched out a majority popular vote at 50.08% in 1976. Lyndon Johnson of course got 61% in 1964. The monster that put us deep into Vietnam and wrecked the country got the highest popular vote percentage for the Democrats in the past century. The two highest in modern US history, Lyndon Johnson and Nixon. What does it say about the people of the 1960s and 1970s? It says a lot of terrible things about their ability to judge character and make rational decisions.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    I think parent actually meant plurality, at least that’s how I read it. However these numbers are quite interesting. Some people attribute Nixon’s second election to his promise of withdrawing from Vietnam and one can easily blame the war for the problematic 1968 election for the democrats. LBJ was probably even gonna be the first sitting president to loose in a primary before he announced his non-bid. I’m guessing the 1964 for election he was pretty much just riding the popularity of the recently assassinated John F. Kennedy. (Plus the war hadn’t escalated at this point).
zeven7 5y ago
So it took 7 more years with Bush. Again, not comparable to Putin - not even close.
- runarberg 5y ago
  Actually just 5. I miscalculated somehow that there are 3 years between 2003 and 2004 (?) However the significant bit here is the fact that Bush was re-elected despite lying about the reasons going to war.

mcv 5y ago

That was by far the most disappointing US election. Electing a bad president is clearly a risk of democracy, but re-electing a bad president, that's incomprehensible. And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes.

adventured 5y ago
> And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes. That election was 2004 of course. Reagan got 58.8% in 1984, so two decades prior (decades as you noted). Obama got 52.9% in 2008. And prior to that for a Democrat? More than two decades prior, wherein Jimmy Carter barely scratched out a majority popular vote at 50.08% in 1976. Lyndon Johnson of course got 61% in 1964. The monster that put us deep into Vietnam and wrecked the country got the highest popular vote percentage for the Democrats in the past century. The two highest in modern US history, Lyndon Johnson and Nixon. What does it say about the people of the 1960s and 1970s? It says a lot of terrible things about their ability to judge character and make rational decisions.
- runarberg 5y ago
  I think parent actually meant plurality, at least that’s how I read it. However these numbers are quite interesting. Some people attribute Nixon’s second election to his promise of withdrawing from Vietnam and one can easily blame the war for the problematic 1968 election for the democrats. LBJ was probably even gonna be the first sitting president to loose in a primary before he announced his non-bid. I’m guessing the 1964 for election he was pretty much just riding the popularity of the recently assassinated John F. Kennedy. (Plus the war hadn’t escalated at this point).

zeven7 5y ago

So it took 7 more years with Bush. Again, not comparable to Putin - not even close.

runarberg 5y ago
Actually just 5. I miscalculated somehow that there are 3 years between 2003 and 2004 (?) However the significant bit here is the fact that Bush was re-elected despite lying about the reasons going to war.