Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I got them from Wiki. But I rechecked and you guys are right.
Reagan 1980: 50.7%
Reagan 1984: 58.7%
Obama 2008: 53%
Obama 2012: 51%
(Source: Procon.org)
Reagans numbers went up.
"Obama first Prez with more than 51% in both elections." You see how the Press spun that?
Reagan 1980: 59.79%
Reagan 1984: 58.80%
Reagan got 50.7% in 1980.
And Reagan won the 1980 election by 9.7 percentage points. So his margin of victory was nearly 40% larger than Obama's 2008 margin of 7.2%.
A statistic that means nothing.
Check LBJ's destruction of Goldwater in 1964: 61 to 39%.
FDR's massacre of Landon in 1936: 60.8% of the vote and 523 to 8 electoral votes
FDR's stomp down of Hoover in 1932: 57.4% of the vote and 472 electoral votes.
Check LBJ's destruction of Goldwater in 1964: 61 to 39%.
FDR's massacre of Landon in 1936: 60.8% of the vote and 523 to 8 electoral votes
FDR's stomp down of Hoover in 1932: 57.4% of the vote and 472 electoral votes.
Gloating about Democrats winning again, Fakey?
Yeah, everyone believes you're a Republican . . . . . NOT!
got them from Wiki. But I rechecked and you guys are right.
Reagan 1980: 50.7%
Reagan 1984: 58.7%
Obama 2008: 53%
Obama 2012: 51%
(Source: Procon.org)
Reagans numbers went up.
"Obama first Prez with more than 51% in both elections." You see how the Press spun that?
Here is what bripat left out of his own post that I answered. I am a Pub, and bripat is a libertarian trying so hard to be one of us and not succeeding.
Here is what bripat left out of his own post that I answered. I am a Pub, and bripat is a libertarian trying so hard to be one of us and not succeeding.
How do your statistics prove you weren't gloating about Democrats beating Republicans? If you're registered as a Republican, it's only so you can make trouble for Republicans. You obviously support the Democrat party and oppose everything most Republicans stand for.
bripat cannot succeed even with dicing and slicing of posts.Here is what bripat left out of his own post that I answered. I am a Pub, and bripat is a libertarian trying so hard to be one of us and not succeeding.
How do your statistics prove you weren't gloating about Democrats beating Republicans? If you're registered as a Republican, it's only so you can make trouble for Republicans. You obviously support the Democrat party and oppose everything most Republicans stand for.
Reagan received far more than 51% in both his elections. You're a moron.
Reagan 1980: 59.79%
Reagan 1984: 58.80%
and his tool LordBrownTrout (Yesterday)
thanksReagan 1980: 59.79%
Reagan 1984: 58.80%
?
Reagan got 50.7% in 1980.
"Let's get real: The main reason Obama won reelection was that he won landslide majorities (with an average margin of victory of 21.5%) among the two lowest economic groups, i.e., the least successful and least educated among us."
In other words, the low-information stupid freeloaders.
"Speaking of educated, Obama also won by a landslide among high school dropouts (64% to 36%)."
In other words, the hopelessly misguided hypocrites who are hell bent on transferring their hatred and and envy and jealousy to the young ones, whom they expect to pay for their own financial irresponsibility, far down the road,
ummm..... where are those quotes from n00b?
I got them from Wiki. But I rechecked and you guys are right.
Reagan 1980: 50.7%
Reagan 1984: 58.7%
Obama 2008: 53%
Obama 2012: 51%
(Source: Procon.org)
Reagans numbers went up.
"Obama first Prez with more than 51% in both elections." You see how the Press spun that?
Not only did Reagan's numbers go up, but Carter only got 41% of the vote in 1980. Anderson got the other 8%. It was an electoral landslide for Reagan, and also a popular landslide, any way you care to look at it. He beat Carter by almost 10% in the popular vote. It's hard to find a victory margin that large in any American presidential election.
Let's put it this way:
If the election had excluded people who had received food stamps in the preceding 12 months, Romney would have won.
If the election had excluded the bottom income group--the least educated and least successful among us--Romney would have won.
If the election had been limited to college graduates, Romney would have won.
If the election had been limited to those who pay 67% of all federal taxes, Romney would have won.
If the election had excluded high school dropouts, the popular vote would have been a virtual tie.
Obama supporters can brag all they want about OBama's reelection, but the raw fact of the matter is that he owes his "victory" to the landslide majorities he received from the two lowest income groups.
send this fool back to where it came from...
Reagan received far more than 51% in both his elections. You're a moron.
Reagan in 1980 won with 50.7% of the popular vote with only 52.6% of eligible voters voting. there was NEVER a popular mandate for Reagan in 1980. He won a landslide in the Electoral College vote but barley squeaked by in the popular vote. Reagan myths abound
Fools and morons include the OP: Ernie S. (Yesterday), LordBrownTrout (Yesterday), Mad Scientist (Yesterday), ShaklesOfBigGov (Today)
Obama 2008: he gets 52.9% of the popular vote with 61.6% (voting eligible) AND an Electoral Mandate ::: Electoral vote 365 vs 173
Obama 2012: 51.0% of the popular vote with 58.9% (voting eligible) still more people voting for Obama than did for Reagan
source: Wikipedia
Obama first to win reelection with less votes than he got the first time.
What the hell does that mean?As a percentage of actual voters, more people voted in 2008 and 2012 than in 1980 and 1984.
Obama first to win reelection with less votes than he got the first time.
That is one of the stats you'll never see touted by liberals.
