61 million plus. That's how many Americans voted for George W. Bush. Lefties say we're 61 million redneck bigots. Yer-a-peein' elites can't understand how 61 million people would vote for a warmongering cowboy.
Fellow right-wing bloggers have said plenty about the fact that this is easily the most votes anyone has received in U.S. history. True, it is, and I think it's awesome. I notice, however, that nobody seems to be mentioning that the population is bigger, hence more votes. I'm sure the losing candidate will have that many in fifty years. But I'm not gonna take anything away from Bush, he got that many votes because, well, he's the man. My President definetely has faults, but he's the best President I can remember. (Unfair to Reagan, perhaps, too young to really know what Reagan did aside from bankrupting the USSR.)
Anywho. Keep drifting OT. The point I'm trying to make is that it's clear Bush got more votes than any U.S. President, but- I'm curious about something.
Has any candidate- in the history of democracies- ever received this many votes? At any time, for anything? I'm sure when the citizens of the Dictatorship of China finally accept democracy, they'll blow that number right out of the water, just because they have five times the population as the U.S. But even India didn't have a single candidate who came close to 61 million. I guess India doesn't have an executive branch, and therefore won't have an election where the whole country is deciding on two or three guys.* A detail. This is my point: To my knowledge, Bush's reelection had more people, all in agreement, on one man, than in all of human history. I would call that a mandate. Shoot, not just for America, but for the whole world.
*-only did a tiny bit of research on this. Any input/wisdom?
Army NCO Guy decided you should know this at 1122 | TrackBack