In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

Bob Campbell wrote:
"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
* He united the country to put Obama in office in a *landslide*.

I wouldn't call it a "landslide". A solid majority yes, but not a
landslide. A true landslide was Reagan's 1984 win. 49 states. The
only state to go Democratic was Mondale's home state of Minnesota, which
he barely won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_1984

Or Nixon's in 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1972

These are true landslides.

Carrying 29 states and winning by a 5% margin is not my idea of a
landslide.

I was referring to the electoral votes, which as you know, is how
presidents are elected.

Obama (364) to McCain (162)*. Some would call this a landslide. Your
mileage may vary.

*Approximate figures as of 11/06/08 from:
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

It's not right to look at electoral votes this way using words like
landslide.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Comrade Barak Obama is not America's next president.
www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd411.htm

B HO!
cuhulin

"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
Bob Campbell wrote:
"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
* He united the country to put Obama in office in a *landslide*.

I wouldn't call it a "landslide". A solid majority yes, but not a
landslide. A true landslide was Reagan's 1984 win. 49 states.
The only state to go Democratic was Mondale's home state of
Minnesota, which he barely won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_1984

Or Nixon's in 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1972

These are true landslides.

Carrying 29 states and winning by a 5% margin is not my idea of a
landslide.

I was referring to the electoral votes, which as you know, is how
presidents are elected.

Bob Campbell wrote:

An electoral landslide is 525 to 13 (Reagan over Mondale).

Obama (364) to McCain (162)*. Some would call this a landslide. Your
mileage may vary.

Some would call Obama a "Marxist".

But then, they would probably be called kooktards.

This election was not a landslide, unless we are redefining "landslide"
to mean "win".

No, you are playing a game of semantics. Just because Reagan/Mondale was
a bigger landslide doesn't mean this election -wasn't- also a landslide.
Most people would define getting more than double the votes of the
runner-up as a landslide, albeit not as dramatic as your Ronnie example,
but a landslide none the less.

In any event, you miss the -main- point of the original post. It wasn't
to play semantics, it -was- to point out the irony of how W united the
country -- just not in the way that he planned.

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

Bob Campbell wrote:
"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
* He united the country to put Obama in office in a *landslide*.
I wouldn't call it a "landslide". A solid majority yes, but not a
landslide. A true landslide was Reagan's 1984 win. 49 states. The
only state to go Democratic was Mondale's home state of Minnesota, which
he barely won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_1984

Or Nixon's in 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1972

These are true landslides.

Carrying 29 states and winning by a 5% margin is not my idea of a
landslide.
I was referring to the electoral votes, which as you know, is how
presidents are elected.

Obama (364) to McCain (162)*. Some would call this a landslide. Your
mileage may vary.

*Approximate figures as of 11/06/08 from:
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

Telamon wrote:

It's not right to look at electoral votes this way using words like
landslide.

And why not, pray tell?

Electoral votes are -exactly- what is used to determine the winner. And
if the winner gets -more than double- the votes of the runner-up, most
*intelligent* people would consider that a landslide. However, it's
certainly your prerogative to call it whatever you wish.

In any event, you miss the -main- point of the original post. It wasn't
to play semantics, it -was- to point out the irony of how W united the
country -- just not in the way that he planned.

But then, I shouldn't be surprised. Your specialty is spinning, dodging
and doing everything -but- addressing the original topics.

"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
Your calling 6% more votes a landslide?

I was referring to the electoral votes, which as you know, is how
presidents are actually elected.

Obama (364) to McCain (162)*. Some would call this a landslide. Your
mileage may vary.

Bob Campbell wrote:

Your repeating this does not make it true.

Your playing semantics does not make it false.

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:


In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

Bob Campbell wrote:
"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
* He united the country to put Obama in office in a *landslide*.
I wouldn't call it a "landslide". A solid majority yes, but not a
landslide. A true landslide was Reagan's 1984 win. 49 states. The
only state to go Democratic was Mondale's home state of Minnesota, which
he barely won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_1984

Or Nixon's in 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1972

These are true landslides.

Carrying 29 states and winning by a 5% margin is not my idea of a
landslide.
I was referring to the electoral votes, which as you know, is how
presidents are elected.

Obama (364) to McCain (162)*. Some would call this a landslide. Your
mileage may vary.

*Approximate figures as of 11/06/08 from:
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

Telamon wrote:

It's not right to look at electoral votes this way using words like
landslide.

And why not, pray tell?

Electoral votes are -exactly- what is used to determine the winner.

SNIP

OK, it is yet another concept beyond your ken then.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:


"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
Bob Campbell wrote:
"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
* He united the country to put Obama in office in a *landslide*.

I wouldn't call it a "landslide". A solid majority yes, but not a
landslide. A true landslide was Reagan's 1984 win. 49 states.
The only state to go Democratic was Mondale's home state of
Minnesota, which he barely won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_1984

Or Nixon's in 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1972

These are true landslides.

Carrying 29 states and winning by a 5% margin is not my idea of a
landslide.

I was referring to the electoral votes, which as you know, is how
presidents are elected.

Bob Campbell wrote:

An electoral landslide is 525 to 13 (Reagan over Mondale).

Obama (364) to McCain (162)*. Some would call this a landslide. Your
mileage may vary.

Some would call Obama a "Marxist".

But then, they would probably be called kooktards.

SNIP

He is a marxist you twit.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
Your calling 6% more votes a landslide?

I was referring to the electoral votes, which as you know, is how
presidents are actually elected.

Obama (364) to McCain (162)*. Some would call this a landslide. Your
mileage may vary.

Bob Campbell wrote:

Your repeating this does not make it true.

Your playing semantics does not make it false.

Your cluelessness does not make it true.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article telamon_spamshield-DC6C89.00224607112008
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net,
lid says...
In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:


"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
Bob Campbell wrote:
"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
* He united the country to put Obama in office in a *landslide*.

I wouldn't call it a "landslide". A solid majority yes, but not a
landslide. A true landslide was Reagan's 1984 win. 49 states.
The only state to go Democratic was Mondale's home state of
Minnesota, which he barely won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_1984

Or Nixon's in 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1972

These are true landslides.

Carrying 29 states and winning by a 5% margin is not my idea of a
landslide.

I was referring to the electoral votes, which as you know, is how
presidents are elected.

Bob Campbell wrote:

An electoral landslide is 525 to 13 (Reagan over Mondale).

Obama (364) to McCain (162)*. Some would call this a landslide. Your
mileage may vary.

Some would call Obama a "Marxist".

But then, they would probably be called kooktards.

SNIP

He is a marxist you twit.



No, he isn't, but you are a kooktard.
--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster

In article telamon_spamshield-64EA0B.00232807112008
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net,
lid says...
In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

"Billy Burpelson" wrote in message
...
Your calling 6% more votes a landslide?

I was referring to the electoral votes, which as you know, is how
presidents are actually elected.

Obama (364) to McCain (162)*. Some would call this a landslide. Your
mileage may vary.

Bob Campbell wrote:

Your repeating this does not make it true.

Your playing semantics does not make it false.

Your cluelessness does not make it true.



Your kooktardery DOES make you funny.

--
BDK

BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster