WOW such LYING ALREADY from the rightwingnuttery!

[LynnTheDem]

This is the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president.

At 80% approval after 9-11 and guaranteed a landslide election by prognosticators 2 years ago, only half the country supports him

Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, bush will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry's way (NM might), it'll be even lower.

He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman.

He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman.(2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

He will have won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA--assuming the last two go his way) by only 161,989 -not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc. because they are not yet counted.

But the rightwing US State Media is thrying to spin this as the Greatest Victory With The Greatest Mandate In The History Of America.

LYING ALREADY. Wow such "MORAL VALUES"!

[Mick Knox]

1. Clinton didnt get 51% in 96 I dont think

Where are you getting your facts?

Do you have a link

Heres a good link to do some fact checking

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/

[LynnTheDem]

2. Technically since Clinton,

He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman:

Technically since Clinton, but he also ran against Perot, who was a more significant 3rd-party candidate than Thurmond and Wallace were in '48.

bush ran against a 1% 3rd-Party candidate.