From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 23:55:15 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <83098@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>I'm not happy that Clinton was elected, that I will admit.  But I read
>the AP report Wednesday morning and was told that Clinton won in a
>landslide.  While the results were an electoral landslide, one cannot
>honestly say that Clinton has a mandate.  Let's examine the problems
>facing Clinton vis a vis a mandate.

Did the AP say MANDATE?

>1) Clinton got less than 50% of the vote.  That means the majority of
>the nation did *not* want Clinton to be president.

So?  The system is set up so the person who collects 270 elect. college
wins.  These are the rules going into the game.  We all know it.

>2) Clinton had a five point margin on George Bush.  I have never heard
>of a landslide of less than 10 points, and even then I would question
>the use of the word landslide.
>
>3) Clinton got less of the popular vote in 1992 than Dukakis got in
>1988.  How can someone who got less support than a political nobody have
>a mandate?

A political nobody?  You are a political nobody, I'm a political
nobody.  Mike has political clout.  Yet, the american populas
decided George was better than Mike.  This doesn't make him a 
nobody.  If it does, then George Bush is NOW a political 
nobody.

>4) A very large portion of Clinton's support was specifically anti-Bush
>and not at all pro-Clinton.  While I will admit that many people voted

 4) A very large portion of Bush's support was specifically anit-Clinton
and not at all pro-Bush.    
	
>5) Political revisionism--I believe that history will vindicate Rush's
>claims that the Democrats had to lie or, at the least, exaggerate to
>scare enough people into voting for him.  The economy is *not* the worst
>we've seen in fifty years, but that's why a number of voters cast their
>vote for Clinton.

And George said "He'd do naything to win"  H Ross said "He dropped
out due to 'republican dirty tricks."  Name a high-level polition
that has not lied to get into office.  Other "great lies"
"Read my lips, no new taxes"  "I can balance the budget by 1983"
"We did not sell arms for hostages"  "There was a killer bunny
trying to get into my canoe"  (killer rabbit?!?)  "The Russians
backed down with the blockade"  "I am not a crook"  

The 'economy' may not be the worst in 50 years, but the debt sure is.

Now, if you are getting down on Demos for thier 'scare tactics', what
was the repubs add with the buzzard?  Good camera work?  

>6) Unbelievable promises--Clinton promised all sort of things within his
>first one hundred days, like nationalized health care.  This is
>completely impossible, given the nature of legislation in the United States.

Look at some of the above quotes.  Ron and the 1983 pledge of 0 natl debt.
Time will tell what he can do in 100 days


>Now, if Clinton *does* end up being the moderate he claims to be, then I
>will grant him his successes, just as I admit that Bush was a
>better-than-average President.  He was no great President, and I don't
>expect Clinton to be on either.  But we shall see.

Better than average?  The problem with such statements is metrics are
hard to apply.  A simple one of $$$ in debt, average Ron and George 
don't cut it.  In 'foriegn matters' this could be the case.  What metrics
are you going to use?


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre