"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.