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.