"ccr" spewed in leftist rage:

".... Bush's percentage margin was pathetic. It has nothing to do with a
majority. "

Well, lasttime we looker 51% was more than 48%, and 60 million+ votes is
more than 56 million.

G.W. Bush's 3% margin was greater than that of Kenedy 1960 (.17%), Nixon
1968 (.7%), and Carter 1976 (2.06%).

Do you have a point to make, ********, or are simply you content to prove
yourself just another Soreloserman dumbass?

 

"ccr" spewed in leftist rage:

".... Bush's percentage margin was pathetic. It has nothing to do with a
majority. "

Well, lasttime we looker 51% was more than 48%, and 60 million+ votes is
more than 56 million.

G.W. Bush's 3% margin was greater than that of Kenedy 1960 (.17%), Nixon
1968 (.7%), and Carter 1976 (2.06%).

Do you have a point to make, ********, or are simply you content to prove
yourself just another Soreloserman dumbass?

 

"ccr" spewed in leftist rage:

".... Bush's percentage margin was pathetic. It has nothing to do with a
majority. "

Well, lasttime we looker 51% was more than 48%, and 60 million+ votes is
more than 56 million.

G.W. Bush's 3% margin was greater than that of Kenedy 1960 (.17%), Nixon
1968 (.7%), and Carter 1976 (2.06%).

Do you have a point to make, ********, or are simply you content to prove
yourself just another Soreloserman dumbass?

 

"ccr" slurred in incohernt rage:

> MARGIN--IE THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCENT BETWEEN THE WINNER AND THE NEXT
> NEAREST
OPPONENT. Get it now?>

Oh, of course we get it: You're a frigging dumbass. (BTW, you don't improve
your state of worsening humiliation by shouting.)

 

"ccr" slurred in incohernt rage:

> MARGIN--IE THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCENT BETWEEN THE WINNER AND THE NEXT
> NEAREST
OPPONENT. Get it now?>

Oh, of course we get it: You're a frigging dumbass. (BTW, you don't improve
your state of worsening humiliation by shouting.)

 

"ccr" slurred in incohernt rage:

> MARGIN--IE THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCENT BETWEEN THE WINNER AND THE NEXT
> NEAREST
OPPONENT. Get it now?>

Oh, of course we get it: You're a frigging dumbass. (BTW, you don't improve
your state of worsening humiliation by shouting.)

 

"ccr" foolishly continued his ludicrous defense of the limp-wristed, thug
loving, homo-promoting Democrats utter humiliation at the polls by
petulantly snapping:

> What part of "percentage" don't you understand nitwit?>

The part where your idiot, traitor candidate won by getting 48%, versus his
opponents 51%.

Do yourself a favor, Soreloserman, and go back to the ---- sites where you
came from.

 

"ccr" foolishly continued his ludicrous defense of the limp-wristed, thug
loving, homo-promoting Democrats utter humiliation at the polls by
petulantly snapping:

> What part of "percentage" don't you understand nitwit?>

The part where your idiot, traitor candidate won by getting 48%, versus his
opponents 51%.

Do yourself a favor, Soreloserman, and go back to the ---- sites where you
came from.

 

"ccr" foolishly continued his ludicrous defense of the limp-wristed, thug
loving, homo-promoting Democrats utter humiliation at the polls by
petulantly snapping:

> What part of "percentage" don't you understand nitwit?>

The part where your idiot, traitor candidate won by getting 48%, versus his
opponents 51%.

Do yourself a favor, Soreloserman, and go back to the ---- sites where you
came from.

 

Again your examples are not for elections when those mentioned were
incumbents. Two of them didn't get to serve a second term and according to
whitehouse.gov "In his 1972 bid for office, Nixon defeated Democratic
candidate George McGovern by one of the widest margins on record." So when
Nixon was running as an incumbent it was apparently quite a beating for
McGovern.
In response to Bob C why should I reread that definition? And even though he
didn't say re-elected it was implied.

"SoK66" <SoK66@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:cnp0bg02ebp@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "ccr" spewed in leftist rage:
>
> ".... Bush's percentage margin was pathetic. It has nothing to do with a
> majority. "
>
> Well, lasttime we looker 51% was more than 48%, and 60 million+ votes is
> more than 56 million.
>
> G.W. Bush's 3% margin was greater than that of Kenedy 1960 (.17%), Nixon
> 1968 (.7%), and Carter 1976 (2.06%).
>
> Do you have a point to make, ********, or are simply you content to prove
> yourself just another Soreloserman dumbass?
>