Presidential History

Bush: Galluping into the History Books?

|

Everyone seems to enjoy slumping poll results for pols (except the pols themselves), so here's some more on Bush's badass ratings. This is from Gallup and it refers to how prezzes were doing in their 26th quarter in office (a relatively small club):

Bush joins Truman (30.7%) as presidents with very poor approval averages during their 26th quarters in office, after essentially 6 1/2 years in the White House. But not all presidents who served that long suffered low approval ratings. Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton had averages near 60% during their 26th quarters in office, and Ronald Reagan's was just below 50%.

Twenty-Sixth Quarter Averages of Other Presidents

President

Dates of
26th quarter

Average
approval
rating

No. of
measure-
ments
during
quarter

 

%

 

Truman

July 20-Oct 19, 1951

30.7

3

Eisenhower

Apr 20-Jul 19, 1959

62.0

3

Reagan

Apr 20-Jul 19, 1987

49.7

3

Clinton

Apr 20-Jul 19, 1999

58.6

9

G. W. Bush

Apr 20-Jul 19, 2007

31.8

6

To date, Bush is averaging 39.9% approval in his second term in office, which began on January 20, 2005. Only Nixon and Truman have ever averaged below 40% for a presidential term in office -- both in their second terms. Bush averaged 62% approval during his first term in office, and is following the paths of Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Nixon, who were much less popular in their second terms than in their first, as a result of prolonged wars, scandals, or both.

My first reaction? Any president who gets a 26th quarter is doing pretty well. Though the Bushistas may be taking a dimmer view. My second reaction? Those Clinton numbers are pretty damn impressive.

More results here.

NEXT: Alphabet Soup in Iraq

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Those Clinton numbers are pretty damn impressive.”

    So were his achievements in the Oval Oriface.

  2. So attempted impeachment would be the best thing that could happen to Bush, apparently.

  3. As impressive as my spelling.

  4. Mike G,

    It sure worked for Nixon.

    Maybe there was some important difference between Nixon’s impeachment and Clinton’s. Maybe the effect of impeachment on Bush’s popularity would depend on whether it was more like Nixon’s impeachment, or more like Clinton’s, in this sense.

  5. joe,

    It probably depends on what they try an impeach Bush for. With Clinton, the only people really upset about the charges were those who already disliked him. Everyone else pretty much considered it an embarrassing personal matter.

  6. Andrew G.,

    I think the quality of the charge only has to pass a low bar – it it credible? If Clinton had had Bush’s poll numbers when impeachment started, he probably would have been removed from office.

  7. Wow, if one were to believe Republican revisionist history about the popularity of Reagan, one would be shocked to see he was less popular than Clinton after this period of time in office. Maybe Reagan was knee deep in Alzheimers at this point, but it is still telling.

  8. Not even Republicans believe their revisionist history about Reagan.

    Why do you think they felt the need for such a full-court press to name stuff after him when his disease and death made him temporarily sympathetic?

  9. Clinton was wildly popular when left office, I guess that is why his boring side kick for 8 years won in a landslide to replace him as President unlike Reagan whose boring sidekick managed to loose to a governor with no national political experience. Oh thats right, it was the opposite.

    The Truman example is instructive. His Presidency is certainly held in much higher regard today than it was when he left office. He was certainly proven right in opposing communism and firing McArther before he startd a nuclear war. I don’t know that you could find a more popular President in office than Roosevelt, but although his war record certainly holds up, his record in dealing with the Soviets at Yalta and his handling of the economy in the 1930s looks worse with every passing year. In the end the polls don’t mean much to history.

  10. Scoreboard Joe. Scoreboard. Reagan won two landslide victories, indexed income taxes and completely changed the political landscape in this country forever. Before Reagan, it looked to be inevitable that the US would slide into a European welfare and tax state. After Reagan it was unthinkable. You can put him down all you want but the fact remains 30 years later most of the things you believe in are not a reality thanks to Reagan. That may be a good reason for you to hate him, but you can’t deny his popularity and effect. It would be like someone denying Roosevelt or Johnson’s effect and popularity. Debeate he wisdom all you want, but you can’t deny the force of nature that was Reagan.

  11. “Clinton was wildly popular when left office, I guess that is why his boring side kick for 8 years won in a landslide to replace him as President unlike Reagan whose boring sidekick managed to loose to a governor with no national political experience. Oh thats right, it was the opposite.”

    Actually, Gore’s mistake was that he ran away from Clinton when he was campaigning. Had Gore done the smart thing and latched onto Clinton’s wild popularity, he might be president today.

  12. “Actually, Gore’s mistake was that he ran away from Clinton when he was campaigning. Had Gore done the smart thing and latched onto Clinton’s wild popularity, he might be president today.”

    Maybe so but bottomline is he lost and Clinton was deprived of a big legacy. It was basically a Presidency about nothing, which fit the times pretty well. Clinton is going to end up a lot like those 19th Century Presidents after Grant like Arther and Clevland, completely forgotten because the times were driven by business and technology rather than governement. A hundred years from now people will still be writing biographies of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs just like they write bios of Rockafeller and Vanderbilt now. Clinton will be a footnote, that other guy that got impeached along with Johnson. Which when you think about it, is the most fitting historical fate I could imagine for an attention whore like Clinton.

  13. Scoreboard, John? We’re looking at polls take at the same period of time during each of their presidencies, and Clinton was objectively more popular than Reagan during that period. You are simply proving my point about revisionist history.

  14. Reagan knew how to work a room.

    Why don’t the Republicans take a page from the Reagan playbook and pay off Iran?

  15. “My second reaction? Those Clinton numbers are pretty damn impressive.”

    Maybe if Bush had an intern do what Clinton had his intern do, maybe if Bush lied about it and managed to get Congress to impeach him for it, maybe then he could get himself up there in the fifties or so.

    58.6 minus 31.8–one in four Americans wish it was all about sex, at least.

  16. Clinton’s sidekick, who side-kicked him to the curb throughout the campaign, still won the election by well over five hundred thousand votes, John.

    Why are you flailing about for proxies, when we have the actual data right in front of us?

    Clinton was more popular than Reagan at the end of his term. Deal with it.

    And WTF does “scoreboard” mean?

  17. It’s so easy for someone to forget the problems of their team and the success of the other.

  18. “””Clinton’s sidekick, who side-kicked him to the curb throughout the campaign, still won the election by well over five hundred thousand votes, John.””””

    Source that one Joe. Bush won all recounts that I know of. Besides, the only count that matters is the one certified by the state.

  19. only 31%? Come on, we can do better than that! Let’s make it 29% and secure our place in history as having THE WORST president in history!

    Come on! We’re number one! We’re number one!

  20. OK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000#National_results

    Al Gore: 51,003,926
    George W. Bush: 50,460,110

    Gore’s margin of victory was 543,816 votes.

  21. See, TrickyVic, the subject of this thread is popularity. John threw out Gore’s “defeat” – the one where he won the ballotting by well over half a million votes – as evidence of Clinton’s lack of popularity.

    Hence, the popular vote is the relevant figure to look at. That people named Bush, or appointed by people named Bush, were able to get Florida’s electoral votes to be given to Dubya isn’t really relevant to the question of popularity.

  22. Joe thinks that elections are decided by popular vote rather than electoral vote, unless of course that works against him, then it doesn’t. Bush won the 2000 election and Gore lost despite five years of prosperity, an economy on the top of a bubble and generally peace in our time. Had it not been for the Clintons being such crooks Gore would have won in an landslide just like Bush I did.

    Regardless, Clinton goes down as probably the least memorable and least important elected President of the last half of the 20th Century. Ford might be more irrelevent but he was never elected. It is really funny when you think about it. I think that is half the reason he wants his wife to win so bad, so at least he will be remembered for something. If it has to be as the husband of the first woman President, so be it.

  23. What the hell are you quoting wikipedia for something like that? Nice Try!!!

  24. Actually, in 2000 it came down to one vote. 5 – 4.

  25. Gore as president for those 4 years!!! Your country would be in horrible shape. IMAGINE THE ECONOMY! LOL!

  26. TrickyVic
    “””Clinton’s sidekick, who side-kicked him to the curb throughout the campaign, still won the election by well over five hundred thousand votes, John.””””

    Source that one Joe. Bush won all recounts that I know of. Besides, the only count that matters is the one certified by the state.

    Here’s the source–the FEC. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

    Gore: 50,999,897 votes = 48.38% of popular vote
    Bush: 50,456,002 votes = 47.87% of popular vote.

    Gore got 543,895 more votes than Bush. QED

  27. is the “meletary loier” really such a freakin tard as “he”‘s showing?

    wow. At least Abdul is intentionally funny on his posts. He is, isn’t he?

  28. John–the issue isn’t who won the election. We’re discussing Clinton and Gore’s popularity. Gore was more popular than Bush, as he got more votes.

  29. Sorry you can’t follow the discussion, John. Yup, I just done never heared of that that ‘lectral collidge! Yup, that’s what’s going on. You totally aren’t throwing up chaff to cover for being pwned.

    Regardless, Clinton goes down as probably the least memorable and least important elected President of the last half of the 20th Century. Show of hands – who wishes we’d had an unmemorable, unimportant president for thte past seven years?

  30. joe
    Show of hands – who wishes we’d had an unmemorable, unimportant president for thte past seven years?

    Definitely me. Although, I’d prefer a welfare-reformer/free-trader/budget-balancer like Billy Boy to an unmemorable, unimportant president.

  31. But Joe,

    I thought Bush was hitler. I thought he was the worst President in memory. The focus of evil in the modern world. How could he be unimportant? History works in strange ways. Who knows what it will say about Bush. Maybe he will be another Truman and get better with age. Maybe no. I don’t know and neither do you. But one thing is for sure, he will be remembered and will be important for better or worse. Clinton in contrast will be a non-entity before the first half of this Century is over.

  32. Doug,

    Look up the numbers yourself, then. You’ll get exactly the same totals. Do you know why?

    Because George Bush got 543,985 fewer votes than Al Gore. But hey, that’s just me carefully studying reality and drawing conclusions from it. By all means, feel free to create your own.

    Gore as president for those 4 years!!! Your country would be in horrible shape. IMAGINE THE ECONOMY! LOL! Uh, yeah, it would have been the 90s all over again.

    Just kidding! There probably would have been a recession or something, and the debt would have skyrocketted!

    I wonder why brian and I got different vote totals, but the same margin of victory?

  33. “I’d prefer a welfare-reformer/free-trader/budget-balancer like Billy Boy to an unmemorable, unimportant president.”

    You mean Newt Gingrich was President? All that happened, sans NAFTA after the Dems lost Congress in 1994. Had the Republicans not taken over, none of those things would have happened and NAFTA wouldn’t have happened without Republican support. Had Clinton had a big enough majority in Congress, his legacy would be socialized medicine. I doubt you would have liked that too much. Further, the Democrats today are about as far away from those things as one can get, as evidenced by their killing of free trade with Columbia.

  34. I wonder why brian and I got different vote totals, but the same margin of victory?

    Our margins were different by 79 votes. I don’t know why they’re so close though. Probably due to the margin of error involved with the vote counting process or something?

    John

    I thought he was the worst President in memory. The focus of evil in the modern world. How could he be unimportant?

    Who said he’d be unimportant? Joe is just saying that he’s unpopular. Just because someone is unpopular doesn’t mean he’s unimportant. Look at Johnson and Vietnam–he was unpopular, but hardly unimportant to the path of history. Same with Truman.

  35. “””Hence, the popular vote is the relevant figure to look at.”””

    The popular vote is never relevant to look at in determing who won the election. The quote I was responding to clearly states Gore won the election, which is false. Let’s review.

    “”””””Clinton’s sidekick, who side-kicked him to the curb throughout the campaign, still won the election by well over five hundred thousand votes, John.””””

    Yeah, that says “won”, not “most popular”.

    Someone show me the count where Gore won the election.

  36. UFC KARATE STANCE POSE!

    clintonclintonclinton humperdink humperdink.

    froth froth froth.

    the internet tough guys are still dry humping their penis-shaped pillows every night until their headgear gets stuck in the National Review cardboard subscription inset, they obsess about the clintons so much!

  37. John,

    You got a case of the stupids today?

    I didn’t call Bush unimportant and unmemorable, you tool, I offered that as an alternative to Bush.

    Read gooder, melitry lawur.

    Anyway, I think the contrast between your emphasis on importance and my own lack of concern about such things, as a measure of the quality of a president, speaks volumes about our ideas of government.

    Bill Clinton sure was less important in the lives of women married to servicemen than Bush was – there are a couple thousand widows who will tell you that.

  38. Joe,

    If Gore had won, things would be about the same as they are now. Hell, he made a better case for invading Iraq in 1998 than Bush ever did. He certainly would have invaded Afghanistan, we would be in that war for sure. Even if he hadn’t gone into Iraq, we would still have 1000s of troops sitting in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait containing him. Iran would still be building Nukes. So would North Korea, although the protection money seems to be working lately. The only difference would have been no tax cuts in 2003 and probably a more Clintonian level of unemployment of 6% and maybe growth of 2 rather than what we have right now. Other than the Supreme Court, these elections just don’t change that much.

  39. TrickyVic, try to keep up. This is a discussion about politicians’ populairty; hence, noting that Gore’s greater popularity didn’t deliver the Electoral College to him, as incredibly important as that fact seems to be in your mind, isn’t really relevant.

  40. “Bill Clinton sure was less important in the lives of women married to servicemen than Bush was – there are a couple thousand widows who will tell you that.”

    I am sure you were so broken up about those killed in Somalia and during Clinton’s adventures. Stop insulting people’s intelligence. You dont’ give a shit one way or another unless it furthers you political agenda. For bottom feeders like you, the death of a soldier is only good if it serves a purpose.

  41. *bubbles from the Formula 409 drown out the rest of the twaddlenockery*

  42. john
    All that happened, sans NAFTA after the Dems lost Congress in 1994. Had the Republicans not taken over, none of those things would have happened

    So Clinton didn’t run on the pledge to “end welfare as we know it?” He didn’t push for government spending controls to balance the budget?

    I’m not saying the Democrats were all for this back then, but Bill was.

  43. There was a better case for invading Iraq in 1998 than when Bush was president. Iraq had a WMD program in 1998.

    Even if he hadn’t gone into Iraq, we would still have 1000s of troops sitting in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait containing him.

    This is what John considers “not much of a difference.” 3500 dead Americans. 100,000-200,000 dead Iraqis. bin Laden still at large. Losing in Afghanistan. Spreading Iranian hegemony. Nope, no difference at all.

    Funny, five years ago, the difference between wanting to invade Iraq and not was the difference between wanting Iraqis to be free vs. wanting them fed into plastic shredders.

    Anyway, the vision of Republicans desperately working to blur the distinctions they’ve spent six years drawing is delicious.

    Though I’m left to wonder – do you think John honestly forgot Al Gore’s proposed $600 billion tax cut, or do you think he managed never to know about it in the first place? John’s very good at not knowing things. “Highly but selectively informed” is a term I once saw for his type – the purposely deluded.

  44. For bottom feeders like you, the death of a soldier is only good if it serves a purpose.

    The opposite being that the death of a soldier is good when it doesn’t serve a purpose? Or that no purpose is worth dying for? I don’t understand your sentence.

  45. Hands up – who wishes we could trade the Iraq War for another Somalia?

    Stop digging, John. You keep unearthing arguments that help me.

    For bottom feeders like you, the death of a soldier is only good if it serves a purpose.

    And if I thought the death of soldiers for no purpose was good, that would make me, what? Oh, right: an Iraq hawk.

  46. TrickyVic, try to keep up.

    That’s not very nice, joe.

    For bottom feeders like you, the death of a soldier is only good if it serves a purpose.

    Dammit John, stop making joe look polite.

  47. Wait a minute, I just read that sentence again. Isn’t the only possible way that a soldier’s death could ever be good is if it serves a purpose?

  48. “Though I’m left to wonder – do you think John honestly forgot Al Gore’s proposed $600 billion tax cut, or do you think he managed never to know about it in the first place? John’s very good at not knowing things. “Highly but selectively informed” is a term I once saw for his type – the purposely deluded.”

    You kill me Joe. I guess that means you won’t be bitching about Republican tax cuts anymore because you are a tax cutter. You are a regular Reaganite.

    The point about the soldiers is that you don’t give a shit about them in any other context, have never served and never will serve, so leave them out of the discussion. You want to object to Iraq, fine. But don’t appeal to the hardship of people you don’t know and don’t care about under any other circumstances.

  49. Joe: I like that you’re taking it to John, man, but we both know that the total popular vote doesn’t constitute winning an election.

  50. John

    You kill me Joe. I guess that means you won’t be bitching about Republican tax cuts anymore because you are a tax cutter. You are a regular Reaganite.

    Tax cuts without spending cuts are not real tax cuts. They are tax shifts–to the future and our kids. All government spending must be paid for by taxpayers at some point, whether it be now or in the future. Milton Friedman said, “To spend is to tax.” Therefore, Bush increased taxes in the future both by increasing spending and cutting taxes today.

    The point about the soldiers is that you don’t give a shit about them in any other context, have never served and never will serve, so leave them out of the discussion. You want to object to Iraq, fine. But don’t appeal to the hardship of people you don’t know and don’t care about under any other circumstances.

    How do you know that he hasn’t served or that he will not serve? How do you know he doesn’t have friends or family in Iraq? How do you know he doesn’t care about soldiers? Answer these and I’ll concede your point.

  51. Timothy | July 19, 2007, 2:26pm | #

    Joe: I like that you’re taking it to John, man, but we both know that the total popular vote doesn’t constitute winning an election.

    I don’t think he meant to say that the popular vote decides the election. He used it to show that Gore was more popular than Bush among voters, even though Bush won the electoral college.

  52. Well, John, if there is another tax cut proposal, I would consider whether it was an appropriate policy given the current situation.

    That’s the thing with us liberals – we actually change our positions on policy questions depending on what’s going on in the real world. This leads to such unfathomable outcomes as supporting a tax cut when there is a huge surplus, and opposing it when there is a huge deficit.

    I know, that’s not the way you do things. You believe the same thing on Wednesday you believed on Monday, and it doesn’t matter what happened on Tuesday.

  53. Timothy, I didn’t claim Gore won the election, just that he won the vote. In a discussion about popularity, the vote totals are relevant, regadless of the EC.

    John,

    Not giving a shit about you doesn’t not equate to not giving a shit about soldiers in general. You’ve just convinced yourself that only people who agree with you about politics care about soldiers.

  54. joe,

    have never served and never will serve

    Trans: You’ve never been in the military, so your opinion doesn’t count; we might not let you vote next time around either.

    How long has John thought he lives in Starship Troopers?

  55. I’m not following something here. How do you average 62% in your 1st term and 39.9% in your 2nd and average 31.8% overall?

  56. Cartman:

    It’s an average of 31.8% from the 26th quarter. Just the past few months.

  57. Clinton was objectively more popular than Reagan during that period.

    That is why Reagan won two landslides, and Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

  58. “Tax cuts without spending cuts are not real tax cuts. They are tax shifts–to the future and our kids.”

    Unless they stimulate the economy enough to increase revenue enough to outpace increased spending.

  59. pic of the “meletary loier” hier dressed up all tuff ‘n’ all

    hier when on parade. SASSY!

  60. As a purely off-topic note: Any one else ever read the C.A.D.S. series by John Sievert? Russians invade after surprise nuke attack and soldiers use armored suits to wage guerrilla war. Think Starship Troopers wadded in ball with Red Dawn. They are as bad as you imagine.

  61. Let’s face it, both Clinton and Bush are turds in their own way..

  62. That is why Reagan won two landslides, and Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

    No, the presence of third-party candidates is why Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.

    We don’t need all of these proxies to figure out their popularity, Repubicans. We have the approval ratings. We have the poll numbers.

  63. “No, the presence of third-party candidates is why Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.”

    But would he have won without Perot in there?

  64. The Democrat Congres’s approval ratings are lower than Bush’s is.

    Of course the liberal press doesn’t like to talk about that.

  65. landslide catalyst: Walter Mondale.

    he was as overmatched in that election as the meletary loier is against joe.

  66. S.A. Miller-

    Approval ratings during the 26th quarter of their presidencies: Clinton 58.6; Reagan 49.7 (also see above)

    Yes, Clinton was objectively more popular during that period.

  67. Longest. URL. EVAR.

  68. “”””TrickyVic, try to keep up. This is a discussion about politicians’ populairty; hence, noting that Gore’s greater popularity didn’t deliver the Electoral College to him, as incredibly important as that fact seems to be in your mind, isn’t really relevant.””””

    Keep up with yourself. Your the one that said Gore won the election. Which is false

  69. Rattlesnake Jake,

    The info I’ve seen indicates that Perot voters would have split roughly evenly between Clinton and Old Bush. I guess there’s no way to say for sure.

  70. joe, you know I think you’re awesome, but…

    All this dueling with John has got to stop.

    Seriously, you two. Just get a room. Or move to MA and say your vows. Something.

  71. Vic,

    You’re going on like this because I wrote “…won the election by over 500,000 votes…” rather than “…won the ballotting by over 500,000 votes?”

    Seriously?

    OK, Captian Pedant. You got me. Mission Accomplished.

  72. You said election, that made it fair game. I’m just pointing out that your statement as written by you was false.

    If you would have corrected that earlier instead of defending it and telling me to “keep up”, I wouldn’t have made a second post.

  73. No, it still wasn’t false, because “won the election by over five hundered thousand votes” clearly refers to vote totals.

  74. Aren’t Gallup Polls based on typically 1,000 respondants or so?

    Aren’t most US Presidential elections based on tens of millions of votes?

    Based on sample size alone, wouldn’t that make elections a much better gauge of “popularity” than polls

    If Clinton’s “popularity” were truly over 60%, the 2000 election would not have been even close. Sure the Gore campaign didn’t utilize him as well as they might, but Clinton still did a lot of campaigning in the closing days. Wouldn’t 60%+ popularity translate into a win.

    If Reagan’s popularity were so low at the end of his term, would his VP have won in landslide? Old-man Bush’s campaign wasn’t the most dynamic ever run.

    For a good illustration of how irrelevant and inaccurate these polls can be – take a look at Bush’s approval rating in mid-Oct to mid-Nov of 2004. He was in the low 40s for every poll during this period, yet won an election with over 50% of the vote. I believe that Gallup released a poll immediately after the election showing an approval rating of over 50% in a effort to maintain/regain some credibility.

  75. Elections only give up comparative popularity, PFM. The 1984 election tells us that Reagan was much more popular than Mondale. The 2004 election tells us that Bush was barely more popular than John Kerry.

    Approval ratings give us actual popularity.

    If Clinton’s “popularity” were truly over 60%, the 2000 election would not have been even close. Sure the Gore campaign didn’t utilize him as well as they might, but Clinton still did a lot of campaigning in the closing days. Wouldn’t 60%+ popularity translate into a win.

    If Reagan’s popularity were so low at the end of his term, would his VP have won in landslide? Old-man Bush’s campaign wasn’t the most dynamic ever run.

    I don’t think presidential popularity translates to the Vice President. Think of Ike and Nixon.

  76. “””No, it still wasn’t false, because “won the election by over five hundered thousand votes” clearly refers to vote totals.”””

    No Joe, it clearly refers to the winner of the election.

    See you’re still defending it.

  77. The “Gore lost, so Clinton must have been unpopular” is borderline ridiculous. Look, I voted for Bush in 2000 (talk about buyer’s remorse…) and I liked Clinton at that point — certainly more than I liked either Bush or Gore. Gore was no Clinton, and during 2000, a vote for Bush appeared to be a vote for a weak executive and a split congress. They were numerous reasons to bet on this outcome, most of which had nothing to do with Clinton’s popularity or lack thereof.

    Tell me, in 2004, would Cheney have won? How about now? Does anyone think that matters?

  78. Yup, because it was a true statement. Gore won the election. By well over 500,000 votes. If you want to get hyper-technical, there are two elections – one among the public, and another among the EC.

    As we were discussing popularity, the one among the public was the relevant election.

    Why is this so terribly important to you? Are you made that uncomfortable by statements that cast Bush’s legitimacy into doubt? Most people would be happy to see the back of him at this point.

  79. That should have read: The “Gore lost, so Clinton must have been unpopular” line is borderline ridiculous…

  80. Oh, and “they” should be “there.” I really need an editor.

  81. “Milton Friedman said, `To spend is to tax.'”

    Yes, but he was always in favor of lower taxes for any given amount of spending. He didn’t let the threat of an increased deficit deter him from wanting to cut taxes at any opp’ty.

  82. We’ve always had the Electoral College. This 2000 nonsense is nonsense. Bush won the race in the only way that has ever mattered. It’s like saying that someone won a Senate seat because the legislature in his state liked him.

    I think Gore wouldn’t have been as bad as Bush, but I also think he’s become a bit of a dunderhead in the last eight years. He might’ve been a lousy president, too. We’ll never know. Frankly, most of the fools we have had as candidates and as presidents in recent years would’ve screwed up the response to 9/11, one way or the other.

  83. Yup, because it was a true statement. Gore won the election. By well over 500,000 votes.

    and Nixon won the election against Kennedy.

    Kennedy fucked up our country more then Bush did…hard to say if gore would have fucked it up more or less.

  84. “””Yup, because it was a true statement. Gore won the election.”””

    I think that speaks for its self.

  85. No, joshua, Richard Nixon got fewer votes than John F. Kennedy. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

  86. Actually, joe, because of the voting method used in Alabama (in which people could legally vote for electors for more than one candidate, and some did take that option) it’s rather difficult to figure out vote totals for 1960.

    Read here for details.

    (I didn’t believe it either until I read it.)

  87. Robert

    “Milton Friedman said, `To spend is to tax.'”

    Yes, but he was always in favor of lower taxes for any given amount of spending. He didn’t let the threat of an increased deficit deter him from wanting to cut taxes at any opp’ty.

    Yeah that always confused me about Friedman. He said he was in favor of every tax cut under any circumstance (paraphrasing there), but he also argued that the government needed to perform things such as protecting property rights, which require the government to tax.

    Those things seem paradoxical. If he’s in favor of every tax cut under every circumstance, that suggests he wants taxes to be zero, but he still wants government to spend money on a few certain things. You can’t be in favor for the government to spend and not tax–it’s just illogical. That would be like me ramping up credit card debt but refusing to ever pay for it, and instead making my kids pay for it 20 years down the line.

  88. Actually, counting dead people, LBJ won the 1960 election. That’s why he had to kill JFK and arrange RMN’s removal from office from BEYOND THE GRAVE.

  89. ProGLib,

    You’re making more work for me. Stop it!

  90. So it would be wrong of me to urge everyone to watch Sulu dance?

  91. Aaaarrrrggghhhh!

    Not here!

  92. I assume it’s okay to reference Monkey Tuesday, at least.

  93. Oh, I get it. So I should stop posting.

  94. Sometime soon.

  95. Is this forum moderated? Because, despite the differing opinions, it seems to remain reasonably intelligent and civilised. That’s refreshing for an Internet forum.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.