Shripathi:Well, gee, if you narrow your focus that way (i.e., cut off the data at 1988), you can make some sort of idiotic point, I guess. Here is another look using the same data but with a different cutoff point:Number of presidential elections since 1964: 12 Number of times the GOP candidate has won the popular vote: 6.Does that prove anything? No.Which, coincidentally, is is exactly what your point proves. Oh, and there's this:==> Number of times the winner of the popular vote has lost the election since 1996: One==> Number of times the winner of the popular vote has lost the elections in the history of the US: Four==> Number of times this FACT is referenced by bozos still disgruntled by the outcome of the 2000 election: SELDOM, IF EVER.FACT: If Al Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee in 2000, he would have been elected president. OPINION: The fact that he did not carry his home state speaks a little bit to his overall electability in 2000.OPINION: If a DEMOCRAT had not designed a confusing butterfly ballot in West Palm Beach, Florida that caused 3,000 elderly Jewish citizens to vote for a fundamentalist Christian candidate, Al Gore would have won the election.OPINION: If a REPUBLICAN had designed that same confusing butterfly ballot, we would still be hearing people like Shripathi wailing about it.OBSERVATION AND RECOMMENDATION: If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Get over it, Shripathi.(Voting statistics taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin)
Upsetting isn't it; that the demographic is changing, and it is being reflected in the popular vote, and the GOP is losing because of it?Wait till you find out that redistricting got the GOP more seats in the House, but probably fewer votes overall.A decade? Two? What happens when they cannot redistrict their way out of minorities?It is OK to miss the point of the simple factoid, or get upset at me, but you can be sure that it is not lost on the GOP leadership.
Your point, clearly stated now, is well taken. Your presumption that the GOP will not adapt -- or does not have the capacity to adapt -- may or may not be correct, but that is a separate discussion.Your presumption about my political leanings would appear to be incorrect.
I should also add, in all fairness, that my presumption that you are one of those people who has not shaken off the Democratic party's Electoral College loss of 2000 would appear to be incorrect, and for that I apologize.If you continue to post this factoid far and wide in the various Patches of this country, you might consider a one-sentence clarification, e.g.:Irrespective of the controversy surrounding the 2000 election, one trend is now apparent:Number of presidential elections since 1988: SixNumber of times the GOP candidate has won the popular vote: One
Thank you for the feedback, I'll try to do better.