Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

"Some landslides are bigger than other landslides."

"From one point of view, it was a landslide"; "We can view it as a landslide."

"John King stated it was an electoral-college landslide on CNN."

The reason you two and others are grasping for the right qualifier and the right spin or simply an authority to back you up is that this election was simply not a landslide victory. If it were you would not have to argue your case.

Does anyone, for example, need to qualify FDR's landslide in 1936? No, they do not. Because it was a landslide -- no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

As hard as it is for some to accept, they are just going to have to live with this as "a decisive victory." No more, no less.

[jaykimf]

Gopher, you ignore my point. Obviously the 4 elections you mention were clearly landslides. Were those the only landslides? What about Jefferson's 92% of electoral votes in 1804, Hoovers 84% in '28, FDR's 81% in '44, Coolidge's 72% in '24 or Madison's 70% in 1808, etc. Were none of those landslides? The question is where to draw the line and your citing only the most extreme landslides gives no indication of where the lower threshold should be. Your definition is fundamentally flawed.
I don't know if it was a landslide or not. It doesn't really matter does it? It does seem pointless to quibble about the semantics of Landslide. You say it was not a landslide, John King says it was, Whatever, who cares? Your team lost in a big way. Get over it. Is it some kind of consolation to you that it wasn't a landslide? Yea OK, whatever.

[Gopher]

Obviously, you care. Otherwise you would not be here, trying so ineptly to descredit my definition, resorting to more belligerent language, etc.

If you have another definition besides merely following John King's assertion, let me know and I will look at it. Also, you need to remain post-Civil War when selecting examples. Avoid the first two party systems and stay on point. Finally, your "fundamentally flawed," "pointless quibbling," "Whatever, who cares?" and "Get over it" do not impress me in the least.

[Gopher]

[Adventurer]

[bucheon bum]

Well I personally think it was a landslide by post-Vietnam War Democrat standards.

[Adventurer]

[Gopher]

Adventurer: do you really see a 4:1 difference in this election? Also, you seem to join Jaykimf in questioning my motives here. Let me turn that on its head again: why is it so important to you to force us all to lower the bar on what constitutes "a landslide?"

________


B. Obama's decisive victory certainly compares well with B. Clinton's decisive victories in 1992 and 1996. But do you call these "landslides," Bucheon Bum...?

B. Clinton 1992. 370:168 electoral-college votes; 32:18 states; and 43% of the popular vote (as opposed to H. W. Bush's 38% and R. Perot's 19%).

B. Clinton 1996. 379:159 electoral-college votes; 31:19 states; and approximately eight million more popular votes than B. Dole.

B. Obama 2008. 365:162 electoral-college votes; 28 (and change):21 states; and approximately eight million more popular votes than J. McCain and your favorite boogeygirl.

Also, R. Reagan shows us that landslides remain possible in postVietnam America -- even if the Democrats have singularly failed to score one thus far, even in Watergate's immediate aftermath.

[Adventurer]

[Gopher]

I take the other view on that, Adventurer: I wish Barack Obama had in fact won a landslide and an undeniable mandate. We need someone who can create an overwhelming political base such as FDR, LBJ, or R. Reagan to, temporarily at least, create unity and decisively lead.

Barack Obama can still get there through good govt. He can get there through the midterm elections and he can conceivably get a landslide in 2012. Until then, do not get ahead of yourselves.

You tend to create Newt Gingriches when you do that. And I do not believe there are any posters here who like Newt Gingriches in American politics...

[ManintheMiddle]

Gopher:

Bruddah, you just don't get it. Don't you know that all the Obama apologists (and let's not forget I voted for him) are in dire need of self-validation. They don't represent the mainstream supporters of Obama like me.

They're the kind of posters ridiculed in a classic New Yorker cartoon many years ago in which someone was gazing into a display window at various trophies. One included a plaque which was inscribed with "Most Improved" and another with "Most Determined." Still another read "Top Player." But the last trophy's plaque read "Participant." That pretty well sums up the absurdity of the Self Esteem Crowd, otherwise known as the fake liberals. They believe you can wish away the world's woes with photogenic symbolism and well meaning platitudes, and perhaps just a bit of elbow grease. Those of this ilk--and they abound on this thread--deserve only to be minor characters in a Harold Pinter drama.

So we can all quibble about what constitutes a legitimate landslide and or mandate until the cows come home but none of us can escape one simple statistic: 48 million eligible American voters do not have confidence in Obama to lead them. That doesn't negate Obama's highly efficient campaign efforts or the sizeable electoral victory but it does diminish it or, let's say, put it into proper perspective.

48 million American voters did not expect to get a pat on the back, a leg up, a pull on the bootstrap, or a trophy for merely participating in the life of this democracy. Instead, they expect to earn their keep every step of the way. They look askance at those who jumped at homeownership knowing full well that their prospects of paying on their mortgages were precarious at best.

But where I disagree with them is on the EXTENT to which we as individuals are responsible for adjusting to the current economic malaise when most of us know full well that it was at least in part caused by corporate greed and federal policies favoring trickle-down dynamics.

[jaykimf]

[Gopher]

ManintheMiddle: Amen, bruddah.

Jaykimf: your position rests on (a) a CNN correspondent's assertion; (b) a dictionary definition that relies on the vaguest of vagaries; and (c) a whole lot of attitude. I think you should go ahead and call this election a landslide for Barack Obama. End the oppression. Power to the people. Etc.

As far as this thread goes: put it on a platter and stick a fork in it, it is done.

[Kuros]

[Gopher]

I love it, Kuros. Not only a Messiah, but an invicible Messiah, one who knows the Senate -- like LBJ, I imagine, no?

Still, it seems a bit early to predict 2010...

(And no one here, incidentally, has called R. Reagan's victory in 1980 or B. Clinton's in 1992 or 1996, for that matter, "a landslide." Where Jaykimf wants to lower the bar on my and others' definition, you just want to ram an assertion down our throats. Only by the most wishful-thinking of standards can you possible call this election "a landslide," Kuros.)