lh33113 at SWT.EDU
Thu Oct 31 09:51:56 MST 1996
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Willaim Thurber - MKTG PhD Student wrote:
> Mike's post raises a question. If Dole does win all the toss-up states
> and comes from behind to win California he will win a majority of the
> electoral college and the Presidentcy. However, he probably would not win
> a majority of the popular vote, like Clinton in 1992. It is possible that
> he would not even win the largest share of the popular vote.
> The question is: Would all of you who have been questioning Clinton's
> right to implement his adgenda, because he did not receive 50% of the
> popular vote raise the same objection with Bob Dole, or would you advocate
> that both Dole and Kemp resign allowing the speaker of the house to become
> president? (assuming that the party that controls the house obtains 50+%
> of the popular congressional vote)
William brings up a good point, but I think he's misanalyzing.
Just because we bring up the fact that Clinton received less than 50% of
the popular vote, and that brings into question the idea that his election
and election ideas truly reflect the wishes of the American people, that
doesn't mean we don't think he shouldn't act as our President. Those are
two separate issues. Of course we wouldn't advocate Dole and Kemp
resigning in a similar scenario. I don't think any of us have ever
advocated Clinton and Gore resign based on that alone. If some people
have said that then they're off their rockers. He won legitimately, so he
has as much of a mandate as you can expect to do day-to-day governing.
Any talk of resignation should be, and 99% of the time is, based on much
more substantive matters. There's so many reasons the Clinton should be
impeached, why would we settle on the weakest argument there is?
More information about the Rushtalk