Not that unusual on on the percentage, Alex. That's why we have the electoral college, to ensure that all states large and small are represented. In fact, Clinton in '92 got even less of the popular vote (I think 42% if I recall).

I dunno if I would classify Bush's approach as "divide and conquer". I think the proper colloquialism would be "my way or the highway". Bush has a way of seeing the world and reacting that is laser-focused on what he wants to do.

I don't know about Obama. There's nothing wrong, and a lot to say, for a consensus approach to world affairs. But strength and resolution needs to be a part of the package. There needs to be a "line in the sand" as elder Bush put it - a line that won't be crossed. My concern is a scenario where Russia walks into a NBATO country and Obama's response is to file a U.N. complaint.

>
>In 2000 Bush got less than 50% of the popular vote and squeaked by (is that the correct expression?) on the electoral vote. Yet his approach until Wall Street hit the wall was divide and conquer: he spent most of his time in office blaming the Democrats for all the problems while not performing stellarly at home or abroad.
>
>Only time will tell how Obama's style will be compared to Bush's but I have a hunch he will strive to build a consensus as an essential element to address current problems, which are enormous.
>
>Good luck to the US and the world.
>
>Alex
>
>
>>An electoral landslide for sure.
>>
>>I saw a funny cartoon today: 2004 - Bush gets 51% of the vote - Country Divided! 2008 - Obama gets 52% of the vote - Country United!
>>
>>As to mandate....errr....not so sure. IMHO, a lot of folks were voting against the economy and the war in Iraq. They were voting against Bush. They weren't voting for Obama's policies.
>>
>>I could be wrong but let's see what happens. As I've said in a previous post, Obama could be a great president if he goes into this with an open mind and open eyes. If he gets tangled up in ideology, the way Clinton did in '93 and Carter did in '77 he might go down in flames because the country routinely detests hard swings to the right or left.
>>
>>What worries me is that Russia is already pushing the envelope, thinking they have a weak adversary. Can't say I didn't see this coming but Obama needs to stand up to them.
>>
>>
>>>>>I must be giddy between the election and the start of my 3 month .NET course. It wasn't until just now, reading the latest Newsweek, that I remembered our little wager on the election. Your gracious concession speech isn't going to get you off the hook, pal ;-) How did it go? -- "Mike Beane is smarter than me"?
>>>>>
>>>>>I know I'm not but it delights me to picture you wearing it. And we need proof!
>>>>>
>>>>>Your pal in humor if not politics,
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>UPDATE: The UT To address feature apparently does not work. This message was addressed to the prince of South Florida, John Koziol.
>>>>
>>>>I'm curious: would you consider it a 'landslide victory?' :o)
>>>
>>>Everything I read says 350 electoral votes is a landslide, so from that POV, absolutely. He flipped _9_ states (and apparently, one congressional district) that voted for Bush in '04. That's 18% of the states. Wow!
>>>
>>>As for popular vote, not quite a landslide (I'd argue 55-45 or better there, I think), but, I think, a mandate. Surely, he has more political capital to spend than Bush did when he talked about it after the '04 election. (I saw that clip the other day and boy, does he seem like a small man saying that.)
>>>
>>>Tamar