Who is the greatest President of all time and of each century?

[Cubsrule]

You're really reaching in order to defend your claim -- that or you have an insanely skewed view of what "a lot" is.

60,000 is 57,000 more than 3,000, how is it reaching?

[SmthBluCitrus]

First, you're refusing to acknowledge the states in play between the two elections (three times as many states were "in play" in Reagan's dominate election). But, I've already made this argument.

And, second (if this is the game you want to play) Roosevelt won all but eight electoral votes. Reagan won all but ten. That difference is a lot. With the combined states in play and electoral vote math (eight is a smaller number than ten), FDR was "a lot" closer than Reagan at electoral college dominance.

[Cubsrule]

First, you're refusing to acknowledge the states in play between the two elections (three times as many states were "in play" in Reagan's dominate election). But, I've already made this argument.

And, second (if this is the game you want to play) Roosevelt won all but eight electoral votes. Reagan won all but 10. That difference is a lot.

Reagan lost 10 votes because of the size of the state, and he lost it by fewer votes than Roosevelt did Vermont. I really don't get why you and the guy are so contempt in trying to persuade me otherwise

[SmthBluCitrus]

Because you're making a completely faulty argument.

[Cubsrule]

Because you're making a completely faulty argument.

What fault argument Reagan won 49 out of 50 states Roosevelt won 46 out of 48, Reagan came within 3,000 votes, Roosevelt 60,000. You can have a different opinion about the situation Citrus, I really don't care, but quit trying to change mine.

[k_rock923]

What faulty argument? I need name tags to keep track of all the straw men you've erected.

[SmthBluCitrus]

Your opinion is that Reagan had a vastly superior election in 1984 to Roosevelt's in 1936, correct?

I think that's completely absurd, but if that's what you want to believe -- go ahead.

Lets just forget the fact that FDR won a higher percentage of electoral votes, a higher percentage of popular votes, and locked away a higher percentage of states than Reagan. I'm of the opinion that they were both dominate -- one and one-A.

Conservatives (and this isn't a direct reference to you Cubs) like to talk about the Democratic Party and our "Messiah complex" that we have for Obama but the way the right argues for Reagan you'd think that he walked on water and raised the dead.

[k_rock923]

I agree, what I have a problem with is the notion that Roosevelt was 'nowhere near' as dominant.

[Cubsrule]

Your opinion is that Reagan had a vastly superior election in 1984 to Roosevelt's in 1936, correct?

I think that's completely absurd, but if that's what you want to believe -- go ahead.

Never said that it was superior, I said he never came as close to sweeping the electoral college, please don't put words in my mouth.

Lets just forget the fact that FDR won a higher percentage of electoral votes, a higher percentage of popular votes, and locked away a higher percentage of states than Reagan. I'm of the opinion that they were both dominate -- one and one-A.

Thats fine, we weren't arguing about any of that, you can forget it all you want.

Conservatives (and this isn't a direct reference to you Cubs) like to talk about the Democratic Party and our "Messiah complex" that we have for Obama but the way the right argues for Reagan you'd think that he walked on water and raised the dead.

Difference is Reagan did great things, Obama to this point has just said great things. Although I don't think Reagan walked on water, I do think he was one of the best presidents not only for his policy but his attitude.

[Cubsrule]

What faulty argument? I need name tags to keep track of all the straw men you've erected.

Leave it to the left to resort to name calling.

I agree, what I have a problem with is the notion that Roosevelt was 'nowhere near' as dominant.

Again, who said nowhere near as dominant?

[k_rock923]

Leave it to the left to resort to name calling.



Again, who said nowhere near as dominant?

A straw man is an informal fallacy. Leave it to you to accuse me of an an informal fallacy while I'm pointing out one of yours.

Is 'never came nearly as close' not the same as 'not as dominant'?

[Cubsrule]

A straw man is an informal fallacy. Leave it to you to accuse me of an an informal fallacy while I'm pointing out one of yours.

Erecting informal fallacies, ok

Is 'never came nearly as close' not the same as 'not as dominant'?

I was talking about the electoral college, you're talking about the election as a whole.

You're response to Citrus

I agree, what I have a problem with is the notion that Roosevelt was 'nowhere near' as dominant.

Roosevelt did dominate the 1936 election, but Reagan got much closer to sweeping the electoral college.

[k_rock923]

Erecting informal fallacies, ok

Dismissing them doesn't make them go away.

I was talking about the electoral college, you're talking about the election as a whole.

As Citrus (is that her nickname? I usually want to type Smith, but that just seems odd ) pointed out, FDR won a higher percentage of the electoral votes. I'm talking about the electoral college as well.

You're response to Citrus



Roosevelt did dominate the 1936 election, but Reagan got much closer to sweeping the electoral college.

The only thing we disagree on is the word 'much'. I can buy the argument that he got closer if we're using the metrics of number of states won. It's a simple fact if we use that metric.

I'm trying to figure out where the 'much' comes from and why that metric is the best one to use.

[Cubsrule]

Dismissing them doesn't make them go away.

I still fail to see what I am dismissing that's relevant.

As Citrus (is that her nickname? I usually want to type Smith, but that just seems odd ) pointed out, FDR won a higher percentage of the electoral votes. I'm talking about the electoral college as well.

The problem is winning a higher percentage of votes within a state doesn't lead to more electoral votes, so it's irrelevant.

The only thing we disagree on is the word 'much'. I can buy the argument that he got closer if we're using the metrics of number of states won. It's a simple fact if we use that metric.

I'm trying to figure out where the 'much' comes from and why that metric is the best one to use.

Ok then we'll get rid of much, Reagan got closer because he lost one state by 3,000 votes and Roosevelt lost two by 60,000.

[k_rock923]

Get rid of 'much' and your argument is perfectly valid, if you define the terms to be 'states won'.

Although if you are using that definition, the 3,000 vs. 60,000 is irrelevant.