LogFAQs > #945528503

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Lincoln - 39.8%
Douglas - 29.5%
Breckinridge - 18.1%
Bell - 12.6%

Lincoln won by over 10% of the popular vote compared to the next closest candidate. Lincoln had the MOST votes of any candidate that year.

Do you see how providing full information is more accurate than saying "Lincoln won with 39%" as a response to a hypothetical situation where trump receives 10 million LESS votes than an opponent. Because I know you didn't say it, but your implication there is that his opponent received MORE than 39% when in reality your example bears no resemblance to the situation we've posited.

There was a 3 million vote differential in 2016 and it's not unreasonable to think the vote differential will be even higher this year regardless of who wins, and that's a scary thought.

In 1860 the Democrats had a convention that was so contested they could not agree on a single candidate. The Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats ended up running separate candidates (Douglas and Breckinridge), and some Democrats broke off from the party to run a third candidate (Bell) on a unity platform. So, yes, had the Democrats run one candidate, he would most assuredly have gotten well over 50% and crushed Lincoln in the popular vote by 15%+.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!