NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a letter to the LA Times about Al Gore. You people are so fond of talking about how Bush beat Gore and then Kerry. Just tthought I'd remind you.
Re "Searching for a pol with a pulse," Current, April 23

I am sick and tired of reading and hearing political commentators such as Joe Klein say that Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election, as if more voters voted for George W. Bush than for Gore. Specifically, Klein writes that "Gore lost [the 2000 election] because he seemed phony, still and awkward." The reason — the only reason — Gore "lost" the 2000 election is the interference by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court in what the Constitution unambiguously says is a state matter: the selection of presidential electors. Whatever faults as a candidate Gore might have had, he did win the popular vote by a substantial margin, and revisionists like Klein who say he lost are disingenuous, to put it mildly.

CLIFTON SNIDER

Long Beach

Anyway, have a nice weekend.

PS: sod Bush. The twit.

Don't waste your time. Just bring up the Phelps connection, or the stupid 'lockbox'.

You people are still on about this? Move on!

The inescapable fact is that Gore won the popular vote. More US citizens wanted him to be president than Bush, conspiracy theories aside.

You people are still on about this? Move on!
No, thanks. I'll keep commenting on things that interest me. :)

More US citizens wanted him to be president than Bush, conspiracy theories aside.

Undeniable fact.

I wish he'd run again.

It was 6 years ago.

The difference in votes was within the margin of error in many places.

Get over it.

Undeniable fact.

I wish he'd run again.

I don't. The Phelps thing will slaughter him.

get a real candidate.

Undeniable fact.

I wish he'd run again.
And Kerry lost the election by just a few thousand popular votes. With over 60 million votes cast that's a pretty scant margin.

You people are still on about this? Move on!
It's an issue because there's some talk that both Kerry and Gore might try to run for President in 2008, and supporters of both want to make the case for their candidate's primacy. Gore is the better choice of the two, by the way, because he not only beat Bush in the popular vote, he did so before most people knew just how bad Bush was going to be. Kerry didn't have that excuse--Bush was a train wreck in 2004 and Kerry still couldn't beat him.

Still hung up on this?

Remember who normally likes the Supreme Court to interfere in any and every matter in the US, including elections?

Like here in California, where the voters regularly overwhelmingly pass measures that the left/liberals don't like, then the liberal/left takes the measures to court to overturn the will of the people?

I say turnabout is fair play! Too bad.:mp5:

It's an issue because there's some talk that both Kerry and Gore might try to run for President in 2008, and supporters of both want to make the case for their candidate's primacy. Gore is the better choice of the two, by the way, because he not only beat Bush in the popular vote, he did so before most people knew just how bad Bush was going to be. Kerry didn't have that excuse--Bush was a train wreck in 2004 and Kerry still couldn't beat him.
That's true. I hadn't looked at it that way. I also just happen to think Gore is smarter and more honest than Kerry.

It's an issue because there's some talk that both Kerry and Gore might try to run for President in 2008, and supporters of both want to make the case for their candidate's primacy. Gore is the better choice of the two, by the way, because he not only beat Bush in the popular vote, he did so before most people knew just how bad Bush was going to be. Kerry didn't have that excuse--Bush was a train wreck in 2004 and Kerry still couldn't beat him.

No, Gore is horrible. Drop it.

He's fucking poison to any campaign. I don't care what you think of him personally, but he's not going to work. Ever.

Get a real candidate.

Get a real candidate.

I've written at least a dozen letters to Rahm Emanuel pleading with him to run.

*crosses fingers*

Still hung up on this?

Remember who normally likes the Supreme Court to interfere in any and every matter in the US, including elections?

Like here in California, where the voters regularly overwhelmingly pass measures that the left/liberals don't like, then the liberal/left takes the measures to court to overturn the will of the people?

I say turnabout is fair play! Too bad.:mp5:
You're not suggesting that the right doesn't do the same thing with regularity I hope. Anyhoo, the point is not how the election was won. I don't have a problem with the fact that the court stepped in or that Bush won. I simply want to remind you that when you start crowing about how Bush beat Gore because Gore this or Gore that, you should keep in mind that if we did not have en electorial college Gore would have been president, not Bush. More US citizens voted for Gore than for Bush.

It was 6 years ago.

The difference in votes was within the margin of error in many places.

Get over it.

bit diffucult seeing how a man who cheated his way into the most powerful position in the world is screwing up the middle east

I hated that Bush won the election in 2000. But I've gotta echo the sentiments of the others: GET. OVER. IT. Sheesh. And choose a decent candidate next time.

bit diffucult seeing how a man who cheated his way into the most powerful position in the world is screwing up the middle east


Well unless you can prove he commited a crime, there ain't a lot that can be done about that. Unless you intend to kill him, which I in no way advocate.

I hated that Bush won the election in 2000. But I've gotta echo the sentiments of the others: GET. OVER. IT. Sheesh. And choose a decent candidate next time.
You should really read the post before you comment. The point is not about the court or the electorial college. Its actually about the comment you just made. If he wasn't a decent candidate, then why did he get more votes than Bush?

You people are still on about this? Move on!

Im going to use the card that the minorities use. YOU PEOPLE, What you mean YOU PEOPLE.

PsychoticDan
Aimbot


Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,714 A reminder to all Bush supporters about Al Gore

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a letter to the LA Times about Al Gore. You people are so fond of talking about how Bush beat Gore and then Kerry. Just tthought I'd remind you.

Quote:
Re "Searching for a pol with a pulse," Current, April 23

I am sick and tired of reading and hearing political commentators such as Joe Klein say that Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election, as if more voters voted for George W. Bush than for Gore. Specifically, Klein writes that "Gore lost [the 2000 election] because he seemed phony, still and awkward." The reason — the only reason — Gore "lost" the 2000 election is the interference by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court in what the Constitution unambiguously says is a state matter: the selection of presidential electors. Whatever faults as a candidate Gore might have had, he did win the popular vote by a substantial margin, and revisionists like Klein who say he lost are disingenuous, to put it mildly.

CLIFTON SNIDER

Long Beach

----------------------------------------------------------

Under the American political system it is who gets the most votes by states, each state gets a number of votes according to the overall population of the states.

If the US Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Al Gore, who challenged the election results, we would be saying the same thing you are saying about the US Supreme Court.

bit diffucult seeing how a man who cheated his way into the most powerful position in the world is screwing up the middle east
Im going to say I support Bush though i wouldn't vote for him and don't think he is the best person in all of America to be the President. But really, the Middle East was already pretty screwed up, and has been for thousands of years, we need to leave those dumbasses alone.

More US citizens voted for Gore than for Bush.

More US citizens voted for Bush W over Clinton too, it's irrelevant...

First Election Results for Both Presidents:
Clinton in 92’
Popular Vote: 44,909,326 (43.0%)

Bush W in 00’
Popular Vote: 50,460,110 (47.9%)

Second Election Results for Both Presidents:
Clinton in 96’
Popular Vote: 47,400,125 (49.2%)

Bush W in 04’
Popular Vote: 62,040,606 (50.7%)



So Bush W not only had more in both of his individual elections, he had more total.

Combined Totals:
Clinton 92,309,451
Bush 112,500,706

Clinton never once even got half of the vote.

More US citizens voted for Bush W over Clinton too, it's irrelevant...

First Election Results for Both Presidents:
Clinton in 92’
Popular Vote: 44,909,326 (43.0%)

Bush W in 00’
Popular Vote: 50,460,110 (47.9%)

Second Election Results for Both Presidents:
Clinton in 96’
Popular Vote: 47,400,125 (49.2%)

Bush W in 04’
Popular Vote: 62,040,606 (50.7%)



So Bush W not only had more in both of his individual elections, he had more total.

Combined Totals:
Clinton 92,309,451
Bush 112,500,706

Clinton never once even got half of the vote.
What a stupid comparison. Bush and Clinton weren't facing eachother. What kind of dumb point is that?

What a stupid comparison. Bush and Clinton weren't facing eachother. What kind of dumb point is that?

Crying about percentages, on yor part, is a dumb point. And I showed why it's a dumb point.

Im going to use the card that the minorities use. YOU PEOPLE, What you mean YOU PEOPLE.

You yanks.

More US citizens voted for Bush W over Clinton too, it's irrelevant...

More US citizens voted for W than voted for George Washington.

Can we thus conclude W is a better president than Washington?

More US citizens voted for W than voted for George Washington.

Can we thus conclude W is a better president than Washington?

This particular person probably thinks W is the greatest...

More US citizens voted for W than voted for George Washington.

Can we thus conclude W is a better president than Washington?

Not percentage wise.


However, in my defense, I was pointing out how it's a bad complaint in the first place, because other presidents have won double terms with less popular vote.

Crying about percentages, on yor part, is a dumb point. And I showed why it's a dumb point.

It's not percentages.

It's votes.

Official:

Bush - 50,456,062
Gore - 50,996,582

That's Gore winning the popular vote by 540,520 votes. Hard numbers, not percentages.

You should really read the post before you comment. The point is not about the court or the electorial college. Its actually about the comment you just made. If he wasn't a decent candidate, then why did he get more votes than Bush?
He was considered the more popular candidate. People knew him. You should understand, PD, that I dislike most politicians. There are a scant few I'd actually want to see in a position of power. As such, I feel most candidates are crap. My apologies for not clarifying this position sooner.


You yanks.
The term yank is considered offensive by some Americans as--from an American standpoint--it is meant to refer to those of New England, and later, people from the Northern part of the United States. Or to fans of the New York Yankees.

Not that I'm offended. I just felt like giving a brief lesson on that. =/

Crying about percentages, on yor part, is a dumb point. And I showed why it's a dumb point.
No you didn't. Bush got more votes than Lincoln did, too. So? Clinton got more votes than Herbert Hoover, so? Jimmy Carter got more votes than Teddy Roosevelt, so?

Who's crying? The fact is Gore got more votes than Bush. Whether you believe in the electorial college or whatever, more Americans that voted in 2000 wanted Gore to be president so when you wax about how Bush beat Gore in 2000 you should remember that, whatever problems Gore had as a candidate, he only beat him becaue of the electorial college, not because more Americans wanted him to be president. This has implications as to his popularity. Bush supporters often try to protray this idiot as this guy with some overwhelming political mandate, although with approval ratings in the low 30's, the lowest for any president ever, it is getting increasing hard to do, the fact is that he lost the first election by popular vote and he won the second by the thinest margin in an election ever.

The term yank is considered offensive by some Americans as--from an American standpoint--it is meant to refer to those of New England, and later, people from the Northern part of the United States. Or to fans of the New York Yankees.

Not that I'm offended. I just felt like giving a brief lesson on that. =/

The person it was directed to was called "The Dixie States." Now do you get it?

a) Per Florida election statutes, the counties HAD TO STOP COUNTING THEIR VOTES after a set period of time. The fact that the Florida supreme court overturned legislation was sick -- activist court, legislating from the bench. Unless there was an act of God to keep them from being counted, there was a set time-frame for counting... at the end of which, votes had to be turned in.

b) Even after all the votes were counted, and re-counted, and re-counted by the Democrat-led elections boards in those Florida counties, Bush still had more votes.

Bush won, fair and square. If you have a problem with Florida, take it up with the laws of their state, circa 2000.

the fact that the LA Times would run such crap is not surprising in the least...

Undeniable fact.

I wish he'd run again.


That would be awesome..But it would be excellent if he had Bill Clinton on the ticket as his vicepresident...then they win the presidency, and someone knocks off gore, and walla! clinton is president again :D

However, in my defense, I was pointing out how it's a bad complaint in the first place, because other presidents have won double terms with less popular vote.

You can't compare the two, though.

You can't run Clinton's numbers against W's numbers because there are too many variables involved.

1] Population increase.
2] Voter eligability.
3] Voter apathy.

And so on.

Clinton was consistently popular while W has gone from extreme highs to alarming lows in his poll numbers. Comparing the two of them is, well, apples and oranges. Different times, different circumstances, and so on. May as well try to speculate on how Taft would have reacted to 9/11.

The person it was directed to was called "The Dixie States." Now do you get it?
I get that you were either being sarcastic or attempting to be offensive, and probably both. Tell me: are you really anti-anything to do with the U.S., or do you just come across that way? And before you shout at me, this is a question out of curiosity, nothing more.

ITell me: are you really anti-anything to do with the U.S., or do you just come across that way?

He seems to like me.

It's worth pointing out that the number of popular votes a candidate recieves is absolutely meaningless.

a) Per Florida election statutes, the counties HAD TO STOP COUNTING THEIR VOTES after a set period of time. The fact that the Florida supreme court overturned legislation was sick -- activist court, legislating from the bench. Unless there was an act of God to keep them from being counted, there was a set time-frame for counting... at the end of which, votes had to be turned in.

b) Even after all the votes were counted, and re-counted, and re-counted by the Dem ocrat-led elections boards in those Florida counties, Bush still had more votes.

Bush won, fair and square. If you have a problem with Florida, take it up with the laws of their state, circa 2000.
Please read the whole OP before you post. You'll otice you're way off point. This isn't about the court or the electorial college. It's about Bush losing the popular vote. Nothing more.

You can't compare the two, though.

You can't run Clinton's numbers against W's numbers because there are too many variables involved.

1] Population increase.
2] Voter eligability.
3] Voter apathy.

And so on.

Clinton was consistently popular while W has gone from extreme highs to alarming lows in his poll numbers. Comparing the two of them is, well, apples and oranges. Different times, different circumstances, and so on. May as well try to speculate on how Taft would have reacted to 9/11.


That is, if he was able to get out of that tricky bathtub..(he was the one that got stuck right?)

I get that you were either being sarcastic or attempting to be offensive, and probably both.

Or, you know, humorously jabbing.

Tell me: are you really anti-anything to do with the U.S., or do you just come across that way? And before you shout at me, this is a question out of curiosity, nothing more.

Yes, I am anti-anything to do with the US. I am anti-the Atlantic for it reaching US shores. I am anti-Earth for harbouring it. I am anti-air for being breathed by USians. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

the fact that the LA Times would run such crap is not surprising in the least...
It's a letter to the editor. Fox news runs similar letters all the time. Would you censor decenting views from your newspaper?

It's not percentages.

It's votes.

Official:

Bush - 50,456,062
Gore - 50,996,582

That's Gore winning the popular vote by 540,520 votes. Hard numbers, not percentages.


104,423,923 people voted in 1992.

105,417,258 people voted in 2000.

So the numbers are comparable.

Bush won with 50,460,110 at (47.9%)
Clinton WON with only 44,909,806 (43%)

Which pulled off a more remarkable feat? Which better proves that the election process should be amended? Perhaps, have runoffs. You don’t have a winner until you get 51%...

He seems to like me.

Like you, want you to screw my brains out...

a) Per Florida election statutes, the counties HAD TO STOP COUNTING THEIR VOTES after a set period of time. The fact that the Florida supreme court overturned legislation was sick -- activist court, legislating from the bench. Unless there was an act of God to keep them from being counted, there was a set time-frame for counting... at the end of which, votes had to be turned in.

b) Even after all the votes were counted, and re-counted, and re-counted by the Dem ocrat-led elections boards in those Florida counties, Bush still had more votes.

Bush won, fair and square. If you have a problem with Florida, take it up with the laws of their state, circa 2000.
Florida had come up with a recount plan--their Supreme Court had made rulings to address all the issues that the various parties had brought up--but a recount meant that Bush might lose, so the big 5 on SCOTUS manufactured a one-time only ruling (which subsequent Circuit courts have recently applied--can't wait to see what happens when those cases reach SCOTUS) that said, in essence, Bush would be irretrievably harmed by a recount, so stop counting.

Your guy won--at least be honest about how he won, and what the margin was--5 to 4.

Or, you know, humorously jabbing.



Yes, I am anti-anything to do with the US. I am anti-the Atlantic for it reaching US shores. I am anti-Earth for harbouring it. I am anti-air for being breathed by USians. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Okay then.

The popular vote really is meaningless, though I feel in this day and age that ought to be fixed. Most people nowadays are far more educated than they were when the electoral college was put into place. Not to mention information is easier to come by.

Of course, on that same token, so is propaganda, but I trust people to be savvy enough to tell the difference.

It's worth pointing out that the number of popular votes a candidate recieves is absolutely meaningless.
Not meaningless, just secondary. You have to win the popular vote in any given state to win its electors, so, it matters. I believe Bush is only the second president ever to win while losing thepopular vote.

You don’t have a winner until you get 51%...

We'd never have a President!

Well ... Reagan once.

No President ... hrmmm ... might be fun to try for a while.

Not meaningless, just secondary. You have to win the popular vote in any given state to win its electors, so, it matters. I believe Bush is only the second president ever to win while losing thepopular vote.Yep, and in that case, there were real questions about the legality of the vote as well. Funny how that works out. (It also involved a Republican President losing the popular vote.)

We'd never have a President!

Well ... Reagan once.

No President ... hrmmm ... might be fun to try for a while.

Bush Sr. won his first election with 53.4% and he would have won by even more if Perot didn't run (nobody will ever convince me that Perot stole more than three liberal percentage point votes from Clinton :p )

104,423,923 people voted in 1992.

105,417,258 people voted in 2000.

So the numbers are comparable.

Bush won with 50,460,110 at (47.9%)
Clinton WON with only 44,909,806 (43%)

Which pulled off a more remarkable feat? Which better proves that the election process should be amended? Perhaps, have runoffs. You don’t have a winner until you get 51%...
Oh, Bush, hands down. Clinton won teh popular vote each time. In fact, every president except one other, I believe has always won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. Bush is only one of two presidents to ever get to be president even though the people as a whole wanted someone else.

Your argument is stupid. Gore beat Bush by popular vote. It has nothing to do with percentages, but since you brought it up, no candidate had as many votes or as high a percentage of votes in both of Clinton's elections. In Bush's first term, Gore had more votes and, thus, a higher percentage than Bush but Bush still got to be president.

You're right. Based on the fact that Bush won even though Gore got more votes we should look at the electorial process.

You're not suggesting that the right doesn't do the same thing with regularity I hope. Anyhoo, the point is not how the election was won. I don't have a problem with the fact that the court stepped in or that Bush won. I simply want to remind you that when you start crowing about how Bush beat Gore because Gore this or Gore that, you should keep in mind that if we did not have en electorial college Gore would have been president, not Bush. More US citizens voted for Gore than for Bush.

Way to go, sport. You've discovered the key difference between a democracy and a republic. People who had problems with the Truman/Dewey election results didn't start bitching about the ENTIRE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES, and I might remind everyone that Truman was a Democrat. Many times in our nation's history, the popular vote has been incredibly close, or the winner of the popular vote has lost the election. It doesn't matter. The system is intended to make the popular vote subordinate to the electoral college. The founding fathers may not have intended for the Supreme Court to rule on the case (and let us remember that the case went to the Supreme Court only because the lesser courts did not decide it and passed it up the chain), but they certainly did intend for the nation to be a republic. Why? Because it prevents untidy things like mob rule.

I may be no great fan of Bush, no more than I am a fan of Kerry or Gore (despise both of them), but I can see bullshit when it flies by. Politics is a game. If Kerry or Gore were as smart as people say, smart enough to actually beat Bush, they would have been smart enough to realize that winning the popular vote is not enough if a candidate cannot secure the necessary votes in the Electoral College. That's the way it has been for centuries. Both Kerry and Gore did not play the game they needed to in order to win. Plus, Gore decided to bitch and moan for about a year about how he had the popular vote, so he deserved to win. Fuck that and fuck him. That's never been the way it works in this country, and it hopefully never will be.

Bush Sr. won his first election with 53.4% and he would have won by even more if Perot didn't run (nobody will ever convince me that Perot stole more than three liberal percentage point votes from Clinton :p )

Perot didn't run in Bush Sr.'s first election. Neither did Clinton.

And, yes, you're right. Bush Sr. did win with 53.4%. Guess we'd have had him once, too.

Perot did prove that a third party candidate can be a major force in this country. Wish it was like that every election.

That's true. I hadn't looked at it that way. I also just happen to think Gore is smarter and more honest than Kerry.

Edwards for president.

*snip history lesson*
Yeah, I'm aware of all that. This is my point:
Bush supporters often try to protray this idiot as this guy with some overwhelming political mandate, although with approval ratings in the low 30's, the lowest for any president ever, it is getting increasing hard to do, the fact is that he lost the first election by popular vote and he won the second by the thinest margin in an election ever.

Perot didn't run in Bush Sr.'s first election. Neither did Clinton.

And, yes, you're right. Bush Sr. did win with 53.4%. Guess we'd have had him once, too.

Perot did prove that a third party candidate can be a major force in this country. Wish it was like that every election.

I'm sorry, I meant to say that he would have won his second election by more that his first election IF Perot had not run in the second election. Sorry for not being clear.

I'm all up for third party candidates, provided at least half of them are named Ralph Nader (lol j/k)

Perot didn't run in Bush Sr.'s first election. Neither did Clinton.

And, yes, you're right. Bush Sr. did win with 53.4%. Guess we'd have had him once, too.

Perot did prove that a third party candidate can be a major force in this country. Wish it was like that every election.
Yeah, but what Perot really proved is that third parties in the US are cults of personality. When Perot left, the Reform party died. It had its brief moment with Jesse Ventura, but even that is faded now, with the party in bankruptcy in most states.

You yanks.

I hate Yankees.

I'm sorry, I meant to say that he would have won his second election by more that his first election IF Perot had not run in the second election. Sorry for not being clear.

I'm all up for third party candidates, provided at least half of them are named Ralph Nader (lol j/k)
That's not necessarily the case. Clinton may have benefited more from Perot than Bush did, but Bush was in a world of shit in 1992 popularity wise. He'd collapsed, and Clinton had tacked to address the concern of Perot voters well before Bush started to address them. It might have been closer, but I think Clinton would have still beaten Bush.

Please read the whole OP before you post. You'll otice you're way off point. This isn't about the court or the electorial college. It's about Bush losing the popular vote. Nothing more.

And yet no one really cares that he did as we do not elect the president via popular vote.

In other words, its worthless to even write about it.

That would be awesome..But it would be excellent if he had Bill Clinton on the ticket as his vicepresident...then they win the presidency, and someone knocks off gore, and walla! clinton is president again :D

...and our taxes skyrocket...

without another NAFTA (which almost everyone wanted) or Tech Boom to carry Clinton's second economy, what would the effect of the tax hikes be?

On the other hand, it would be nice to have a president with public-speaking skills.

We'd never have a President!

Well ... Reagan once.

No President ... hrmmm ... might be fun to try for a while.

George H. W. Bush got over 50% of the vote.

There are still people that support Kim Jong Bush? Meh, I wouldn't expect any more from AmeriKKKans.

And yet no one really cares that he did as we do not elect the president via popular vote.

In other words, its worthless to even write about it.
So why join in? :rolleyes:

So why join in? :rolleyes:

To see you people moan.

To see you people moan.
You make that happen in practically any thread you join.

...and our taxes skyrocket...

without another NAFTA (which almost everyone wanted) or Tech Boom to carry Clinton's second economy, what would the effect of the tax hikes be?

On the other hand, it would be nice to have a president with public-speaking skills.

I'm all for taxes. My nation has a 100% tax rate, used for the universal healthcare, free education, environmental care, and essentially almost everything is free to some extent.

The only thing with taxes is that it only benefits the people if it's used -correctly-. I know the majority of the country didn't pay their taxes so that a huge chunk of it could send us to war.

I hate Yankees.

Now, now, you particularly do need some self-loathing, but you can keep it centered on yourself.

And yet no one really cares that he did as we do not elect the president via popular vote.

In other words, its worthless to even write about it.
Again...
Bush supporters often try to protray this idiot as this guy with some overwhelming political mandate, although with approval ratings in the low 30's, the lowest for any president ever, it is getting increasing hard to do, the fact is that he lost the first election by popular vote and he won the second by the thinest margin in an election ever.

Honestly, why haven't you americans overthrown your government and killed Bush II yet?

It boggles me, really.

That's not necessarily the case. Clinton may have benefited more from Perot than Bush did, but Bush was in a world of shit in 1992 popularity wise. He'd collapsed, and Clinton had tacked to address the concern of Perot voters well before Bush started to address them. It might have been closer, but I think Clinton would have still beaten Bush.

I totally disagree. IMO, Clinton would never have been a President at all if Perot would not have run.

To see you people moan.
You're just like my former English teacher. You pay lip service to considering all viewpoints but you really dislike anything other than your own and your arguments reflect this. It is a worthy subject to debate much like any other. I'm sorry that the liberals--to use the American definition, which I don't really use anymore but you will recognize--like to discuss things that are contrary to what you see as right, but that does not give you the right to tell them they cannot discuss it.

...

Well, actually, you technically have the right to say whatever you please. Let me rephrase: you can tell them, but you can't force them not to discuss it.

There. That's what I really mean.

George H. W. Bush got over 50% of the vote.

We were talking about 51% or higher...

On the other hand, it would be nice to have a president with public-speaking skills.
I'm so sick of reading that shit. Bush is not bad at "public" speaking. He is bad at SPEAKING. Prior to Bush, when you said someone was bad at public speaking, you meant that they were nervous. Bush is not nervous. He sounds like an idiot in public because he is an idiot. I'd bet my next yearly salary that he sounds just as stupid in private. He is not articulate and has a rudimentary vocabulary because he is deficient intellectually, not because he gets nervous in front of crowds.

We were talking about 51% or higher...

majority does not start at 51%... it's 50% + 1 vote.

I'm so sick of reading that shit. Bush is not bad at "public" speaking. He is bad at SPEAKING. Prior to Bush, when you said someone was bad at public speaking, you meant that they were nervous. Bush is not nervous. He sounds like an idiot in public because he is an idiot. I'd bet my next yearly salary that he sounds just as stupid in private. He is not articulate and has a rudimentary vocabulary because he is deficient intellectually, not because he gets nervous in front of crowds.

on the other hand, he might be incredibly well-spoken in private... but simply suffers from stage fright, resulting in his blunders/gaffes in public.

majority does not start at 51%... it's 50% + 1 vote.

I understand, but we were talking about making it harder and having run-offs until a level is reached.

on the other hand, he might be incredibly well-spoken in private... but simply suffers from stage fright, resulting in his blunders/gaffes in public.
He looks fine up there to me. Does he look at all uncomfortable to you? I think he's completely comfortable with saying stupid things in front of people.

...and he won the second by the thinest margin in an election ever.


Bush 62,040,610 (50.7%)
Kerry 59,028,111 (48.3%)

A difference of 2.4%

1884’ had a 0.3% difference with Stephen Grover Cleveland (48.5%) vs James Gillespie Blaine who had (48.2%).

Bush 62,040,610 (50.7%)
Kerry 59,028,111 (48.3%)

A difference of 2.4%

1884’ had a 0.3% difference with Stephen Grover Cleveland (48.5%) vs James Gillespie Blaine who had (48.2%).
I stand corrected. It's interesting that you had to go back about 120 years to find one as close. My point still stands. A landslide president he is not.

I stand corrected. It's interesting that you had to go back about 120 years to find one as close. My point still stands. A landslide president he is not.

And then, Stephen Grover Cleveland would lose his very next election after winning the popular vote… He won 48.6% of the vote but lost to Benjamin Harrison who had 47.8% of the vote, a difference of 1.2%. Bush won (his election, like Harrison) but the margin was closer for Bush with a 47.9 beating a 48.4% which is only a 0.5%.

And then, Stephen Grover Cleveland would lose his very next election after winning the popular vote… He won 48.6% of the vote but lost to Benjamin Harrison who had 47.8% of the vote, a difference of 1.2%. Bush won (his election, like Harrison) but the margin was closer for Bush with a 47.9 beating a 48.4% which is only a 0.5%.
Are you trying to make my point for me?

I understand, but we were talking about making it harder and having run-offs until a level is reached.

cool.. the second i hit Submit Reply, I thought I might have missed the point of your convo, since I hadn't read it. hehe

I stand corrected. It's interesting that you had to go back about 120 years to find one as close. My point still stands. A landslide president he is not.

wasn't the Nixon/Kennedy 1960 (right?) election pretty close?

it was...

1960:
Kennedy - 50.1%
Nixon - 49.8%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1960

wasn't the Nixon/Kennedy 1960 (right?) election pretty close?
Maybe. My point was not that there weren't other close elections. My point is that Bush never won some big political mandate in his elections as is often noted by Bush supporters. They often site Gore and Kerry as these sorely beaten opponents when in reality Gore beat Bush on the popularity scale and Kerry barely lost.

wasn't the Nixon/Kennedy 1960 (right?) election pretty close?

There's lots of them, but I like the 1880's stuff because its the same stuff even to higher extremes. As to close elections...

John Fitzgerald Kennedy 50.1%
Richard Milhous Nixon 49.8%

A difference of 0.3%

Richard Milhous Nixon 43.4%
Hubert Horatio Humphrey 42.7%

A difference of 0.7%

James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr. 50.1%
Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. 48.0%

A difference of 2.1% but still smaller than Bush’s 2.4% win over Kerry.

You have to be kidding, right?

Bush (who is a total imbecile) loses the "popular" vote to Gore in 2000, which means Gore should have won, right?

.....but then Bush in (who has in the mean time PROVED himself to be a total imbecile) WINS the "popular" vote in 2004 against Kerry by a higher margin than 2000 but you still regard it as some kind of marginal victory?

Make up your mind dude. Either winning with the popular gives you legitimacy or it doesn't.:headbang:

I think Gore will be too busy trying to find and destroy man bear pig and he won't be able to run this time. I'm being ceral here. <_<

You have to be kidding, right?

Bush (who is a total imbecile) loses the "popular" vote to Gore in 2000, which means Gore should have won, right?

.....but then Bush in (who has in the mean time PROVED himself to be a total imbecile) WINS the "popular" vote in 2004 against Kerry by a higher margin than 2000 but you still regard it as some kind of marginal victory?

Make up your mind dude. Either winning with the popular gives you legitimacy or it doesn't.:headbang:
Once again, I am not complaining about Bush winning. I am not a conspiracy theorist and don't have a problem with the way things went in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004. I have a problem with the tone set by many Bush supporters that Bush won some sort of mandate as though he won in a landslide victory. He did not.

I think Gore will be too busy trying to find and destroy man bear pig and he won't be able to run this time. I'm being ceral here. <_<
That was funny as Hell.

This is a letter to the LA Times about Al Gore. You people are so fond of talking about how Bush beat Gore and then Kerry. Just tthought I'd remind you.

To be more accurate, if Gore hadn't been stiff and awkward, he might well have captured not just the popular vote but the election as well. In a general recount, Gore would have eked out a less-than-1000 vote majority in Florida. If he had gotten half of Ralph Nader's voters, he would have unquestionably picked up Florida and Nevada, making him uncontested president. The reason why people were going for Nader is because Gore seemed so mechanical and straitjacketed.

Gore never had the lead in Florida, though, right?

Even with all the recounting that went on, Bush never fell behind.

How is the conclusion made the Gore would have won a recount in Florida?

(Besides from counting Gore votes more than once. hehe)

This is a letter to the LA Times about Al Gore. You people are so fond of talking about how Bush beat Gore and then Kerry. Just tthought I'd remind you.
Grrrrr... :headbang:

Did you know that in 2000, Gore "won" New Mexico by 366 votes, but Bush didn't challenge the result? Nor did Bush say anything about close Gore victories in Wisconsin or Oregon. But when Bush beat Gore in Florida by a few hundred votes -as confirmed by SEVERAL recounts- all hell broke loose. Dispite a herculean effore by the liberal media and a liberal activist Florida Supreme Court to give Al Gore Florida's electoral votes and the 2000 presidential election, George Bush gained more votes than gore on election night after the original count, the automatic recount, and after the absentee ballots were counted. Bush was never behind; how exactly did he steal an election in which he won the original count and all the recounts?
Every voter in Florida has his or her vote counted-TWICE! In reality, it was Al Gore who tried to steal the election. Al Gore became the first presidential condidate in history to concede and election, only to then call back and say "just kidding". He pleaded to have "every vote count," while seeking to prevent just that. Let-every-vote-count Gore tried to disenfranchise American servicemen serving overseas by going to court to disallow military absentee ballots. Democratic operatives even issued a five-page memo describing exactly how to disqualify military ballots. Gore said he wanted "every vote counted," but immediatly after the election he didn't ask for a statewide recount. He only wanted the votes in three heavily Democratic counties to be recounted. Why didn't Gore ask for a recount in all sixty-seven Florida counties?
Also, while we are on it - The U.S. Supreme court absolutely had the legal authority to intervene into the Florida debacle. The election of the president and vice predident of the United States is a federal issue, not a state issue. Indeed, the only elected positions in our democratic republic for which the entire citizenry may cast a vote are the president and vice president. The U.S. Constitution specifically sets forth the method by which the president and vice president are to be elected. The Constitution provides that the state legislature- not the state supreme court- is responsible for creating the process whereby the states electors are to be selected.

:upyours:

Grrrrr... :headbang:

:upyours:
I know exactly ow you feel. I feel thatway everytime some dumbass like yourself answers a post he did not read and then goes off on a completely irrelevent point thinking he has somehow taught the OP something. Especially when, on this very page, you could have easily read this:

Once again, I am not complaining about Bush winning. I am not a conspiracy theorist and don't have a problem with the way things went in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004. I have a problem with the tone set by many Bush supporters that Bush won some sort of mandate as though he won in a landslide victory. He did not.

Make me want to do this: :headbang:

So here: :upyours:

I'm all for taxes. My nation has a 100% tax rate, used for the universal healthcare, free education, environmental care, and essentially almost everything is free to some extent.

Please name for us one country that has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

He sounds like an idiot in public because he is an idiot. I'd bet my next yearly salary that he sounds just as stupid in private. He is not articulate and has a rudimentary vocabulary because he is deficient intellectually, not because he gets nervous in front of crowds.

And yet this "idiot", this "intellectually deficient" individual is accused of pulling off a coup on election night 2000?

I'm always amazed at people saying Bush stole the election in one breath, and that he's an idiot with the next. Make up your minds.

And yet this "idiot", this "intellectually deficient" individual is accused of pulling off a coup on election night 2000?

I'm always amazed at people saying Bush stole the election in one breath, and that he's an idiot with the next. Make up your minds.
Damn, you are fucking dense.

Once again, I am not complaining about Bush winning. I am not a conspiracy theorist and don't have a problem with the way things went in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004. I have a problem with the tone set by many Bush supporters that Bush won some sort of mandate as though he won in a landslide victory. He did not.
I must have posted that about 50 times now. I have never, even when it happened, accused Bush of stealing the election and have argued with people who have said that. The only thing I have ever accused him of is being stupid. I never even said he lied about Iraq. I just think he's too stupid to rubn a war properly.

Who's the president now? Oh right thought so. :upyours:

You just got owned at life

I know exactly ow you feel. I feel thatway everytime some dumbass like yourself answers a post he did not read and then goes off on a completely irrelevent point thinking he has somehow taught the OP something. Especially when, on this very page, you could have easily read this:

Make me want to do this: :headbang:

So here: :upyours:

Nice try.. "A" for effort.. but you said..

This is a letter to the LA Times about Al Gore. You people are so fond of talking about how Bush beat Gore and then Kerry. Just tthought I'd remind you.

Thus, you with your opening statement, you contested that Bush did not in fact beat Gore. I was responding to that. Thus, I was reminding you that Bush did indeed beat Gore. It's as simple as that.

Further, in your quote of Clifton Snyder..
The reason — the only reason — Gore "lost" the 2000 election is the interference by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court in what the Constitution unambiguously says is a state matter: the selection of presidential electors.

If you had read my post, you would know that this is not the case.
:mp5:

Who's the president now? Oh right thought so. :upyours:

You just got owned at life
And in as little as three years this guy will go down as the worst president ever. His own party has abandoned him. His conservative constituency has abandoned him. All he has left is the 30% or so who are either too stupid to realize their mistake or too prideful to admit it. Just on the way to work today I listened as conservative talk show host Doug McIntyre apologized for voting for him. He's a dead horse and people are starting to wake up to the fact that he's stupid and incompetent and that they were fooled.

Nice try.. "A" for effort.. but you said..



Thus, you with your opening statement, you contested that Bush did not in fact beat Gore. I was responding to that. Thus, I was reminding you that Bush did indeed beat Gore. It's as simple as that.

Further, in your quote of Clifton Snyder..


If you had read my post, you would know that this is not the case.
:mp5:
And if you had bothered to actually look at that letter and all of my posts afterward you woud see, quite clearly actually, that the point was that Bush lost the popular vote. But I digress. I invite you to find a post in this thread, nay, on this site, where I accuse Bush of stealing the election or where I make that any part of my argument. Have at it. ;)

Hell, I'd say it really no longer matters. Fact is, Bush became president. Thanks to those ignorant folks who voted for him and even more ignorant folks who didn't vote at all, we now have to put up with his actions which will not only affect white America, but the entire world-stage. The government may have made errors in the election process, but they're the government. It's what they do best. Fact is, we are the ones to blame for this travesty. We the American people are the ones at fault.

I don't care where you stand politically, but I don't see how anyone could defend President Bush's actions:
The nation is more bankrupt than ever before, we've managed to down-trod the Middle Eastern people yet again causing them good reason to be as angry or fearful of us are many of us are of them, despite how much oil we took out of the "hands of terrorists" gas prices continue to skyrocket, more and more soldiers are dying, more and more innocent civilians are being slain at the hands of American soldiers, education and healthcare spending are continuing to disappear, secret prision camps that were said didn't exist when they actually did and for the sole purpose of torture which of course we don't do, illegal wire-tapping of potentially thousands of u.s. citizens' telephone calls without warrants... the list goes on and on.
The world thinks of America as one big unfunny joke, and not without cause.

It just seems to me that the Bush administration much prefers to spend the tax payers hard earned money on death, rather than spend it on making life more worth living.

True patriots don't support a tyranical government. That was how this country was founded, after all. But don't call yourself patriotic for loving the monster that America has become. Rather look at the points it was founded upon; of the people for the people. It was a breakaway from an unfair right-leaning monarch and became a left-leaning liberal society. But more and more of our rights are being taken away. Don't support this and claim to be patriotic. Robespierre, Fawkes, Washington. True patriots.

When a country hold 5% of the world's population, yet 50% of the world's combined military spending goes on it's "defence", you know there's a problem or two.

And if you had bothered to actually look at that letter and all of my posts afterward you woud see, quite clearly actually, that the point was that Bush lost the popular vote. But I digress. I invite you to find a post in this thread, nay, on this site, where I accuse Bush of stealing the election or where I make that any part of my argument. Have at it. ;)

Yes, he lost the popular vote. Your point? He is still the president, and if you advotate changing from the electoral college system to something else that is your choice. But it still doesn't change the law for the 2000 election. All the hand-wringing and spats of "He shouldn't be President! He lost the popular vote." has become annoying over the years. As others have so astutely pointed out, our presidential election system disregards the popular vote. And for good reason.

Yes, he lost the popular vote. Your point? He is still the president, and if you advotate changing from the electoral college system to something else that is your choice. But it still doesn't change the law for the 2000 election. All the hand-wringing and spats of "He shouldn't be President! He lost the popular vote." has become annoying over the years. As others have so astutely pointed out, our presidential election system disregards the popular vote. And for good reason.
I have no problem with the electoral college and I understand that it's there to protect state representation in the executive branch. I also have no problem with the fact that Bush is president with regards to how the election was won. I have a problem with Bush supporters who act as though the country is with them. Both elections were extremely close and in one of them he actually lost the popular vote which means at least about half the country had the good sense to vote against him and, now, his approval ratings are as low as any president's has ever been so, no, you are not backing a Ronald Reagan, you are backing a dog who's presidency will probably go down as an abject failure.

Hell, I'd say it really no longer matters. Fact is, Bush became president. Thanks to those ignorant folks who voted for him and even more ignorant folks who didn't vote at all, we now have to put up with his actions which will not only affect white America, but the entire world-stage.

What exactly are you infering by "white America"? Are you implying that caucasians cannot empathize with those of other skin colors? Sounds vaguely racist to me. That one group of people are unable to do something, due to the pigmentation (or lack thereof) of their skin. Actually.. forget "vaguely".

The nation is more bankrupt than ever before[QUOTE]

and yet, consumer spending is up.

[QUOTE=Vi Et Armis]we've managed to down-trod the Middle Eastern people yet again causing them good reason to be as angry or fearful of us are many of us are of them

Yup. Down-trod the middle east. Free elections. Women free to pursue their dreams. Kites are able to be flown freely. Political disagreement with the new government is no longer and immediate death sentence. How DARE we trod them under our feet. *end sarcasm*

despite how much oil we took out of the "hands of terrorists" gas prices continue to skyrocket

And "big oil" only gets about 6 cents per gallon profit. The rest goes to crude oil prices and taxes imposed by the government. Taxes, which were NOT imposed under the current administration.

more and more soldiers are dying

Soldiers are dying for our freedom. God-bless a volunteer military. Oh, wait.. you forgot that every soldier VOLUNTEERED to fight for our country?

secret prision camps that were said didn't exist when they actually did and for the sole purpose of torture which of course we don't do

There has been no proof the prisons you mention exist, just for your own clarification.

illegal wire-tapping of potentially thousands of u.s. citizens' telephone calls without warrants

Which is just an extension of a law that was adopted under the Carter administration.

The world thinks of America as one big unfunny joke, and not without cause.

Perhaps, but how often do you see them pleading to Nigeria for economic aid? Or India? Or North or South Korea? In fact, name me one nation that gives as much in aid as the US.

It just seems to me that the Bush administration much prefers to spend the tax payers hard earned money on death, rather than spend it on making life more worth living.

Ah, there's the rub. That sometimes treasure must be spent to make life woth living.

But don't call yourself patriotic for loving the monster that America has become. Rather look at the points it was founded upon.

*begin sarcasm anew* yup, we are a monster. We are such a corrup country that people risk death by starvation, drowning, heat exaustion, etc just to reach us. We repeatedly go to war with countries and, after defeating them, help them to rebuild and create their own government.

Honestly, why haven't you americans overthrown your government and killed Bush II yet?

It boggles me, really.

Because we have this thing called elections and that Bush cannot run for the President again?

We were talking about 51% or higher...

He got over 51%

Hell, I'd say it really no longer matters. Fact is, Bush became president. Thanks to those ignorant folks who voted for him and even more ignorant folks who didn't vote at all, we now have to put up with his actions which will not only affect white America, but the entire world-stage. The government may have made errors in the election process, but they're the government. It's what they do best. Fact is, we are the ones to blame for this travesty. We the American people are the ones at fault.

And here is where I stopped reading. Calling folks who voted against the loser as ignorant really is a very ignorant thing to say. Frankly, I do not care who you voted for but to call those of us who voted for the president to be ignorant well.... it makes you look ignorant.

Either winning with the popular gives you legitimacy or it doesn't.:headbang:

Legit is one thing, mandate is another. Even I said, in a thread a long time ago, after the Kerry/Edwards concession that I would now and finally accept the legitimacy of the Bush Presidency. He was only "Mr. Bush" to me before that and I did not recognize him as President, nor his authority to be in that office.

Anyway, I believe a person should have, at the very least, 55% of the popular vote to even think about using the term "mandate".

Which is just an extension of a law that was adopted under the Carter administration.

And that makes it ok?


In fact, name me one nation that gives as much in aid as the US.


Per capita? Easy. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html)

Total cash? Japan and the UK beat you. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2062.html)

And here is where I stopped reading. Calling folks who voted against the loser as ignorant really is a very ignorant thing to say. Frankly, I do not care who you voted for but to call those of us who voted for the president to be ignorant well.... it makes you look ignorant.

Voting is not a competition, Corn. It's not a "we are teh winner! j00 are teh lozer!" thing. The fact that 49% of the American people who voted did not want Bush elected in 2004 says volumes.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a majority pwns j00 Democracy.

Yup. Down-trod the middle east. Free elections. Women free to pursue their dreams. Kites are able to be flown freely. Political disagreement with the new government is no longer and immediate death sentence. How DARE we trod them under our feet. *end sarcasm*


Oh yeah. 30,000 dead Iraqis are sure flying lots of kites and thanking us for killing them. Accidentally. What dreams are women "free" to pursue now? Getting blown up by an IED?


Soldiers are dying for our freedom.

Every time a US soldier dies, its always "for our freedom?" I don't see how occupying Iraq has jack shit to do with our freedom. Of course, you do, I'm sure. You'll say how we're drawing all them ter'rists into a killing zone, thus saving the USA. But then, since then we're using Iraq as a shooting gallery, its also kind of hard to make the point about kites and Iraqi liberation. Yeah, we liberated them by making their country into a battleground. Brilliant.


Ah, there's the rub. That sometimes treasure must be spent to make life woth living.

Or, in this case, to kill people. Not nearly the same thing.


*begin sarcasm anew* yup, we are a monster. We are such a corrup country that people risk death by starvation, drowning, heat exaustion, etc just to reach us. We repeatedly go to war with countries and, after defeating them, help them to rebuild and create their own government.

Aw, isn't that nice? We rebuild other peoples governments after invading them. I suppose you'd think I'm your favorite uncle if I performed a house invasion and then helped rebuild your family structure in my own image.

Maybe a murderer-rapist isn't so bad if, after raping a woman and killing her daughter, he impregnates his victim and helps raise the new kid.

Voting is not a competition, Corn. It's not a "we are teh winner! j00 are teh lozer!" thing. The fact that 49% of the American people who voted did not want Bush elected in 2004 says volumes.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a majority pwns j00 Democracy.

And 51% of the American People who voted DID WANT Bush election in 2004 and that says volumes.

And 51% of the American People who voted DID WANT Bush election in 2004 and that says volumes.
Yes. It says that he WAS presiding over a country that was split over his leadership, not united behind him. NOW he is presiding over a country that thinks he's retarded and can't wait for him to leave. Republican senators don't even want his campaign help in this next election because they don't want to be associated with him.

And 51% of the American People who voted DID WANT Bush election in 2004 and that says volumes.

Yes. Hence, he is President. That does not mean he's allowed to ignore that 49% who didn't want him, though. He is President of the United States, not just President of the 51% of the people who voted.

In a country of 300,000,000 people, only 60,000,000 voted for him. He is supposed to be President of all 300,000,000, but he acts like he's only President of 60,000,000. That is why his numbers are now nearing 30%.

For the record --

I was a proud Bush supporter in 2000, and a reluctant Bush voter in 2004.

Gore and Kerry both may have been excellent Presidents. Key word MAY. We'll never know. The reason why we'll never know is because as great at politics they may be, both were lousy campaigners.

Take Gore for example -- here he was in 2000 coming off an 8 year high of the Clinton administration. Clinton, for all his faults, was a popular guy. And in the summer of 2000, we had a hot economy (though it was just starting to cool off), we had relative peace. (Who had heard of Osama Bin Laden?) and he was going up against an "intelligent light weight" George W. Bush. Given Gore's background, he should have wone the popular vote by several million votes.

But Gore was a lousy presidential campaigner. His miscues, misstatements, and out and out lies killed him enough that he lost by a few thousand votes in a couple of key states (most notably Florida), and he lost the electoral college count. If he hadn't made his famous utterance of "I invented the internet." He may well be President today.

Kerry, same thing. He locked on to his military record with such ferocity that he was blind sided by the Swift Vote Veterans for Truth. Had he just dropped the topic of his military record early on in the campaign, the Swift Vote Verans would have never taken hold, and a lot of the anti-Kerry propaganda would have never made the airwaves. And it could have turned the tide of the election.

That's the political genius of George W. Bush -- everybody underestimates him. By not expecting much of him, he can do mediocre but it appears as a great accomplishment.

Well...except for the past 18 months... that's just been dismal.

But the point is, Kerry and Gore SHOULD have been more succesful against Bush. But because both are lousy campaigners, they failed.

And they'll fail again if they're nominated in 2008. They have too much baggage now. Pretty much, in modern time, if you fail at a Presidential bid (not the nomination, but an actual one on one campaign) you're toast politically.

No you didn't. Bush got more votes than Lincoln did, too. So? Clinton got more votes than Herbert Hoover, so? Jimmy Carter got more votes than Teddy Roosevelt, so?

Who's crying? The fact is Gore got more votes than Bush. Whether you believe in the electorial college or whatever, more Americans that voted in 2000 wanted Gore to be president so when you wax about how Bush beat Gore in 2000 you should remember that, whatever problems Gore had as a candidate, he only beat him becaue of the electorial college, not because more Americans wanted him to be president. This has implications as to his popularity. Bush supporters often try to protray this idiot as this guy with some overwhelming political mandate, although with approval ratings in the low 30's, the lowest for any president ever, it is getting increasing hard to do, the fact is that he lost the first election by popular vote and he won the second by the thinest margin in an election ever.

The point is he didn't lose. The popular vote means squat. We don't run our system by the popular vote. If we did, they would run different elections, people who didn't vote in states where they already knew who would win would have. The entire election would be different and there is no telling what the outcome is.

Both candidates ran an election based on winning the electoral college. One was successful. Unfortunately, he is President today.

I have no problem with the electoral college and I understand that it's there to protect state representation in the executive branch. I also have no problem with the fact that Bush is president with regards to how the election was won. I have a problem with Bush supporters who act as though the country is with them. Both elections were extremely close and in one of them he actually lost the popular vote which means at least about half the country had the good sense to vote against him and, now, his approval ratings are as low as any president's has ever been so, no, you are not backing a Ronald Reagan, you are backing a dog who's presidency will probably go down as an abject failure.

You still miss the point. The popular vote evidences nothing. The fact that we have an electoral college greatly influences who votes. I have many friends who don't bother to vote in states where the election is all but decided. You have no idea how Bush would have done in a straight up popular campaign at either election time. Claiming you know, based on the popular vote that counts for nothing is spurious.

The elections are over. Both of them. Bush cannot run again. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Whining about results won't change a thing. Bush's performance is another matter entirely, but I wish people would just accept that unless they have the balls to impeach him, it's worthless to complain. Besides, impeaching presidents creates a general feeling that presidents can't be trusted, which, true or not, is ruinous for the American mindset.

The point is he didn't lose. The popular vote means squat. We don't run our system by the popular vote. If we did, they would run different elections, people who didn't vote in states where they already knew who would win would have. The entire election would be different and there is no telling what the outcome is.

Both candidates ran an election based on winning the electoral college. One was successful. Unfortunately, he is President today.
Of course. It is still a fact, however, that Bush is not a president that ever enjoyed Clinton like approval ratings save for a brief period after 9/11. He barely won in both elections and is now a dead horse.

He got over 51%

Since when is 50.7% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004#Election_results) "over 51%"?

Since when is 50.7% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004#Election_results) "over 51%"?

Since 0.7 was greater than 1. When else? :p

If he hadn't made his famous utterance of "I invented the internet." He may well be President today.

Except he never made that statement. (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp)

You still miss the point. The popular vote evidences nothing. The fact that we have an electoral college greatly influences who votes. I have many friends who don't bother to vote in states where the election is all but decided. You have no idea how Bush would have done in a straight up popular campaign at either election time. Claiming you know, based on the popular vote that counts for nothing is spurious.
I understand the point, you're saying that people who wanted Bush in CA may not have voted necause it was pretty clear whih way it was going, but the poles leading up to teh election and afterward mirrored the vote. Approval ratings taken just afterward also mirrored the vote. In other words, poles leading up to the election did not qualify for state of residence, they simply asked people who they would vote for. Given that, were we run simply by popular vote, there's no reason to believe the percentages would be different. The outcome in the first one, maybe, but the percentage of voters voting either way would probably be pretty much the same.

Aw, isn't that nice? We rebuild other peoples governments after invading them. I suppose you'd think I'm your favorite uncle if I performed a house invasion and then helped rebuild your family structure in my own image.

Maybe a murderer-rapist isn't so bad if, after raping a woman and killing her daughter, he impregnates his victim and helps raise the new kid.

I was refering chiefly to Japan and Germany.. but your own short sightedness can't see anything beyond your precious Iraq talking point.

The elections are over. Both of them. Bush cannot run again. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Whining about results won't change a thing. Bush's performance is another matter entirely, but I wish people would just accept that unless they have the balls to impeach him, it's worthless to complain. Besides, impeaching presidents creates a general feeling that presidents can't be trusted, which, true or not, is ruinous for the American mindset.

Now, HERE is something I can get behind!

When has the constitution ever stopped the government from violating state's rights?

Of course. It is still a fact, however, that Bush is not a president that ever enjoyed Clinton like approval ratings save for a brief period after 9/11. He barely won in both elections and is now a dead horse.

I hate Bush, but as was pointed out a larger percentage of people voted for Bush than for Clinton. You are claiming the popular vote matters and if you are going to do so, you cannot ignore this fact.

I understand the point, you're saying that people who wanted Bush in CA may not have voted necause it was pretty clear whih way it was going, but the poles leading up to teh election and afterward mirrored the vote. Approval ratings taken just afterward also mirrored the vote. In other words, poles leading up to the election did not qualify for state of residence, they simply asked people who they would vote for. Given that, were we run simply by popular vote, there's no reason to believe the percentages would be different. The outcome in the first one, maybe, but the percentage of voters voting either way would probably be pretty much the same.

The polls reflect voting trends not approval. They still don't evidence anything useful. Plus, polls are notoriously unreliable.

There is every reason to believe it would be different. They did not campaign for the popular vote. Presidential candidates essentially let their opponents have certain states and they fight in the battleground states. There is no way for you to pretend to know what would have happened if Bush and Gore had actually fought to get the most votes they could in every state. You assume that changing to a popular vote would just mean letting everyone vote, but the campaign would altogether change.

When has the constitution ever stopped the government from violating state's rights?

It doesn't. Mainly because that's not it's function. The constitution states that any powers not claimed by the federal government belong to the states.

Fed trumps state all the time. It can be argued the states have no rights, they only have that which the federal government hasn't claimed yet.

It doesn't. Mainly because that's not it's function. The constitution states that any powers not claimed by the federal government belong to the states.

Fed trumps state all the time. It can be argued the states have no rights, they only have that which the federal government hasn't claimed yet.

It says no such things. It says the powers not GIVEN to the federal government by the CONSTITUTION are reserved to the states or the people. This was designed specifically to prevent the federal government from claiming rights that rightfully belong to the states or the people.

Since when is 50.7% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004#Election_results) "over 51%"?

George H.W. Bush got over 51%. :rolleyes:

Do try to keep up.

George H.W. Bush got over 51%. :rolleyes:

Do try to keep up.

Perhaps you could quote a source besides your own memory for that?

edit: Oh, nevermind. We're talking about his FIRST election, aren't we? I apologize.

George H.W. Bush got over 51%. :rolleyes:

Do try to keep up.

Mea Culpa.

Perhaps you could quote a source besides your own memory for that?

53.4%, according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1988#Results).

53.4%, according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1988#Results).

Yeah, I realize my mistake now. I thought he was talking about his election versus Clinton. I apologize.

This is a letter to the LA Times about Al Gore. You people are so fond of talking about how Bush beat Gore and then Kerry. Just tthought I'd remind you.
Google is your friend!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339531/posts

Clifton Snider? Riiiight! :rolleyes:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339531/posts

Wow.

Google is your friend!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339531/posts

Clifton Snider? Riiiight! :rolleyes:
You're posting a Free Republic listing as a rebuttal to something? :rolleyes:

Google is your friend!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339531/posts

Clifton Snider? Riiiight! :rolleyes:

Haha, Free Republic. Why not disregard intelligent discussion altogether and I'll post a Daily Kos link as a rebuttal?

That's true. I hadn't looked at it that way. I also just happen to think Gore is smarter and more honest than Kerry.
He also doesn't look like a potato.

Remember who normally likes the Supreme Court to interfere in any and every matter in the US, including elections?

Like here in California, where the voters regularly overwhelmingly pass measures that the left/liberals don't like, then the liberal/left takes the measures to court to overturn the will of the people?

I say turnabout is fair play! Too bad.
Criticising the hypocrisy of others and then glorifying your own?

Yeah, but what Perot really proved is that third parties in the US are cults of personality. When Perot left, the Reform party died. It had its brief moment with Jesse Ventura, but even that is faded now, with the party in bankruptcy in most states.
All parties in the US seem to be cults of personality. In the 1990s the Democrats adored Clinton, now the Repulicans love Bush.

All parties in the US seem to be cults of personality. In the 1990s the Democrats adored Clinton, now the Repulicans love Bush.

The point was that the Republicrat party mechanism survives on after the previous dear leader has departed and next dear leader is in the ascendent.

All parties in the US seem to be cults of personality. In the 1990s the Democrats adored Clinton, now the Repulicans love Bush.Not quite the same--the Democratic party existed long before Clinton and survived after him. Same with the Republicans. But the reform party died when Perot left, and the same is true with other third parties. The Bull Moose party was Teddy Roosevelt. The Dixiecrats crumbled when Wallace was shot. The list goes on and on.

I hated that Bush won the election in 2000. But I've gotta echo the sentiments of the others: GET. OVER. IT. Sheesh. And choose a decent candidate next time.

It's like a schoolyard argument. The Republicans are saying, "Put up a decent candidate," then the Democrats reply, "You first."

Re "Searching for a pol with a pulse," Current, April 23

I am sick and tired of reading and hearing political commentators such as Joe Klein say that Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential election, as if more voters voted for George W. Bush than for Gore. Specifically, Klein writes that "Gore lost [the 2000 election] because he seemed phony, still and awkward." The reason — the only reason — Gore "lost" the 2000 election is the interference by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court in what the Constitution unambiguously says is a state matter: the selection of presidential electors. Whatever faults as a candidate Gore might have had, he did win the popular vote by a substantial margin, and revisionists like Klein who say he lost are disingenuous, to put it mildly.

CLIFTON SNIDER

Long Beach

I am not a Bush supporter, but the point is, it souldn't have even been close. It's like blowing a 35-point lead and then losing on a bad call on the last play. Should Gore have won? Sure. But you can focus on the .006% the Supreme Court lost for him or the other 99.994% he lost for himself. its up to you.

I was refering chiefly to Japan and Germany.. but your own short sightedness can't see anything beyond your precious Iraq talking point.

Yeah, I'm short sighted for not realizing you were so far off topic you're not even in the same century...

The analogy holds.

Still hung up on this?

Remember who normally likes the Supreme Court to interfere in any and every matter in the US, including elections?

Like here in California, where the voters regularly overwhelmingly pass measures that the left/liberals don't like, then the liberal/left takes the measures to court to overturn the will of the people?

I say turnabout is fair play! Too bad.:mp5:

Perhaps California's legislature should then stop forwarding unconstitutional measures, eh? :p

Nah. That'd be too easy.

It's not percentages.

It's votes.

Official:

Bush - 50,456,062
Gore - 50,996,582

That's Gore winning the popular vote by 540,520 votes. Hard numbers, not percentages.
# of votes are not 'hard' numbers. They are soft and squiishy. 500k votes is well within the vote rigging abilities of the illinois and wisconsin major metropolitan areas.