What do you do Nov 3rd?

DanaC · 10-16-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Gore got more individual votes, but Bush got more electoral votes, which is what is needed to win the presidential election in the US. The EC sucks, but I don't see it changing any time soon...and I wouldn't say that Gore was necessarily denied.

Perhaps had tens of thousands of American citizens ( primarily black) not been denied their vote due to "errors" in the accounting of people's right to vote ( innocent people whose names and demographics bore a resemblance to that of a convicted criminal for instance) or in the inexlicable blocks which were placed in the way of other ( again mainly black) American citizens and which had the effect of making voting a ( sometimes physically) difficult affair.....Perhaps then yes Bush could be said to have recieved more votes. But since the tens of thousands of people whose votes were denied were overwhelmingly likeely to vote Democrat....and since Bush only "won" by a handful of votes, much less than the votes which were unfairl;y discounted I still consider the election to have been stolen.

Dagney · 10-16-2004, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Perhaps had tens of thousands of American citizens ( primarily black) not been denied their vote due to "errors" in the accounting of people's right to vote ( innocent people whose names and demographics bore a resemblance to that of a convicted criminal for instance) or in the inexlicable blocks which were placed in the way of other ( again mainly black) American citizens and which had the effect of making voting a ( sometimes physically) difficult affair.....

I'd be interested in seeing 'neutral' proof of these allegations.....I can only seem to find this information coming from the mouths and fingers of Pro Kerry supporters....and from that, extrapolate that it's merely a tactic to deter Pro Bush voters.

As an aside, and a completely unrelated topic, I find it interesting that it's being said that the majority of voters leaning towards the Democratic side of the ticket this November are not voting that way because Kerry's there.....they phrase their choice "I'm voting 'against' Bush", not "I'm voting FOR Kerry".

Dagney

elSicomoro · 10-16-2004, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagney

I'd be interested in seeing 'neutral' proof of these allegations.....I can only seem to find this information coming from the mouths and fingers of Pro Kerry supporters....and from that, extrapolate that it's merely a tactic to deter Pro Bush voters.

From what I've seen, it's clear that the State of Florida really fucked up this year regarding the felon list. Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised if the fuck-ups Dana mentioned did occur. But I haven't seen anything other than conspiracy theory-type items regarding those issues.

Quote:

As an aside, and a completely unrelated topic, I find it interesting that it's being said that the majority of voters leaning towards the Democratic side of the ticket this November are not voting that way because Kerry's there.....they phrase their choice "I'm voting 'against' Bush", not "I'm voting FOR Kerry".

Not me...I'm voting for John Kerry because I think he'll be a better president than Bush, not just because I hate Bush.

SteveDallas · 10-16-2004, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagney

As an aside, and a completely unrelated topic, I find it interesting that it's being said that the majority of voters leaning towards the Democratic side of the ticket this November are not voting that way because Kerry's there.....they phrase their choice "I'm voting 'against' Bush", not "I'm voting FOR Kerry".

If it's true, so what? By definition (except in really unusual circumstances) the presidential challenger is always less well-known on the national level than the incumbent. How many Republicans were sitting home pining for George W. Bush to get into the White House in, say, December of 1999? Most voters probably hadn't really heard of any of the candidates... W probably had more name recognition than the rest just because of his dad. In 1992 people thought Bush Sr. had screwed up and they wanted him out. In 1980 they wanted Carter out. If George H. "voodoo economics" W. Bush had won the Republican nomination in 1980, would Republican partisans have sat home because their hero Reagan was not in the race? The most flaming liberal voters supported Dean and Kucinich (sorry, I probably spelled that wrong) in this primary cycle. Are they supposed to vote for Bush because Kerry won the nomination instead?

Republicans are famous for loyalty to their party. How come that's all of a sudden a bad thing when Democrats start doing it?

SteveDallas · 10-16-2004, 04:55 PM

Oh, I never answered the question.

I suspect I'll be having several stiff drinks no matter who wins.

And no matter who wins, if there is even the smallest hint of irregularity in any election results in any county, even if it isn't significant enough numerically to have changed the outcome of the race, then we're all a bunch of complete idiots if we don't immediately force every government official of every party to clean house with respect to voting procedures.

Dagney · 10-16-2004, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveDallas

Republicans are famous for loyalty to their party. How come that's all of a sudden a bad thing when Democrats start doing it?

I didn't say it was a bad thing...what I stated was that I found it interesting that some - not all - people will back a candidate, simply because he's the one their party chose, and don't explore the issues...they vote the party.

I have a somewhat checkered trend in my own voting history - because I vote for the issues, not the party. (Which is how I personally think it should be done...YMAYVMV)

xoxoxoBruce · 10-16-2004, 10:26 PM

Quote:

they phrase their choice "I'm voting 'against' Bush", not "I'm voting FOR Kerry".

So what?

elSicomoro · 10-16-2004, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So what

What is, "One of the greatest jazz songs ever," Alex.

warch · 10-17-2004, 12:41 AM

I think you can say you're voting against Bush and be informed of the issues. Kerry is the alternative to Bush and If one feels that Kerry is the lesser of two evils...that seems the most damning of Bush.

Bush is running against his record.

Oh, and I dont think this will be decided by Nov 3. I think it will take a while.

slang · 10-17-2004, 02:19 AM

Nov. 3?

What if the hammers of Hell come down on the insurgents in Iraq and we have a Kerry win? I'm not emotionally equipped to deal with all this.

I'm crawling into a hole with as much beer as I can get no matter how it goes.

10-17-2004, 02:19 AM	#10
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	Nov. 3? What if the hammers of Hell come down on the insurgents in Iraq and we have a Kerry win? I'm not emotionally equipped to deal with all this. I'm crawling into a hole with as much beer as I can get no matter how it goes. Last edited by slang; 10-17-2004 at 02:23 AM.

10-16-2004, 04:55 PM	#5
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	Oh, I never answered the question. I suspect I'll be having several stiff drinks no matter who wins. And no matter who wins, if there is even the smallest hint of irregularity in any election results in any county, even if it isn't significant enough numerically to have changed the outcome of the race, then we're all a bunch of complete idiots if we don't immediately force every government official of every party to clean house with respect to voting procedures.

10-17-2004, 12:41 AM	#9
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	I think you can say you're voting against Bush and be informed of the issues. Kerry is the alternative to Bush and If one feels that Kerry is the lesser of two evils...that seems the most damning of Bush. Bush is running against his record. Oh, and I dont think this will be decided by Nov 3. I think it will take a while.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)