Why George W. Bush will be easily re-elected in 2004

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 105
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    Good point.



    Al Gore got more votes.



    That is, more Americans cast their vote for Al Gore than George Bush.



    To put it another way, the majority of the American electorate would have preferred Al Gore as President to George W. Bush.
  • Reply 62 of 105
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    In the last Presidential election, that is.



    The one that was hung on the Florida vote.



    (Florida is the state where Jeb Bush, the current President's brother, is the Governor. JEB BUSH FOR PRESIDENT 2012!)
  • Reply 63 of 105
    chweave1chweave1 Posts: 164member
    Quote:

    quote:Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    Anybody see the Daily Show's foreign policy 'debate' between Governor George W Bush and President George W Bush? They used footage of Bush from the last three years to show how he has gone 180 degrees on foreign policy, use of US troops and 'nation building.' He was even somewhat likable as Governor.



    Gosh I wonder what could cause a change like that? Maybe something catastrophic?





    I am glad someone pointed that out. When I saw that when it aired, all I could think about was what a complete asshole Jon Stewart is, and he really is folks. I absolutely hate him. His show sucks, and it irks me how so many stupid people actually take what he says as fact. And to think, ABC was actually thinking about having him replace Nightline when Letterman decided not to switch. I HATE Jon Stewart
  • Reply 64 of 105
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chweave1

    I am glad someone pointed that out. When I saw that when it aired, all I could think about was what a complete asshole Jon Stewart is, and he really is folks. I absolutely hate him. His show sucks, and it irks me how so many stupid people actually take what he says as fact. And to think, ABC was actually thinking about having him replace Nightline when Letterman decided not to switch. I HATE Jon Stewart



    actually i think his show is pretty funny... but then again i dont try to watch it every night
  • Reply 65 of 105
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chweave1

    I am glad someone pointed that out. When I saw that when it aired, all I could think about was what a complete asshole Jon Stewart is, and he really is folks. I absolutely hate him. His show sucks, and it irks me how so many stupid people actually take what he says as fact. And to think, ABC was actually thinking about having him replace Nightline when Letterman decided not to switch. I HATE Jon Stewart



    Somebody forgot to take their pillsy willsies today.
  • Reply 66 of 105
    chweave1chweave1 Posts: 164member
    Haha, yeah I know I am a little passionate, but I really can't stand him. His show sucks.
  • Reply 67 of 105




    I read zero of the posts to this thread.... the topic alone is laughable. oh, and.....



  • Reply 68 of 105
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Good point.



    Al Gore got more votes.



    That is, more Americans cast their vote for Al Gore than George Bush.



    To put it another way, the majority of the American electorate would have preferred Al Gore as President to George W. Bush.




    Hassan,



    I know this might be hard for you to consider because it would require objectivity.



    Did it ever occur to you that Bush might have campaigned harder in certain areas and gotten more votes from them if it were a popular vote campaign instead of an electoral college campaign?



    Certain states, like California and New York, have a huge number of electoral votes. They are also HUGELY expensive to campaign within. If you don't poll competitively from the get go, your money would likely be spent elsewhere trying to get the electoral votes you need.



    This can effect the popular vote as well. I'm sure Gore ran a minimal campaign in say... Texas which would be a pretty expensive campaign buy as well. The point is that they would have allocated their resources differently and used different strategies if it were just about the popular vote.



    Nick
  • Reply 69 of 105
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    You're quite right, of course.



    But more Americans voted for Al Gore than for George Bush.
  • Reply 70 of 105
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Don't it make you want to rock and roll

    all night long on the radio

    Mohammad's Radio
  • Reply 71 of 105
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Don't it make you want to rock and roll

    all night long on the radio

    Mohammad's Radio




    My AP is better than your AP.



    Unemployment



    Here is the most relevent quote.



    Quote:

    The jobless rate has hovered at or near 6 percent for more than a year. The last time it was higher was in July 1994, when the rate was 6.1 percent as the country was emerging from a previous recession.



    So the economy is reconfiguring and will emerge once it does. I see nothing odd about that.



    Nick
  • Reply 72 of 105
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    My AP is better than your AP.



    At least neither of us is using 'geocities'...
  • Reply 73 of 105
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,039member
    "Ah, but he didn't win the popular vote which is the only true reflection of what the voting public think. It's the only one where every american's vote counts. Which I think is the only point of an election. To find out what the majority want."



    Well, that's not true. Each vote DOESN'T count. The number is actually meaningless.



    But, if you want to have that argument: One of the biggest points of debate in FL was "voter intent". Let's talk about that.



    There are eyewitnesses that say they saw HUNDREDS of people get out of line at their polling places in predominantly Republican areas, because they heard Bush had lost FL. They gave up. Many estimates indicate that this cost Bush perhaps 10,000 votes in the panhandle ALONE. If that number is extrapolated, the media's early calling of states may have cost Bush 2,000,000 votes. Yes, you read it here: 2 million votes!



    The only person that got cheated was Bush. He won so many different times it isn't even funny.
  • Reply 74 of 105
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    "Ah, but he didn't win the popular vote which is the only true reflection of what the voting public think. It's the only one where every american's vote counts. Which I think is the only point of an election. To find out what the majority want."



    Well, that's not true. Each vote DOESN'T count. The number is actually meaningless.



    But, if you want to have that argument: One of the biggest points of debate in FL was "voter intent". Let's talk about that.



    There are eyewitnesses that say they saw HUNDREDS of people get out of line at their polling places in predominantly Republican areas, because they heard Bush had lost FL. They gave up. Many estimates indicate that this cost Bush perhaps 10,000 votes in the panhandle ALONE. If that number is extrapolated, the media's early calling of states may have cost Bush 2,000,000 votes. Yes, you read it here: 2 million votes!



    The only person that got cheated was Bush. He won so many different times it isn't even funny.




    The popular vote method does take into account more votes across the board than the electoral college. If you're talking about the voting debacle well it wasn't a fair race for both candidates. However the popular vote does tend to show what the majority wants. I even remember there was some talk after the election ( not by democrats or the media ) about voting reform and even doing away with the electoral college altogether as it is an out moded device for measuring what the people want.



    You do have a sort of alternate dimension way of looking at things. Gore won the popular vote by a significant amount. No spin doctoring by you will change that.



    As always still in check.
  • Reply 75 of 105
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Hassan,



    I know this might be hard for you to consider because it would require objectivity.



    Did it ever occur to you that Bush might have campaigned harder in certain areas and gotten more votes from them if it were a popular vote campaign instead of an electoral college campaign?



    Certain states, like California and New York, have a huge number of electoral votes. They are also HUGELY expensive to campaign within. If you don't poll competitively from the get go, your money would likely be spent elsewhere trying to get the electoral votes you need.



    This can effect the popular vote as well. I'm sure Gore ran a minimal campaign in say... Texas which would be a pretty expensive campaign buy as well. The point is that they would have allocated their resources differently and used different strategies if it were just about the popular vote.



    Nick




    Whats wrong with this is you tend to present this as fact. When in fact it's pure speculation on your part. Facts are facts. Gore won the popular vote in a campaign with two milktoast candidates that nobody wanted. However they wanted Gore more than Bush. Bush won only because of the electoral college which in some circles is considered an out moded method for voting measurement. If ether side had a truly popular candidate it would have been a landslide. Sorry but this one's history already.
  • Reply 76 of 105
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Whats wrong with this is you tend to present this as fact. When in fact it's pure speculation on your part. Facts are facts. Gore won the popular vote in a campaign with two milktoast candidates that nobody wanted. However they wanted Gore more than Bush. Bush won only because of the electoral college which in some circles is considered an out moded method for voting measurement. If ether side had a truly popular candidate it would have been a landslide. Sorry but this one's history already.



    I hate to break it to you but it isn't speculation when we do in fact have an electoral college and can look up how much they spent and campaigned in each state. I'm not guessing what they are going to do. I'm telling you what they did.



    The electoral college was designed to end exactly the problem we have had since 2000. It works most of the time. The problem is when someone wins by so minor a percentage how do the govern without continual bickering from the onset. The electoral college gives "mandates" to Presidents be they Republican or Democratic when they win by say 55%-45%.



    The alternative, which I would not endorse at all is the parlamentary(sp?) process used by many other countries. I don't like it because most of the time majorities have to be constantly maintained by holding together quasi-coalitions. These collapse and then bam, you have elections for a new prime minister.



    I prefer what we have. I prefer the president, be they Republican or Democratic to have the power to stand up for something, not just to be a small extension of whatever the majority happens to believe that week or month.



    Nick
  • Reply 77 of 105
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The electoral college was designed to end exactly the problem we have had since 2000. It works most of the time. The problem is when someone wins by so minor a percentage how do the govern without continual bickering from the onset. The electoral college gives "mandates" to Presidents be they Republican or Democratic when they win by say 55%-45%.



    So winning an election without winning the vote improves the winner's mandate?



    You guys can argue all you want about how the 2000 election was perfectly fine. But like it or not, the perception that Bush won the election in the judiciary, and the perception that Gore "should have won," both based on the popular vote and even the intent of the Florida voters, will automatically energize the Democratic base. There are a whole lot of people really, really looking forward to voting against Bush.
  • Reply 78 of 105
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    There are a whole lot of people really, really looking forward to voting against Bush.



    Yup.
  • Reply 79 of 105
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    So winning an election without winning the vote improves the winner's mandate?



    You guys can argue all you want about how the 2000 election was perfectly fine. But like it or not, the perception that Bush won the election in the judiciary, and the perception that Gore "should have won," both based on the popular vote and even the intent of the Florida voters, will automatically energize the Democratic base. There are a whole lot of people really, really looking forward to voting against Bush.




    Comprehension problem?



    The last sentence of what you quoted.



    The electoral college gives "mandates" to Presidents be they Republican or Democratic when they win by say 55%-45%.



    Did Bush get 55% of the vote? You check the elections where the candidate did and they were "landsliding" in the electoral college.



    All you electoral college detractors should be thankful. Again imagine Clinton trying to lead from a position of power when he only got 49% of the vote in 96, or 43% in 1992?



    The electoral college takes care of this. It is a good thing and not just when Bush was elected, but when Clinton was elected as well. It gives the president more power to get something done.



    Nick
  • Reply 80 of 105
    Cut out the personal swipes already!



    I swear everyone you talk to has a "comprehension problem"
Sign In or Register to comment.