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
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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!)
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
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
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.
I read zero of the posts to this thread.... the topic alone is laughable. oh, and.....
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
But more Americans voted for Al Gore than for George Bush.
all night long on the radio
Mohammad's Radio
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.
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
Originally posted by trumptman
My AP is better than your AP.
At least neither of us is using 'geocities'...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by BRussell
There are a whole lot of people really, really looking forward to voting against Bush.
Yup.
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