Republicans demand Washington state....

[NoCalMike 0]

So I guess they finally completed a hand recount of the ballots and the Democrat won. So instead of conceding, the Republicans are now demanding that the state get to re-vote. I don't even know why they are asking for this besides the fact that they lost. Funny how I doubt any of them would have supported Flordia revote in 2000 even though there was plenty of fraud going on, along with Ohio in 2004 with probably even more cases of fraud brought up.

[Guest Brian]

I think we should just fuck over both the candidates and go with the Lt. Governor. Piss on both Rossi and Gregoire.

 

And if they do have a run-off, they better pick up the tab because I'm not going to be paying for it. It'll give me another reason to write the authorities a letter about why I'm not paying taxes.

[2GOLD 0]

They lost, they should move on and let these elections finally die.

This sore loser stuff going on in both parties is getting out of hand.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Pretty much to be expected. They're probably arguing that all the votes in that heavily democratic county -- which were thrown out during the election but then counted in the hand recount -- are invalid. Nothing's gonna come out of it, so whatever. It's about as futile as Democrats arguing about Ohio.

[Highland 0]

I've a question: If a recounted right now somehow resulted in more EC votes for Kerry than for Bush, would Bush have to resign and Kerry be sworn in?

[Guest sek69]

The results are made offical when Congress approves the count, which they will do tomorrow (1/6). If something would have changed the results it would have just meant Kerry would take office Jan. 20 instead of Bush.

[Guest Smues]

This governers race has been annoying. I voted for Dino, but he should just conceed. However, Gregoire can fuck herself. After Rossi is ahead in the 1st two counts she calls it a tie, now she has the lead it's "over and we need to move on." I also loved the ballot for "Christine Rossi" getting counted for Gregoire and not just marked "retard" and thrown away.

[Special K 0]

Both sides are sleazy in this. A conservative-run Florida elections board wouldn't allow a revote, and a liberal-run WA elections board won't allow a revote. I don't want either one to be my Governor.

[NoCalMike 0]

The results are made offical when Congress approves the count, which they will do tomorrow (1/6). If something would have changed the results it would have just meant Kerry would take office Jan. 20 instead of Bush.

Supposedly, there are a few Senators that will sign the challenges this time around though, which would in essence force the the government to vote for Bush which would happen since they have the majority in the house, but think about it, that would make it TWO TERMS for Bush where the people did not vote him in and the government did.

 

I guess the reason last time Gore urged the Senators not to sign was because Gore knew if that happened he would be the Senator to break the tie and he didn't want to be put in the situation to vote himself into office, whereas this time Kerry is not in that position, and isn't even showing up as he sent out emails urging people to fight the fight, even though he won't even be there, lol.

 

Quite frankly ever Democratic senator should sign their name to the challenge papers if they truly believe in their hearts that there was voter fraud going on, not only in Ohio but Nationally, and not even just necessarily hurting Kerry, but for either side. I mean think about it, you had people working their ass off to get Kerry elected, and with all the widespread accounts of voter fraud, the least you can do is something as simple as sign a goddamn piece of paper to show your support and appreciation and show all these people that it IS WORTH voting.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Please NoCal, can we save it on all the voter fraud?

 

The Repubs in the Gov race in Washington are stupid, I can't condone their actions just as much as I can't condone the actions of the vote protestors saying Bush stole another election.

 

It's politics at its worst. Need I remind you that many people busted their ass for Bush to get him re-elected, and continuously challenging a dead issue you're slapping them in the face.

 

Such justification is politics at its worst.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It's funny how someone who doesn't live in Ohio is complaining about the fraud that supposedly happened here while there's being nothing mentioned about it here. The Democrats are whining but you'd expect that. The last recount saw a 300 vote difference. That's nowhere near massive voter fraud.

 

Get over it, you aren't going to make up 100,000+ deficit. Though I find it funny you think Republicans should move on in Washington but Democrats are more than justified doing the same thing nationally.

[Dr. Tom 0]

... which would in essence force the the government to vote for Bush which would happen since they have the majority in the house, but think about it, that would make it TWO TERMS for Bush where the people did not vote him in and the government did.

Bush received over 50% of the popular vote in the 2004 election. I think "the people" voted for him.

 

Now, I'm not one to name names, but a past president with the initials of William Jefferson Clinton did not receive 50% of the popular vote either time, but was (and remains) very popular. Don't be bitter that Bush did what your golden boy could not.

 

whereas this time Kerry... isn't even showing up

Why am I not suprised?

[Guest Loss]

You say that, but I feel confident in saying that if 1996 Bill Clinton was running against 2004 George W. Bush, Clinton would have won the election. Bush didn't have to deal with a viable third party; Perot had a lot of support.

 

Besides, Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 64%. Has Bush's ever been that high?

[Dr. Tom 0]

You say that, but I feel confident in saying that if 1996 Bill Clinton was running against 2004 George W. Bush, Clinton would have won the election.

I agree. In fact, I doubt it would have been very close.

 

Bush didn't have to deal with a viable third party; Perot had a lot of support.

Perot torpedoed Bush Sr. in 1992; his impact on the 1996 election was a lot smaller.

 

Besides, Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 64%. Has Bush's ever been that high?

Yes.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Now, I'm not one to name names, but a past president with the initials of William Jefferson Clinton did not receive 50% of the popular vote either time, but was (and remains) very popular

 

That is such a disingenuous argument.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Did Clinton receive 50% of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996?

 

Was Clinton a popular president?

 

Is Clinton still a popular public figure?

 

My post wasn't a shot at Clinton, but more to point out that "the people" didn't elect him with a majority of the popular vote either time, and it didn't seem to hold him back too much.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Perot was much stronger of a third party candidate than Nader ever was, and if Bush II had been running in 1996, he wouldn't have gotten 50% in a win, either. That 50% argument as a testement to Bush's strength is disingenouous, because quite frankly, there was no third party in 2004. 50% isn't a sign of a strength, it's a sign of a weak third party atmosphere.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Perot wasn't all that strong in 1996, though. He shot his load in 1992 and had lost a lot of his relevancy four years later.

 

BTW, shouldn't your bet with kkk have ended by now? Or do you still <3 you some Rove?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Probably, but I'm not sure what to change my name to.

 

And he was still stronger in 1996 than Nader was in 2004. Nader had NO effect on the election; the sum of all third part candidates -- and all of them of note were drawing from Kerry's base -- was 1% of the vote. That's NOTHING. Perot, I believe, still took 6% (don't quote me on that)

[Dr. Tom 0]

1996 election results:

 

Candidate--Party--EV--Popular votes

 

William J. Clinton --- Democratic ----379---47,402,357

Robert J. Dole ------- Republican ----159---39,198,755

H. Ross Perot ------Reform Party ----0------8,085,402

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

 

Perot actually had 8.5% of the vote, more than I thought he had.

 

I still think he hurt Dole a *lot* more than Clinton, since he was basically a Republican running under a different party's banner. And he ruined any chance Bush Sr. had of getting re-elected in 1992.

 

EDIT: The FEC puts Clinton's total at 47,401,185, Dole's at 39,197,469, and Perot's at 8,085,294. The percentages change very little.

http://www.fec.gov/96fed/geresult.htm

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The last recount saw a 300 vote difference.

The recount was rife with problems.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You're right, of course, that Perot would typically take more away from Dole than from Clinton. However, he had an uncanny ability to frame himself as an "outsider", which drew a lot of the center. Either way, he had a large effect on the outcome.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Probably, but I'm not sure what to change my name to.

Change it back to Tyler McClelland.

[NoCalMike 0]

First of all why are we even arguing about the popular vote in 2004 compared to 1996, considering the political climate was very different this time around. I would venture to say in 1996 a lot less people overall voted, yet when asked to take a poll Clinton was easily never below a 70% job approval rating.

 

And no I will not stop on the the "voter fraud" thing since one of our very basic rights as citizens and as a "democratic" country is the right to a safe and fair vote.

[NoCalMike 0]

Oh and the Ohio recount was only a recount of 3% of the ballots in which it included a cheat sheet on how to make it come out the same as the electronic voting machine tally, and big suprise here, it STILL came out different.

[NoCalMike 0]

Perot was much stronger of a third party candidate than Nader ever was.

Well that will happen when you have billions to fund your own campaign.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Touche, salesman.

[Styles 0]

You say that, but I feel confident in saying that if 1996 Bill Clinton was running against 2004 George W. Bush, Clinton would have won the election. Bush didn't have to deal with a viable third party; Perot had a lot of support.

 

Besides, Clinton's approval rating when he left office was 64%. Has Bush's ever been that high?

Lest you forget, Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed above 90% in the weeks following 9/11 and stayed I believe around 70% before the Iraq war. Was it that long ago?

[Styles 0]

whereas this time Kerry... isn't even showing up

Why am I not suprised?

Rush was speculating today that Kerry wants to disassociate himself from this whole fiasco because he seriously wants to run again in '08. Yeah, like that will put butts in the voters booth. I guess Gore went through the same thing before coming to his senses (sort of).

[NoCalMike 0]

whereas this time Kerry... isn't even showing up

Why am I not suprised?

Rush was speculating today that Kerry wants to disassociate himself from this whole fiasco because he seriously wants to run again in '08. Yeah, like that will put butts in the voters booth. I guess Gore went through the same thing before coming to his senses (sort of).

"Rush was speculating" was about as far as I got.