Happy Voting!

[Ellester]

"They don't because they know they wouldn't get away with it, but if they are given the chance they will."

 

No evidence here at all.

 

 

"Add the closeness of the popular vote with the closeness of the EC votes and again I'm confused why people outside the US thought this was a blowout."

 

I would mainly say it's because the so called 'experts" in the US would say it was ahandily won popular vote for Bush. No one said it was a blow out. Don't put words in our posts. We said he won the PV in a no doubter. That's different than a blow out. A blow out would be like 60-40 percentage wise or greater.

 

Tsk, tsk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still, handedly is a pretty strong term. Those numbers are real close, 51% to 48% is about as close as you can get, disregarding last election which was basically even.

 

Oh btw, Ohio uses punch cards and electronic balloting. Not only are the states inconsistent in how you vote, it is also inconsistent within one

[Volourn]

"Still, handedly is a pretty strong term. Those numbers are real close, 51% to 48% is about as close as you can get, disregarding last election which was basically even."

 

true, on the surface they seem close. But, US recent history in regards to presidential elections; they really arent' that close. A 3-4 million spread is a pretty big difference in order to overcome espicially since Bush basically had the same lead throughout the day. There was no threat by kerry to overtake the PV like there was with the EC.

 

 

"Oh btw, Ohio uses punch cards and electronic balloting. Not only are the states inconsistent in how you vote, it is also inconsistent within one

[J.E. Sawyer]

these things indicate that maybe the divide wasn't as strong as kerry-edwards would have liked us to believe?  furthermore, if you think that ANY president has a chance to "unite" the left with the right you're sorely mistaken.  conservative principles are contrary to liberal principles period.

This suggests that Kerry is a liberal. He is more liberal than Bush, but he is a moderate, overall. Even Bush is moderate on a lot of issues, and really isn't that far right -- especially fiscally. That's why he lost some votes to Badnarik.

 

I voted Libertarian. I want the government to be decentralized. If anyone questions why, I'd like them to look at how the colors spread across the map -- not only on a national level, but on a state level.

[taks]

This suggests that Kerry is a liberal.  He is more liberal than Bush, but he is a moderate, overall.  Even Bush is moderate on a lot of issues, and really isn't that far right -- especially fiscally.  That's why he lost some votes to Badnarik.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

??? kerry is one of the most liberal senators based on his voting record. however, overall, bush is very moderate, i agree. my primary contention with bush is his fiscal policies, particularly the medicare drug bill...

 

either way, that wasn't my point. my point is that conservative principles (in theory) are contrary to liberal principles (in theory) and the two will never meet. there will always be those on the left and those on the right with a bulk "swinging" in the middle. that's not to say the middle won't shift one way or another thereby redefining what is right and what is left. i was just getting at the point that there will always be "sides"...

 

taks

[taks]

I voted Libertarian.  I want the government to be decentralized.  If anyone questions why, I'd like them to look at how the colors spread across the map -- not only on a national level, but on a state level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no kidding. gov't function is supposed to be primarily defending our rights... not controlling our lives.

 

taks

[deganawida]

these things indicate that maybe the divide wasn't as strong as kerry-edwards would have liked us to believe?  furthermore, if you think that ANY president has a chance to "unite" the left with the right you're sorely mistaken.  conservative principles are contrary to liberal principles period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This suggests that Kerry is a liberal. He is more liberal than Bush, but he is a moderate, overall. Even Bush is moderate on a lot of issues, and really isn't that far right -- especially fiscally. That's why he lost some votes to Badnarik.

 

I voted Libertarian. I want the government to be decentralized. If anyone questions why, I'd like them to look at how the colors spread across the map -- not only on a national level, but on a state level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah, Bush is closer to moderate on a lot of government program issues. Most people don't realize that in his first term he spent more money than the last two presidents combined, with the bulk of that coming in social programs. For all the bashing of his prescription drug plan, it is a massive addition to Medicare, and is something that pundits never believed a Republican would submit, much less sign into law. No Child Left Behind (stupid, stupid act) increased public education spending as well. I know that I am vastly disappointed with the level of spending of Bush's first term, and hope that his second term will show more restraint.

[taks]

he's got nothing to lose, now. as well, he's got a stronger presence in both the house and senate. the only good thing i could have seen coming from a kerry presidency would have been a spending stalemate due to republican control of the legislative branch. clinton had the same problem and we had a surplus...

 

taks

[J.E. Sawyer]

??? kerry is one of the most liberal senators based on his voting record.

He supports the War on Drugs and he is opposed to gay marriage (though he supports civil unions). These two things disqualify him from being a liberal in my personal opinion.

 

Being "one of the most liberal" doesn't matter much to me when most Dems and Reps in the Senate are pretty moderate. My shoe is heavier than my watch. In fact, it's the heaviest object on my person right now, but it's not heavy compared to, say, a car.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, Bush is closer to moderate on a lot of government program issues.  Most people don't realize that in his first term he spent more money than the last two presidents combined, with the bulk of that coming in social programs.  For all the bashing of his prescription drug plan, it is a massive addition to Medicare, and is something that pundits never believed a Republican would submit, much less sign into law.  No Child Left Behind (stupid, stupid act) increased public education spending as well.  I know that I am vastly disappointed with the level of spending of Bush's first term, and hope that his second term will show more restraint.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

\

 

Indeed.

 

I'm starting to think that we may see the two parties turn into mirror-images of their 50s selves.

 

There's no rational reason for the Democrats to be the party of income redistribution through the federal government. All that ends up doing is transferring money from the blue states to the red ones. The average New Yorker or Californian would be better off if federal taxes were zeroed out (or as close to that as practical.)

[kumquatq3]

"Still, handedly is a pretty strong term. Those numbers are real close, 51% to 48% is about as close as you can get, disregarding last election which was basically even."

 

true, on the surface they seem close. But, US recent history in regards to presidential elections; they really arent' that close. A 3-4 million spread is a pretty big difference in order to overcome espicially since Bush basically had the same lead throughout the day. There was no threat by kerry to overtake the PV like there was with the EC.

 

You can say Bush has the largest number of popular votes ever, and you would be right...BUT:

 

He has one of the lowest margins of victory ever for an incumbent. So you can say he won by x amount of votes and thats alot, but the percentage he won by is historically very very low. Not to meantion that too argue that a win by 3 million votes is amazing in the history of the US is to forget the large population growth through out the years. Hence why the margin of victory is the true indicator, in terms of history, and that is pretty low for Bush.

 

He also has the most votes against him for a winning incumbent, if you want to continue to beat that drum, but it's essentially meaningless

 

EDIT: I'm clearly biased, but I find it morbidly funny that Kerry (compared to Bush) cleaned up on votes from people with a college education or better. The president actaully lost that vote a great deal compared to his first campagin. Kinda says something about America.

[taks]

He supports the War on Drugs and he is opposed to gay marriage (though he supports civil unions).  These two things disqualify him from being a liberal in my personal opinion.

but both of those pale in comparison to other issues that set his "liberal" standard. particularly taxes, defense and social programs. granted, bush blew it on the social programs thing, too... hence my gripe there.

 

he's against gay marriage only because he knows it's political suicide to favor it. i suppose in some sense, he's so poll driven that he's liberal only because that's what he thinks it takes to get elected (in mass., it is).

 

Being "one of the most liberal" doesn't matter much to me when most Dems and Reps in the Senate are pretty moderate.  My shoe is heavier than my watch.  In fact, it's the heaviest object on my person right now, but it's not heavy compared to, say, a car.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

all US politicians are moderate to conservative compared to european standards, i agree. that's why i set the standard as the US "swing" vote in the middle... kerry is far to the left of them whereas bush is only a hair to the right. being moderate, btw, didn't really help bush, IMO. a lot of the swing vote went for kerry in spite of his liberal tendencies simply because they don't like bush, i.e. they were voting for "not bush" instead of kerry.

 

taks

[taks]

He has one of the lowest margins of victory ever for an incumbent.

statistically speaking, the larger a population becomes, the harder it is to win by any margin. we've gotten so big that a two party system rules and everybody picks one side or the other... even america's "once and future king" JFK only won by 115,000 votes, btw, and there were about 70,000,000 votes cast in that one.

 

EDIT: I'm clearly biased, but I find it morbidly funny that Kerry (compared to Bush) cleaned up on votes from people with a college education or better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i'd like to see your evidence of that... nowhere is your level of education listed on a ballot so i'd be willing to bet this is another number from those "accurate" pollsters from early yesterday.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

present in any society, btw.  it's actually better in a capitalist society than any other, however.  as it stands, one in 20 americans (or better) are millionaires.  not a bad thing since it's one in 200 in europe.

 

What i'm more concern with is the rich/poor ratio. Hopefully it won't be 150 millionares and 150 million poor in the future. That's not a foundation of stable society IMO.

 

 

the US is paying for the contracts that are forced on drug companies overseas.  the way it works is "charge a few pennies over cost or we'll violate your patents and make the drugs ourselves."  not very free trade spirited, is it?  anyway, it's hardly the US gov't's fault if the world thinks such policies are OK (when we do things like that it's baaaaad).

 

This wasn't the issue, it's more of the avarage american availability to healthcare that doesn't make him/her broke from being sick

 

as if there's a problem?  we're one of the most religious nations on earth and also one of the most religiously diverse.  get over it.

 

I'm concerned with voters voting for a candidate based on religious morals than more important key-issues.

 

government run education is typically a disaster.  nothing new there.  the more money we throw at it, the worse it gets.  maybe money isn't the answer?  (hint: it isn't).

 

Almost agreed, sometimes money is the key when it comes to give students up-todate books, proper renovation and building a better enviroment studying. Of course, there should be good teachers that inspire students to learn, and the ability of critical thinking, which doesn't always come from the sheer amount of money.

 

uh, safest country in the world to work in... OSHA anyone?

 

Hopefully it will work, but i haven't seen any figures that indicate that the amount of fringe benefits for the regular worker have risen, not to mention that people have to have 2-3 jobs in order to support their family.

 

 

kwinkidentally not nearly as bleak as environmentalists would lead us to believe... rhetoric rules this hot topic.

 

Well, that's just a matter of opinion on how much conservation of the enviroment that you want to do. I would like to do more, just be in the safer seat.

 

are you worried he'll continue to ignore the whining from those that want the US weakened overall?

 

Showing the world the middle finger isn't a solution either. Most things are grey, and need much compromising between nations in order to solve problems. It's not exactly that you want to go similar diplomatic climate that existed in the pre-WWII

era.

 

 

given that he's received over 50% of the popular vote, hardly a problem.  remember, part of the reason we're divided because he didn't receive it last time.  5 point lead is significant and 50% hasn't been acheived in a looooong time (not even clinton).  these things indicate that maybe the divide wasn't as strong as kerry-edwards would have liked us to believe?  furthermore, if you think that ANY president has a chance to "unite" the left with the right you're sorely mistaken.  conservative principles are contrary to liberal principles period

 

taks

 

What happened to compassionate conservative image? With that attitude, it's the angry mob that pulls all the strings on the expense of the other. That's not strength, that's a weakness.

[Commissar]

i'd like to see your evidence of that... nowhere is your level of education listed on a ballot so i'd be willing to bet this is another number from those "accurate" pollsters from early yesterday.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think Karl Rove saying it is pretty good evidence. Check out the Yahoo! news story on Democratic soul-searching.

 

Also, it's a generally known fact that higher education has a liberalizing effect on a person's views. Republicans would argue that being around degenerate, weed-smoking college professors is the cause. I'd argue that the more you learn about the world, the more you realize that maybe God doesn't pick presidents.

[kumquatq3]

statistically speaking, the large a population becomes, the harder it is to win by any margin. we've gotten so big that a two party system rules and everybody picks one side or the other

 

That may be true, but the fact remains that his margin is low, no matter how you spin it. Even compared to recent years. Clinton won by a 9% margin in his second term and was right under 50% of the popular vote with a stong (as they go) 3rd party candidate taking votes (which didn't give him the large margin, the votes that went to perot would have been almost evenly split between the two on all legit accounts. it just kept him under 50%). Reagan also won by a very large margin, iirc. So recent history has shown incumbents that win, win by alot. If you tack on that this is a "war" time president, the margin of victory really reflects that it was a realitivly slim win.

 

 

i'd like to see your evidence of that... nowhere is your level of education listed on a ballot so i'd be willing to bet this is another number from those "accurate" pollsters from early yesterday.

 

It is based off those exit polls, yes. They wern't wrong in the counties they were taken in, btw, the data IS good.

 

Those "swing" counties, were most of the polls were taken, pointed to a Kerry victory....and Kerry won most of them (actually, I think he won all of them, but I don't have that off hand.). The problem was that those polls were applied to the state as a whole. What happened is that Bush had supporters come out in larger than expected numbers in counties that he was expected to win.

 

In other states the exit polls were dead on

 

What Karl Rove said in regards to this:

 

Bush's political strategist Karl Rove characterized the typical Democrat as "somebody with a doctorate"

 

And it's no secret that in semi-recent history Demos tend to be better educated as a whole. You can argue why that it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is.

[Weiser_Cain]

Here's a delema. I no longer feel that anything the country does will reflect my desires. The republicans have run roughshod over the democrats but I'm still a democrat.

I now hate the other side. Say what you will about the war on terror but there was never a chance that terrorist could actually destroy the country, but this split could if it continues.

What happens next?

[kumquatq3]

I think Bush can and will do things that we wil hate and that will further divide the country.

 

but I don't think we'll be seeing race wars in the streets

[Weiser_Cain]

I didn't say race wars. It isnt even a racial issue. I shouldn't want succeed from the union because the other guy won.

[Vincent_Valashar]

At least Kerry conceded cleanly and didn't give us another 2000 election. That makes him a better man than Bush who had to use the courts to get his way last time.

[Commissar]

What really chaps my ass is that religion won this election. Somehow, people managed to overlook the fact that while Kerry was in Vietnam, Bush was running for the hills in Texas, and yet still conclude that Bush was the tough guy, the moral, value-centric guy. Same thing happened in the 2000 Republican primaries, where a guy like John McCain, who spent the better part of a decade in a Vietnam POW camp and has been one of the few decent politicians in recent memory gets painted as the height of evil by Bush, who was drunk until he was forty and then decided to get into politics because he had screwed up everything else. How does he do it? Religion. He's born-again, and so the God-fearin' peoples of the country go, "That guy's my guy."

 

I could turn this into a diatribe on the utter arrogance and short-sightedness of religion in general, but instead I'll simply say that I'm surprised we've let religion this far into the political arena. I'm all for people voting their values, and if they're influenced by religion, well and good; but having priests and pastors out there saying things like, "Who would Jesus vote for?" and "Remember, God has spoken through a bush before" is crossing a line, in my opinion. But it's what got Bush there yesterday.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I would also like to add that I am dismayed at the new $3,000,000 debt California will incur by passing Prop. 71.

[taks]

What i'm more concern with is the rich/poor ratio. Hopefully it won't be 150 millionares and 150 million poor in the future. That's not a foundation of stable society IMO.

you're making a slippery slope argument, i.e. not based on any real facts. furthermore, welfare is precisely the mechanism that keeps poor people poor.

 

This wasn't the issue, it's more of the avarage american availability to healthcare that doesn't make him/her broke from being sick

yes, it is the issue. this is the very reason some average americans don't have insurance. if we didn't have these predatory practices in place by foreign governments, things would be cheap enough to afford.

 

I'm concerned with voters voting for a candidate based on religious morals than more important key-issues.

given that 95% of the population believes in a higher power, why is this an issue? religion is probably the number one driving force in the world, to think that people wouldn't vote based on that is naive at best.

 

Almost agreed, sometimes money is the key when it comes to give students up-todate books, proper renovation and building a better enviroment studying. Of course, there should be good teachers that inspire students to learn, and the ability of critical thinking, which doesn't always come from the sheer amount of money.

there's plenty of money already. unfortunately, as with all government run social programs, they are so horribly inefficient they can't function properly. why is it that private schools on average cost less per student than public yet consistently perform better in testing?

 

also, government regulations do not inspire teachers, good or bad. they instead create an environment where passing the standardized test is all that matters. critical thinking is traded in for passing the next test. furthermore, self centered organizations such as the NEA put teacher equality at a higher level than performance. any unionized organization is only as good as its lowest common denominator, or worst teacher as it is. everybody is paid the same, so why try?

 

uh, safest country in the world to work in... OSHA anyone?

 

Hopefully it will work, but i haven't seen any figures that indicate that the amount of fringe benefits for the regular worker have risen, not to mention that people have to have 2-3 jobs in order to support their family.

uh, what's this got to do with being a safe place to work? i think you misplaced this reply... btw, people don't need 2-3 jobs to support their families, they need 2-3 jobs to support their families and maintain a higher standard of living than they can otherwise afford. big difference.

 

Well, that's just a matter of opinion on how much conservation of the enviroment that you want to do. I would like to do more, just be in the safer seat.

perhaps, but that still doesn't mean the bush administration ignores the environment. the environmentalists would have us believe the BA is kowtowing to big oil and other industry pressure, when in fact, most of the harsh regulations environmentalists would impose would crush our economy. change is good, and preserving the environment is as well. however, if such changes hurt us economically, we become less efficient and, in the end, do more damage to the environment in the long run.

 

Showing the world the middle finger isn't a solution either. Most things are grey, and need much compromising between nations in order to solve problems. It's not exactly that you want to go similar diplomatic climate that existed in the pre-WWII era.

we're not showing the world the middle finger. we're defending our interests. the other nations were compromised by their ties to middle east oil. how are they qualified to judge our actions? compromise is fine, but it needs to be reasonable.

 

also, there's an obvious agenda there (weakening our position) that can't be overlooked. it's not the US' fault that we're more efficient, produce more and enjoy a higher standard of living than most. if the rest of the world wants the same things, than maybe they ought to pay attention to how we got here...

 

 

What happened to compassionate conservative image? With that attitude, it's the angry mob that pulls all the strings on the expense of the other. That's not strength, that's a weakness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not sure how this is relevant, but all i said is that there isn't nearly as much of a "divide" as kerry-edwards would have you believe. liberal and conservative labels are just that: labels indicating which side of a fence you're standing on. the fence moves around, too. the divide was proposed as a way to wedge away swing votes and make them feel like they had to "choose a side"... mostly a political ploy. most americans are quite moderate (conservative to europe) and will always be that way. the only real split is iraq and that's fueled mostly by the media...

 

btw, the "angry mob" scenario you speak of is the reason we are not a democracy, but a republic. furthermore, you may scoff at the republicans "pulling your strings" but what exactly happens when a democrat raises my taxes? basically, the "angry mob" is telling me that my personal property must be used to help others, whether i like it or not. it goes both ways kumquat...

 

taks

[Commissar]

I would also like to add that I am dismayed at the new $3,000,000 debt California will incur by passing Prop. 71.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Could find a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer or something along those lines. Might end up being a bargain. Scientific enterprise shouldn't be thrown out because it costs.

[Vincent_Valashar]

Scientific progress shouldn't be halted for any reasons, may it be costs, religious doctrine, or political gain.

[kumquatq3]

Remember how Bush said he wants to cut the debt in half by 2009?

 

Well, Bush just called for the debt ceiling to be raised. Funny how he meantioned that just after the election.

 

It has begun....