Bush Wins!

[Jedieb]

Here's the contest. You'll get to submit 3 different predictions:

1) Number of states each candidate wins. Total = 51 (50 States + D.C.)

2) Popular Vote Percentages for each candidate. (EDIT: To the nearest tenth, and you should include Nader.)

3) Electoral Vote Totals

Unfortunately, Yog is disqualified because of his well known 'Satan Stat Pact'. Elections can be evil enough, there's no reason to openly court Mephistopheles.

2 and 3 require you to choose a winner. A candidate can easily win the electoral vote with less than 25 states so even if you're a Kerry supporter it would be foolish to give Kerry more states than Bush. But' it's for fun so take it as seriously as you want. Here are some sites that can help you get started if you want to do some work on this. I've done lessons on this with my students so I've got everything from spreadsheets to web sites on hand.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/ev/
(Great site that sets you up with the results of the 2000 election.)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
(One of the best electoral sites around.)

http://www.zogby.com/news/index.cfm
(Great site for the Popular Vote portion of the contest.)

Let the fun begin!

P.S. All foreigners and traitors welcome! :crack

[Master Yoghurt]

:evil

[Marcus Telcontar]

Foreign terrist No 1 reporting in :D

Popular vote goes to Kerry, 49%, to Bush 47%, Nader 2%, 2% others.

Electoral College.... hmmm. I'll think on that

[CMJ]

States won
Bush 28
Kerry 23

Popular Vote
Kerry 48.7
Bush 48.5
Nader 1.3
ALL OTHERS 1.5

Electoral Vote Totals
Kerry 271
Bush 267

[Jedieb]

States
Bush 28
Kerry 23

Popular Vote
Bush 48.2
Kerry 49.6
Nader 1.4
Others 0.8

Electoral College
Bush 232
Kerry 306

[Jedieb]

A sweep of the Big 3 is how I got such a large number; Ohio, Penn., and Florida.

Turnout
This could not only determine the election, but it could determine whether or not we get a surprise result in the electoral college. If we get a huge turnout, I'm talking about numbers closer to 130M than 120M, then we could see a big electoral victory for Kerry. Bush needs turnout under 120M. The higher it passes that mark, the worse off for the President. Especially if the young voters turnout in significantly larger numbers then they have in the past. And if pollsters have missed cell phone users in significant amounts, then we could end up being stunned tomorrow. 4 years ago most of the pollsters simply got it wrong. It was startling to see only 2 of 15 major polls get the winner of the popular vote right. Most of the polls were off by 2-4 points on both candidates. They overestimated Nader's impact by 1-3 points as well. They may even be more off this time around.

[Figrin D'an]

States
Bush - 31
Kerry - 20

Popular Vote
Kerry - 48.8
Bush - 48.4
Nader - 1.2
Others - 1.6

Electoral College
Kerry - 272
Bush - 266

As with 4 years ago, it'll come down to Florida, which goes Democratic this time around.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am probably nuts but I just have this vibe

States
Kerry 25
Bush 26

Popular Vote
Kerry 48.7
Bush 47.2
Nader 1.2
Others 1.3

Electoral College
Kerry 320
Bush 218

This is somewhat wishful thinking. Like Jedieb I think Kerry will win the big three of Penn, Ohio, Florida. I think he will take New Hamshire and also will get New Mexico and in a surprise Colorado because of the large hispanic vote in both states.

[Dutchy]

So everyone here thinks Kerry will win? Surprising...

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well me and Jedieb are biased so we don't count :p Seriously, I don't think it means anything. I am hopeful but at this point who knows.

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Dutchy
So everyone here thinks Kerry will win? Surprising...

Stat predictions like these are guessing games, and I'm pretty sure some people who think Bush might win just aren't participating because they're not interested in the game.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am surprised they aren't really. Maybe they don't have the time to do it or something. Also CMJ and Fig aren't what I call big Kerry supporters they are moderates not that means anything. Only me and Jedieb are the biased ones here.

[Pierce Tondry]

I'm not suggesting political leaning has much to do with willingness to participate, just that there's a lack of interest in guessing about it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I figure it's lack of time. If Jedieb posted this last week you might see more people posting on it. Doesn't really matter either way.

[jjwr]

I'm not participating due to lack of time, if that says anything :)

[CMJ]

I just like making predictions. :p The Redskins game told me who to pick. ;)

[Jedieb]

Or you could look at this through Kerry tinted glasses and say that the lack of entusiasm from Bush posters to not participate is a sign that Bush can't even get people excited to predict his victory. ;)

2 early bad signs for Bush, 1) record turnouts are being reported across the country. 2) In my home state of Virginia the exit polls have the race too close to call. (South Carolina as well.) This is a surprise. This was suppose to be Bush country. Now, I expect Bush to still eke out a win here in Va., but the fact that it's this close is a bad sign for Bush. It also makes me proud that I helped contribute to him sweating this state out by driving voters out to the polls this morning. EAT THAT DUBYA! :shootin

[Jedieb]

oh, and Zogby called the race for Kerry. HA HA! :)

[Ryan Pode]

The minorities up here in NOVA went out to vote.

[Master Yoghurt]

Go Kerry, goooo! :rollin

[Lilaena De'Ville]

To be honest, I didn't participate in this because I didn't have the time to sit down and figure out electoral votes, or percentages. I would have predicted Bush wins, possibly without the popular vote, but certainly the electoral vote.

[Jedieb]

Man, do I hate exit polls. :x

Things are looking good for Bush in Ohio and Florida. Likewise, Kerry looks like he's going to take Penn. No states have switched sides from 2000 yet. If things hold in Florida and Ohio then it's probably over.

[darth_mcbain]

I'm watching some of this and so far all of the states have voted the same way that they did 4 years ago... That kind of ticks me off - it seems like states are so polarized in that they always vote one way that it makes the whole system seem useless. Why bother with all the campaigning and such if you know a certain state will vote one way of the other???

It makes one wonder if the electoral system is all its cracked up to be or if we should go with populate vote...

[Cyrel Annat]

Well, when you consider that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the popular vote, how is that representative of the people's opinion? Personally, I think the electoral college is a crock. They count the popular votes anyway, so why not just use that?

[Jedieb]

Bush may yet still win the Popular Vote. Penn. has just been called for Kerry. A number of states are going to come in now. My read so far, Bush is more than likely going to win. I think he's going to take Ohio and Florida. The only Bush state I see Kerry picking up is NH and that's not nearly going to be enough because of the census pushing up Bush's 2000 total up to 278. Unless there's some kind of miracle in Ohio, I think it's over. The youth vote pretty much mirrored that of 2000. Young people once again let an election just pass them by. I've voted in every Presidential election since I was 18. I just don't get it. Ughh. I'm going to bed.

[Figrin D'an]

Bush is likely going to win Florida, but Ohio is still up in the air, because much of the vote yet to come in is from significantly Democratic areas. If Kerry were to win Ohio and Bush take Florida, it would then come down to Wisconsin and Minnesota.

[jjwr]

I don't get it, a huge turn-out yet all the results are the same? Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but it doesn't seem to make much sense.

[Figrin D'an]

CNN has the total 246-188 in favor of Bush.
NBC has 246-206 for Bush.
FoxNews has 246-206 for Bush.


Basically, if Bush wins Ohio, it's all but over, since he would then need only two more states, which he would probably get with Nevada and New Mexico. Kerry would need to essentially sweep everything that's left if Bush wins Ohio. If Kerry wins Ohio, it could be very, very tight, and Wisconsin and Minnesota become the key players.

[CMJ]

Things look kinda promising for Bush right now, but I don't think it's over just yet. As unlikely as it may seem for Kerry to run the table(if he loses Ohio) all those states are about dead even. It's not likely, but Kerry could win without Ohio OR Florida

[Charley]

Looks like Bush is gonna sneak away with the upset victory here. I certainly didn't expect that.

[Figrin D'an]

Bush actually as a slight lead in Iowa now, too, which is just amazing.

[Pierce Tondry]

For those of you not already aware, NBC and Fox are calling Ohio for Bush. With Alaska going Republican (no surprise) Bush is weighing in at 269 IF and only IF those calls for Ohio are correct. Add in New Mexico, which likely will go Bush based on all current predictions, and Bush is re-elected.

Regardless of that outlook, though, all eyes are still on Ohio. I don't think that will change until 99% of the vote is in.

[CMJ]

I'm sort of shocked. I thought Kerry was gonna squeak out a victory. Congrats go to Rove and co' for winning with a hand that seemed stacked against them.

[Ryan Pode]

If Kerry gets a 140 thousand more provisional votes than Bush in Ohio, he can win. But I won't get my hopes up.

[jjwr]

So from the looks of the popular vote its looking like 110 Million voters...what happened to the record turn-out?

A few words come to mind to sum up my feelings...dissapointed...embarassed...afraid...di sgusted...ignorant

For now I won't say which feelings go where but most should be pretty obvcious :)

That being said Obama looks like the real deal, is it too late to fast track the guy to the presidency?

[Master Yoghurt]

Despite all the energy to elect a new president and knowing the trackrecord for the last 4 years, Bush takes the victory again. Amazing. I wonder if there will be more wars and what will happen to the economy as the budget deficits just continue to grow. What happened to that record high voter turnout so much talked about?

Although, Im no fan of the electoral system (I believe in parliamentarism with <a href=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm>proportional representation</a>), its hard to deny the difference in the popular vote. America pretty much chose who they wanted.. and the world can pretty much just stand on the sideline helplessly watch it happen (no one cares what we think) :x

[Dae Jinn]

Originally posted by jjwr
A few words come to mind to sum up my feelings...dissapointed...embarassed...afraid...di sgusted...ignorant


Glad I'm Canadian? ;)

I can't believe Bush got into office again. I thought for sure Kerry would take it. I don't think I'll ever understand the american political machine. :x

[Pierce Tondry]

So from the looks of the popular vote its looking like 110 Million voters...what happened to the record turn-out?

Problem is, in the back of your mind you're associating "record turnout" with "more votes for Kerry". From what I hear, something like 60% of the voting population voted, which others more knowledgeable than I are calling a record turnout. The votes just didn't all end up being for the Democratic Party.

Either way, the issue is settled. Thankfully, there won't be anymore arguing in the immediate future.

[jjwr]

By Record Turnout I was thinking of the 120+ Million # people kept tossing around but it wasn't anywhere near that. One way or the other with a record turnout I figured more states would be different but the results are almost exactly the same as in 2000, which is what I find odd.


Glad I'm Canadian?

Didn't think I would ever say this....I envy you!

[Lady Vader]

*bites nails*

So, who won where what? I'm still in the UK and feeling slightly... disconnected? :uhoh

I crave info!

[Dae Jinn]

Originally posted by jjwr
Didn't think I would ever say this....I envy you!

Our government isn't *that* great, but at least it's reasonably predictable :lol We also have more than 2 parties to vote for; I always vote NDP and I always know they'll never win.

LV - Bush won. Yay?

[Lady Vader]

Thanks for reconnecting me, Dae. :)

And, yeah, that's a "yay" for me. :D

[Master Yoghurt]

Kerry phoned Bush to concede the loss.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641817.shtml

Well, at least there wont be the uncertainty of the 2000 election.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
Problem is, in the back of your mind you're associating "record turnout" with "more votes for Kerry". From what I hear, something like 60% of the voting population voted, which others more knowledgeable than I are calling a record turnout. The votes just didn't all end up being for the Democratic Party.


Precisely. It was a record turnout, with close to 115 million votes cast. The problem is, it was assumed by almost everyone that a record turnout would mean that more younger voters would be in the mix, and since the 18-24 bracket strong polled for Kerry, that would have meant advantage Kerry. But that isn't what happened. It wasn't just young voters that showed up in higher numbers. It was everyone. Nearly every demographic had significant increases in votes cast yesterday. It was a record turnout. However, the approximate percentages of voting demographics remained about the same. The one exception I saw was that the Latino vote increased from 7% to 9%, and Bush managed to capture 40% of that vote this time, opposed to only 35% four years ago.


There are a few interesting things to take from the results last night, and some people probably aren't going to like it, but it's essentially true.

First, the last presidential election to feature a candidate getting more than 50% of the popular vote was 1988, when Bush Sr. hammered Dukakis. Not even Clinton was elected by a majority in either of his two terms. Clinton and his opponents did have the Perot factor to deal with, but there have been past elections in which there was no significant third party factor (even less powerful than Nader this year, which is saying something) in which neither the Dems or the GOP could capture a majority. The fact that Bush captured 51% of the popular vote is, simply, stunning. Everyone got it wrong. The exit polls from early in the day were completely wrong, which showed that Kerry was leading comfortably.


Which leads to the next point... exit polling. How wrong were they? Everything I saw, from blogs to sites like Zogbys, indicated a victory for Kerry. The popular vote was supposed to be very close, but it really wasn't. Most of the major news agencies were very cautious yesterday about projecting winners in the various states, and that stems from what happened four years ago, yet it seemed that a lot of people were still suckered in by early exit poll results (and I was one of them, I certainly admit that). After two consecutive presidential elections with prognostication like this failing miserably, I wonder if the populous will learn it's lesson about exit polling.

My last point is not going to be popular with most Democrats, but I think its true, and it needs to be said. Bear with me.

In this election, we not only saw the sitting Republican president get re-elected despite that he had a sub-par job approval rating and had, by most accounts, lost all three debates, but we saw him get re-elected by a significant margin. With a sitting president in the mix, elections are always a referendum on the incumbent. It's always more about "Has this guy done the job he should have and should he get to continue to do it" than "which one of the candidates will be the better choice to put in the White House?". That being said, the DNC understood this, and ran a campaign that went to great lengths to show that Bush had failed on everything from Iraq to the budget deficit, domestic issues to foreign policy. Yet, it ulimately didn't work. Not only did it fail to get their guy into the White House, but the Democrats suffered major defeats in both the House and Senate. The Republicans increased their hold in the House, they picked up 4 seats in the Senate by winning races in states in which Democrats were retiring, and most notably, the Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, was defeated in South Dakota by his Republican challenger, which the GOP had targetting early on as a way to force the hand of the DNC on their fillibustering of many of Bush's policies.

So, led by a President that seemed all but doomed a few weeks ago, how did Republicans not only maintain the White House, but bring along huge wins for the party elsewhere?

Simple, and it's something that I have felt is true for at least the past 4 years.

The Democratic party has no identity. It's dicotic. It's schitzophrenic. It doesn't know what it stands for. It doesn't have a unifed platform. In short, it has no real way of showing the masses solid reasons why they should vote for Democratic candidates. The Republican party won big yesterday, and Bush won re-election despite all supposed indicators, because the GOP has a platform that they can take the people, and use to mobilize their base. It may be a divisive platform on many issues to some Americans (which I would agree is true), but it establishes relatively clear stances compared to their Democratic opponents. Like it or not, that is what is winning political office in modern America.

*** As I type this, news agencies are announcing that Sen. Kerry is conceeding the election to President Bush. Apparently, he isn't going to push the Ohio issue as much as some thought he might. ***

The GOP was once a major mess, just as split and contradictory as the Democratic party seems now. They needed time to pull together and figure out a platform on which they could run, but moreso than that, they needed a leader to set a direction for them. Ronald Reagan did that, and the GOP has essentially followed that Reagan vision ever since. Bill Clinton tried to reform the Democratic party and set a vision for it, and while he had the charisma to do it, once he was preparing to leave office after his second term, his party didn't stay the course. Now, we're seeing the results of, what is in my opinion, that major mistake.

In short... if the Democratic party wants to get back onto track (and there is going to be a blood bath in that party after what happened yesterday) they need two things... figure out a platform that clearly shows all of America what they stand for, and put forth a candidate that is a strong charismatic leader with a clear vision for his party and the nation. They had the second of those two things 12 years ago with Clinton, but the party wasn't united behind his vision.


It was an interesting election to watch. I stayed up rather late last night watching the last returns come in. I think the drama was artifically inflated a bit by some of the news networks, since they were more than cautious about calling certain states too early, but it was still rather entertaining to consider the possibilities of how each candidate could conceivably pull out a victory. It ended up as a huge night for the GOP, and while they are celebrating, a lot of DNC people are going to be scratching their heads and trying to figure out how they went wrong.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

haha I win the presidential prediction. >D

[Charley]

Yay, Kerry lost! :)


Damn, Bush won! :(

That about sums up my feelings on it all :p

[jjwr]

Very well put Figrin, you prove the points very well.

As mind boggling as it is, as bad a President as Bush has been he sold himself and the Republicans and people ate it up.

Barack Obama...your on the clock.

As for me, anyone know what a small house in Canada goes for? ;)

[Lady Vader]

I'm just glad I can stop biting my nails and pulling my hair out and actually get a good round of sleep tonight without waking up every half hour wondering how the voting was going.

I hate Presidential elections. They always stress me out. :x



As for me, anyone know what a small house in Canada goes for? ;)

Better take your long underwear. It's cold up there. :p

(Though prob not as cold as it was in Newcastle, UK *is still thawing out toes*)

- - - - - - - - - -

EDIT: One thing i was going to mention earlier (but forgot about, and just remembered) was that while out here in the UK, I really tried to stay away from any news pertaining to the election. Ironically, I saw more coverage for it here than I ever had over in the US.

In either case, while traveling on the trains and subways, I tried not to bring up politics with my neighbor (only cause in actuality, I despise policitics), but it was always the Britiains that would bring it up, especially when they learned I was from the US.

Yet, out of all the ppl I spoke to here, they all seemed to want Bush to win the election. Not so much because they agreed with him (though most said they agreed with most of the issues he stood by... and the majority just didn't like Kerry), but rather because they figured it was smarter to continue to keep someone in office you knew how they ran things rather than train a new recruit.

Even a newscaster basically put it "Better to keep one and know what he's about than to get a new one and no nothing of him." I paraphrase (I can't remember the exact quote), but that's the basic jist of it.

All in all, it was just quite interesting to see how much coverage and interest was put into the US elections over here in the UK.

[Jedieb]

Kerry's concession speech is set for 1PM, Bush's victory speech for 3PM. The only positive from my side is that we've avoided a protracted fight, thank goodness. Can't really blame Kerry/Edwards for waiting until this morning. They needed time to crunch the numbers and once it was clear the margin was too big, and the number of provisional ballots too small that was the end.

Fig has made some great points about the state of both parties. I don't think things are nearly as bad for the Democrats as he paints, or as rosy for the Republicans. To me it's obvious that the Democrats are at a point where they have completely and utterly lost the South. Without a popular centrist Sothern Democrat they have no shot at getting the White House. The Republicans on the other hand have some problems, despite the good news in the Senate and Presidency. The far right wing of the Party has been pusing it further and further away from the center for years now. Moderate Republicans have to be unsettled by the current social agenda of the party, the runaway spending and defecits, and the current foreign policy. The only thing I can see helping to bring the Republican party back a bit is socially moderate candidate like Guiliani, or gasp..... the Governator.

Well, now Bush has to take responsibility for the mess he's created in Iraq and whether the reprucussions of his foreign policy for the next 4 years. Lots of "hard work" ahead.

[Master Yoghurt]

Being a sucker for statistics, I found these demographics an interesting read:

http://us.cnn.com/.element/ssi/sect/1.1/SPECIALS/hn.exclude.html?domId=happeningNow

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Arnold can't run for President without the Constitution being changed. Frankly, I think changing the constitution so that foreign born American citizens can be president would be a mistake, in the long run if not the short.

Of course, he could always run for Senate.

[imported_Akrabbim]

In case yall weren't aware of it, Kerry conceded. So, Bush wins. Comments?

[Charley]

I'm glad Kerry lost, but wish it could've been to somebody other than Bush. I guess I'll be content with the lesser evil in office once again.

[imported_Akrabbim]

I like Bush, personally. Much better than Kerry, to say the least. That guy's a fagtard.

[Figrin D'an]

Can we combine some of these threads? I don't think we need a seperate one just for declaring victory.

[imported_Akrabbim]

How about gloating? :)

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Fig has made some great points about the state of both parties. I don't think things are nearly as bad for the Democrats as he paints, or as rosy for the Republicans. To me it's obvious that the Democrats are at a point where they have completely and utterly lost the South. Without a popular centrist Sothern Democrat they have no shot at getting the White House. The Republicans on the other hand have some problems, despite the good news in the Senate and Presidency. The far right wing of the Party has been pusing it further and further away from the center for years now. Moderate Republicans have to be unsettled by the current social agenda of the party, the runaway spending and defecits, and the current foreign policy. The only thing I can see helping to bring the Republican party back a bit is socially moderate candidate like Guiliani, or gasp..... the Governator.



I don't think it's really "rosy" for the Republicans. Like you said, they are pushing more to the right, and their more extremist elements are driving much of their platform right now. That isn't very attractive to people like me, whom are political moderates and will sway either right or left depending upon the issue. However, it's difficult to deny that in the current political climate, what the GOP is doing with their platform, focusing on rallying their conservative base and making it clear where they stand on certain issues, is working. That may change in the future, but right now, it's simple fact that it works. The results yesterday bear that out.

At same turn, it's not a complete disaster for the Democrats, but it certainly isn't good. They lost a lot of ground in this election, and they need to internally address this, figure out why it happened, and determine how they can turn it around starting in '06. It's clear to me that they need a fundemental change in their manner of going about explaining their platform if they are to succeed in the future.

For the record, I'm not saying any of this because I'm either happy or angry with yesterday's outcome. I'm saying this as a fairly outside observer. I voted for neither Kerry nor Bush yesterday. I have major issues with both of them, and major issues with both the GOP and Democratic party. It is my observation, however, that the GOP has a better grasp of how to get votes in their favor and win key elections than the Democrats do. If the Democratic Party wants this to change, they need clear platform issues, and they need a strong, charismatic leader to establish a path for them.


I think Guiliani would be a very interesting candidate for the GOP in '08. He is someone that I could see myself potentially voting for, because like you said, he is social moderate. But, it all depends upon who the Dems come up with in a few years to push for the White House.

[Charley]

I have been told by a friend that for part of election day morning, I was the only vote for Badnarik in the state of Alabama :cool

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Akrabbim
How about gloating? :)

lol... well, you can gloat all you want. We do have the election contest thread that is kinda proving to be a catch all for post-election fallout, so that's why I recommended combining the two.

[Morgan Evanar]

Well, the bed has been made, we're all gonna lie in it.

[Ryan Pode]

Originally posted by Charley
Yay, Kerry lost! :)


Damn, Bush won! :(


That's how a lot of people went in voting too. :(

[imported_Akrabbim]

Hey, I'm just glad Bush won for my own danged gun rights. Had Kerry won, I'd have been buying every high cap magazine I could find.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Akrabbim
Hey, I'm just glad Bush won for my own danged gun rights. Had Kerry won, I'd have been buying every high cap magazine I could find.

While Bush is definitely no friend to gun owners, I'd also be heading for the hills if Kerry got in. He's not just against the second amendment, he's against it on a scale that only Ted Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein can match.

[Pierce Tondry]

To respond to your post Fig, I've been thinking the same thing for months. It's especially telling when you consider the following:

1) The ratio of Republican to Democratic Presidents over the past fifty years has been undeniably slanted in favor of the GOP.
2) Republicans control the House 231-200-1.
3) Republiacns control the Senate 55-44-1.
4) Previous Republican control of the Senate and House extends back about 10 years.
5) Republican state governors currently outnumber Democratic governors 28-21.

Historically, GOP domination is growing. Honestly, I can't think of a time in the past twenty years that a Democratic candidate had a public characterization everyone could identify. I mean, how would you characterize Clinton? Or Mondale, or Gore? What would you call John Kerry? I really have difficulty doing putting any kind of easy label on those people. On the other hand, Reagan was "The Great Communicator", and that trend of identifiable candidates really has stuck to the GOP.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

The fact is that the majority of americans have slanted towards the GOP and Republicans for a while now. I don't see the DNC as being able to capture the attention of the South/midwest/much of the country, unless they start changing fundementally. I'm happy that the majority of the country hasn't sat back during this election, and has made their views known, decisively. The 11 state sweep of the 'defining marriage' amendments is another indicator, although here in liberal Oregon it was a much tighter outcome than in, say, Kentucky.

Face it, Kerry-Suporters/Socialists/Democrats: you're the minority in the government because its the will of the American people, and this election only makes that more clear.

<a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6393501/?GT1=5809>MSNBC article</a>

[Charley]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
The fact is that the majority of americans have settled towards the GOP and Republicans for a while now.

Fixed.

The Neo-Conservative movement in the GOP has mutated the Republican Party into a mealy-mouthed, fiscally-liberal autocratic theocracy. The only real conservatives left in the party are there simply because there is no longer a real conservative party in this country anymore. Instead, we're left with two parties that have no problem with running roughshod over our personal freedoms.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Charley
Fixed.

The Neo-Conservative movement in the GOP has mutated the Republican Party into a mealy-mouthed, fiscally-liberal autocratic theocracy. The only real conservatives left in the party are there simply because there is no longer a real conservative party in this country anymore. Instead, we're left with two parties that have no problem with running roughshod over our personal freedoms.


Very, very true. This is part of the reason why I said earlier that it's not all "rosy" for the GOP. They have pushed further to certain extremes, and while that has worked for them of late, it's going to push social moderates and political constitutionalists further away. The problem is, going the the Democratic party isn't going to help, because that party is schitozphrenic and doesn't have the firepower to mount a major counter to what the GOP has gained in the past 6 years. So... that's why Charley's comments about settling for the lesser of two evils is so accurate for many Americans. For many, it was a decision between choosing whom one disagreed with less, rather than whom one agreed with more.

It's quite the sucktacular situation.

[Pierce Tondry]

A friend of mine and I were bandying an idea about awhile back of starting a new party mainly for moderates. We were going to call ourselves the Radical Independants. (let's see who gets that reference :))

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Charley
Fixed.

The Neo-Conservative movement in the GOP has mutated the Republican Party into a mealy-mouthed, fiscally-liberal autocratic theocracy. The only real conservatives left in the party are there simply because there is no longer a real conservative party in this country anymore. Instead, we're left with two parties that have no problem with running roughshod over our personal freedoms. Sadly true. I really don't care about guns very much, but both parties spend irresponsibly, and I find the GOP's stance on most social issues abhorrent.

[imported_QuiGonJ]

Originally posted by Charley
Yay, Kerry lost! :)


Damn, Bush won! :(

That about sums up my feelings on it all :p

I agree with Charley? Wow.

Maybe next time one of the two parties can come up with someone I want to vote for. :)

[Doc Milo]

Just saw this on USA Today website. It's the map of how the counties voted. Looking at this shows just how lopsided this victory for Bush is. Essentially, even in Kerry Blue states, most of the geographic counties are Bush Red. It's only the big populated areas that carried those states for Kerry.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

On a side note, I have no idea why Maine's counties appear all white -- maybe no county specific data? Any ideas?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap.gif

[imported_Eve]

I'll just add my two cents: Whoohooo! :: skip jump ::

You guys knew I'd be lovin' this. Go G-Dubya!

[Pierce Tondry]

:)

[Drake Shadowstalker]

Hell yeah! Bush rox!!!

[Master Yoghurt]

As they say, praise the lord and pass the ammo :rolleyes

[Gurney Devries]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/election2004.jsp?feature=ne_election5

Right Click on the picture of Bush and check the filename.

EDIT: It looks like someone finally caught on. Here's a screencap of it before they replaced the picture: Click here to see the original (http://img103.exs.cx/img103/6136/cnn.png)

The original image still exists, so you can type in the url in the picture and see it for yourself.

[Mitch]

What? What's so interesting about http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/cppops/features/n/ne_election5/i/georgelaura135.jpg ?

[Dasquian Belargic]

Originally posted by Lady Vader
Yet, out of all the ppl I spoke to here, they all seemed to want Bush to win the election.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this was the national concensus. Just looking at the newspapers in my area are enough to see that. The Guardian's front page was completely black, aside from two words in tiny, white print: "oh god". Obviously, this is a bit melodramatic, but I think it's safe to say that there's a large portion of the UK who is distressed by the fact that Bush is still in power. Whatever decisions he makes are going to have a direct effect on us and our government (their policies in particular) - who, aside from the PM himself, are heavily anti-Bush themselves, AFAIK.


http://img103.exs.cx/img103/6136/cnn.png

That's real? :eek :lol

[Shanaria Fabool]

At the risk of sounding stupid, what does GOP stand for?

[Master Yoghurt]

It means "Grand Old Party", which is a reference to the US Republican political party. Before the civil war, it was called the "Gallant Old Party". Im not sure why the term is still used, tradition I suppose, and its an acronym which makes it easier to write than "the republican party". Maybe some Americans could enlighten me some more on the historical background of the phrase and linguistic meaning.

Edit: found a link which explains it

http://www.magazineusa.com/us/info/show.aspx?unit=politics&doc=61

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
As they say, praise the lord and pass the ammo :rolleyes

Sure thing Yog.

:shootin

:)

[Morgan Evanar]

You know, the last time a party had full power of the government things didn't go so well.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
As they say, praise the lord and pass the ammo :rolleyes

I, for one, welcome our new banana-clip loving overlords...

[/Kent Brockman]

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
You know, the last time a party had full power of the government things didn't go so well.

Heh, not just the US government. Historically, the trend is for groups in power to abuse it.

One can only hope that the furor and fallout over Iraq will motivate a guarding caution against that.

[Gurney Devries]

Originally posted by Dasquian Belargic
That's real? :eek :lol Yep. Apparently, someone at CNN was disgruntled and thought it was worth risking their job over.

Edit: Make that losing their job over:
Netscape responsible for Bush photo insult

Disparaging image tags used to identify photos of President and Mrs. Bush currently circulating on the Internet were not created, disseminated or posted by CNN at any time, as is alleged. They were done by a junior-level employee of Netscape and posted on Netscape.com. CNN had no knowledge of this until it surfaced on other Web sites.

Netscape, which corrected the situation when it was discovered, has released a statement apologizing for the "inappropriate and disparaging terms" that were used in the image tags -- and saying that the company has terminated the employee.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
You know, the last time a party had full power of the government things didn't go so well.

Full power != simple majorities in the three branches.

[Jedieb]

Mandate?

"If you have a race which is decided by a percent or two, if you have a very narrowly divided country -- that does not qualify for the traditional mandate and ... to govern, we have to bring the country together," he said. "I believe that President Bush will have that very much in mind."
And that's from Republican Sen. Arlen Specter. Change one state in 2000 and it's a Gore victory. Change a point or 2 in one state in this election and it's a Kerry victory. And I don't want to hear anything about how Red the map is. That's a joke. It basically says dirt is more important than people. Take all the red in MT, ND, WY, SD, and ID and you get ONE more electoral vote than the comparatively tiny state of NJ. As for individual state maps, it's still the same story. Most of that red is sparsely populated rural areas and those little pockets of blue are densely populated urban areas. Hell, take a few blocks of Manhattan and you've got more people than all of ND. Bottom line, we're at 51% to 48%. You get a real mandate when you go well over the 50% mark or you rack up an electoral vote count around 400. The country is still divided and I've seen nothing during these last 4 years that Bush is the kind of politician that can bring a sense of unity to the country.

Cheney and Bush are going on and on about the mandate they've gotten. We'll see where this takes us. Foreign policy should be a real treat once Powell steps down and one of the few voices of moderation is swept out the door. Ashcroft is propbably out the door but I seriously doubt his replacement will be much better. Yep, great times are headed our way. :x

[Mitch]

Well, the fact of the matter still stands that more people voted for Bush than Kerry.

Period.

[Jedieb]

By your logic, his frist term was illigitimate becaues more people voted for Gore. Period.

Here's an article by from Newsweek on whether or not Bush can unite the country during his second term. The odds and history are against him.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6399691/site/newsweek/

At first glance, this offers little hope for bipartisanship in the second term. With a bigger margin of victory and a Republican Congress, Bush may feel he has no reason to disappoint the hard-core supporters who worked so diligently to pull him through a tough re-election fight. Under this theory, Republicans are now more firmly in charge and will do whatever they can to steamroll the angry opposition. This is the path of arrogance that most re-elected presidents follow, and it’s why second terms (even after landslides) have been more scandal-prone and less productive than first terms for every president since Theodore Roosevelt. Wilson failed with the League of Nations; FDR with the court-packing scheme; Eisenhower stalled; LBJ was brought low by Vietnam; Nixon by Watergate; Reagan by Iran-contra; Clinton by impeachment.
And Bush has a worsening situation in Iraq and a constant terror threat to deal with. I don't see his second term being much different than his first. Actually, I expect it to be worse with a perceived mandate and more power in the Senate.

[Mitch]

You misinterpret me.

Bush got the popular vote AND the Electoral vote.

[Charley]

The President wins by a span of millions and it still isn't enough for some people ;)

[Figrin D'an]

Ultimately, the success or failure of Bush's second term is going to come down to one major issue, just as it usually does: the economy. If it makes significant improvements, the heat he is taking on other issues is going to dissipate some. We are still a capitalistic-centered society, and when the economy is good, people are more tolerant of an administration with which they may disagree. Generally, when an incumbent is elected to a second term after a first term that was an economic down period, the economy will make improvments and start towards a bull market run.

Whether that happens this time or not remains to be seen of course. But I guarantee that if it does, a lot of the rampant anti-Bush sentiment won't be nearly as pronounced as it is right now.

[imported_Eve]

Anti-Bush sentiment? How ever strong that may be, apparently more people were afraid that Kerry would sit in the White House.

Get over it people. You're not in the majority of those who cared enough to vote on Nov. 2.

There's always Canada, Mexico, or even France if things are SO bad for you in the US. Maybe you can ponder it while you post on your computer, under your roof and in between your four walls, with the heat (or AC) on, and clean water nearby. The poorest of you has these things and its because you live in America. Sorry, I just think statements like, "I'm moving now that Bush has won" are completely idiotic. It also shows a complete misunderstanding of how great America is, despite having a leader renew his term who has made sure that we haven't been attacked by a terrorist since 9/11. Criticize his methods, but you're all still around to sit at your computer and have an opinion on everything.

[Figrin D'an]

I think you misinterpret my statements as synonimous with my personal views of the election outcome. I'm mearly pointing out what I believe to be true of how things will unfold over the next four years, given certain circumstances. And, the same would be true if Kerry had won and Bush had not. The country is still deeply divided, and there is a lot of animosity in the air.

However, I tend to believe that, as has been shown in the past, economic improvement would do much sooth a lot of that animosity. Whether it happens or not... we'll just have to wait and watch.

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by EveThere's always Canada, Mexico, or even France if things are SO bad for you in the US. Maybe you can ponder it while you post on your computer, under your roof and in between your four walls, with the heat (or AC) on, and clean water nearby. The poorest of you has these things and its because you live in America. Sorry, I just think statements like, "I'm moving now that Bush has won" are completely idiotic. It also shows a complete misunderstanding of how great America is, despite having a leader renew his term who has made sure that we haven't been attacked by a terrorist since 9/11. Criticize his methods, but you're all still around to sit at your computer and have an opinion on everything. Awesome. Who was talking about leaving? I can't find anyone talking about leaving here? The only way I would leave is a draft for a war I didn't believe in.

[Pierce Tondry]

jjwr joked about it back a couple pages, but really Eve's post applies pretty well to anyone getting melodramatic over the election result.

Like George R.R. Martin.

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
jjwr joked about it back a couple pages. Oh.

[Master Yoghurt]

Well, the good news for those thinking about moving, they might not have to move so far.. ;)
http://www.thegjo.com/pics/jesusland.jpg

I will say one thing in defence for those concidered by the republicans as melodramatic, like George R.R. Martin and others. Its a healthy sign of democracy that you have people willing to speak up for what they believe in, wether it is the presidental election or other issues. The worst thing would be if people were apathic about who was running your country. If its hard to accept the emotional nature of some of these statements, take comfort in the fact they probably have a burning desire for America to be a better place.

Like the French writer Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it!"

Which brings me to my next point, about voter apathy. There has been some talk about record high voter turnout with around 120 million cast ballots, including 5.5 million to 6 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted. Thats about 15 million more than previous election. While thats certainly a great improvement, its actually less than 60% of the eligible population. Thats still a far cry from the voter turnout in most other western countries.

For comparison, here is a diagram of the voting turnout in some European countries at last national elections:
http://www.ssb.no/emner/00/01/10/valgaktuelt/fig-2001-08-13-01.gif

Just like in the US, European countries have varying voter turnout, with extra high percentage in elections concidered critically important, parallel to the election you just had, however, the numbers should be fairly self explainatory.

Concidering all the talk about the most important election ever, reports of hour long queues around the blocks to vote, and the early hype of record high turnout, it should come to no surprise that some people (me included) were disappointed about the whole thing. I had imagined a vast movement of americans jumping out of their chairs to vote.

In a relative context, the turnout does seem moderate in light of the fact that the average voting turnout in the years 1965-1995 was 54%. So despite the record, we are talking something like an increase of 5 percentage points over the average. Hardly the moment to pop champagne bottles..

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Master Yoghurt
In a relative context, the turnout does seem moderate in light of the fact that the average voting turnout in the years 1965-1995 was 54%. So despite the record, we are talking something like an increase of 5 percentage points over the average. Hardly the moment to pop champagne bottles..


It's still an impressive turnout. Maybe it takes living amongst that apathy for a while to realise just how pervasive it really is, because the fact that 115-120 million Americans voted on Tuesday is quite amazing to me. It's a step in the right direction. I hope that in 4 years, the turnout is 125 million or more.

Here's a number that impressed me quite a bit. My home county in Wisconsin reported that 97.6% of it's eligible voters cast a ballot on Tuesday. That made my jaw drop when I heard it. That kind of turnout is unprecidented.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Don't you mean, home state? ;)

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Don't you mean, home state? ;)

No, home county. As is the county of Waukesha, in the state of Wisconsin. County officials reported that 97.6% of it's eligible voters showed up at the polls on Tuesday.

I don't know what the percentage was for the entire state.

[AmazonBabe]

Originally posted by Eve
I'll just add my two cents: Whoohooo! :: skip jump ::

You guys knew I'd be lovin' this. Go G-Dubya!

:lol I luv you Eve :)




Yet, out of all the ppl I spoke to here, they all seemed to want Bush to win the election.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this was the national concensus. Just looking at the newspapers in my area are enough to see that. The Guardian's front page was completely black, aside from two words in tiny, white print: "oh god". Obviously, this is a bit melodramatic, but I think it's safe to say that there's a large portion of the UK who is distressed by the fact that Bush is still in power. Whatever decisions he makes are going to have a direct effect on us and our government (their policies in particular) - who, aside from the PM himself, are heavily anti-Bush themselves, AFAIK.

Forgive me. I should have specified.

I didn't speak to a huge amount of ppl, but this is what I did gather: The older generation wanted Bush, and either didn't care for Kerry or just plain despised him. The younger generation didn't want Bush, didn't want Kerry, really didn't know what they wanted. As for the media (newpapers and such) most are liberal, so I'd expect them to be displeased with Bush winning.

Speaking of which, while waiting in Manchester for our flight to Heathrow, I saw someone reading a newspaper with a headline "How Can 60 million People be That Dumb". I nearly busted out laughing. First off, I can't really see 60mil ppl being dumb all at once. If anything, it kinda goes to say something along the lines that gee, maybe they did want Bush.

In either case, I'd have to say I'm proud to be "dumb" then. :p

[Doc Milo]

I see a lot of democrats running around post-election talking about how Bush has the job now of having to unify a divided nation, and to do so, they say, he has to "reach across the isle," to democrats -- in other words, they believe he has to give in to what they want, even though they lost.

This is hogwash. When Clinton was elected with a plurality of the vote (more people in both of Clinton's terms actually voted against him) you didn't hear republicans going around saying how Clinton had to reach across the isle to unite a divided country. And yes, the country was divided. It has been for a very long time. Bush is the first president since Bush Sr. to actually get a majority of the vote. It is unheard of for an incumbant president winning reelection to gain seats in the House and Senate, and yet, that is exactly what Bush and the Republicans have done.

Does he have a Mandate in the traditional sense of the word? No. But he doesn't have to cave into democrats either. This country has been divided for a long time, and will remain so for a long time. A divided country is good. It keeps our system of checks and balances in place. The left checks the right, the right checks the left (and those in the middle "*squish* just like grape.")

[Charley]

If he keeps throwing his old cabinet onto the fire, I will be happy. Just thinking about John Ashcroft resigning makes me feel warm and tingly.

If we can fire Condi Rice out of a cannon, that would be great as well.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Charley
If he keeps throwing his old cabinet onto the fire, I will be happy. Just thinking about John Ashcroft resigning makes me feel warm and tingly.

If we can fire Condi Rice out of a cannon, that would be great as well.


Ashcroft leaving will be a happy day. I just hope Bush doesn't go out and find someone who is just as far to the right as he is.

[Morgan Evanar]

^ Can we all be in the happy "Ashcroft is a horrid man" boat and hope stuff like the Patriot Act gets flushed down the toilet of Justice and Freedom?

[Dutchy]

http://daemlich.net/2941

:p