Who Do You Think Will Win..and By How Much

[DrMaddVibe]

Bush in a landslide victory.

[FORD]

Originally posted by scorpioboy33
hi ford not sure who you think will win it?

The only way Bush can "win" is through fraudulent means or by cancelling the election via a staged "terrorist attack".

Bush got less votes than Gore last time (I won't use the term "lost" because it offends the lawyers) Since then he has lost votes from all of the traditional Republican supporting constituencies, and certainly has not caused any Democrats to cross over to his camp. That alone makes it mathematically impossible for Bush to win this election.

Of the Republicans who left Bush, it's logical to conclude that 75% of them will vote for Kerry, and the others may vote for another rightist minor party (Libertarians, US Taxpayers, Constitution, etc) This is due to the practical reality of the duopoly system - whether we like it or not.

So subtract more votes for Bush and add them to Kerry's column.

Now take those people who voted for Nader in 2000. From what I have heard, 8 out of 10 of those voters have said they will vote for Kerry this time. Nader's average in 2000 was about 3.5% of the vote, which sounds like a small number, but in terms of an election which was decided within less than 1%, as 2000 was, it is indeed significant.

And then there's the people who sat out 2000 entirely. Some of them might have sat out previous elections as well. Because they haven't been on voter lists, they haven't been counted as "likely voters" by the pollsters. Obviously these people will not be voting for Bush. Again, this may not be a huge number, but one can hope. Because if the last three years didn't wake up the 50% of eligible voters who sat out the last election, I don't know what will. But for now, let's assume that even 25% of those people are driven to action, and removal of the BCE.

The potential for a Kerry Landslide is quite obvious. The potential for a Bush Landslide is entirely non existent except through the means of electrofraud manipulation.

[Wayne L.]

I think George W. Bush will defeat John Kerry by about 4 or 5 points in the presidential election with Kerry VP John Edwards going into obscurity.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Hey GS, dittos to a bunch of what you just said.

But you do know that Bush also won the popular vote too, don't ya? If you did a dissertation on the subject, then you know very well that in most states, absentee ballots weren't even counted (because the margin of victory made it unneccessary). For example, California's absentee ballots weren't counted. Do you know how many that is? Do you know how many military personnel based in California vote absentee? Do you know the typical voting patterns of military voters?

Check your dissertation, because I'm quite sure it's all in there. So you already must know Bush also won the popular vote.

My paper was about the electoral college (I advocated abandoning it entirely), not the 2000 vote. I graduated from college in 1992 so it would have been kinda tough.

Are you contending that Bush would have won California if the absentee ballots were counted (assuming they weren't)? Bwahaha, think again buddy. :D

[Guitar Shark]

Oh, and happy birthday diamondD. Sorry man, had no idea.

[DrMaddVibe]

Several elections have tested the Electoral College system. The first contested election was that of 1800 when both Thomas Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr, received 73 electoral votes, throwing the election into the House of Representatives. (After 36 ballots, the House chose Jefferson.) The consequence of the 1800 election was the 12th Amendment, providing that electors vote separately for president and vice-president. The 1824 election saw a four-way split of electoral votes, with the House eventually choosing John Quincy Adams as president even though Andrew Jackson had received more electoral votes. The 1876 election was a true mess, with disputes over which slates of electors had won in four different states. The final determination as to which slates of electors had in fact been elected was made on an 8-7 vote by a congressional commission. The commission's decision gave Rutherford Hayes 185 electoral votes and the presidency. The winner of the popular vote, Samuel Tilden, finished with 184 electoral votes. (One cost of the 1876 election was the end of Reconstruction: to win Democrats' acceptance of the commission's decision, Republicans agreed to withdraw troops from the South, effectively trading the presidency for the disenfranchisement of blacks.) In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland, but won narrowly in the Electoral College. Then, in 2000, trouble brewed again when electoral victory hinged upon a terribly close and challenged fight for Florida's 25 electoral votes.

The fight for Florida's votes went twice to the U. S. Supreme Court. In the first case, Bush v Palm Beach, the Court vacated and remanded a Florida Supreme Court decision extending the deadline for certification. The Court wanted to know whether the Florida Court had reached its decision by interpreting legislative intent (permissible, the Court said) or instead had relied on its interpretation of the Florida Constitution (which would be a violation of Article II, which delegates to State Legislatures the power to determine how electors are selected.) In the second case, Bush v Gore, the Supreme Court effectively determined the outcome of the presidential race by reversing a Florida Supreme Court decision ordering a statewide recount of undervotes. The Court majority found that the recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause. Five justices went on to interpret Florida law as preferring a final certification by December 12 (the deadline for falling within the so-called "safe harbor" protection) to a more accurate recount by December 18 (the date that electors actually vote). That interpretation of Florida law by the five most conservative members of the Court handed the presidency to Gov. Bush, since the opinion was released at 10 pm on December 11 and no recount by the 12th was possible.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Are you contending that Bush would have won California if the absentee ballots were counted (assuming they weren't)? Bwahaha, think again buddy. :D

No no no... Not at all. Bush losing California by a wide enough margin to warrarnt not counting absentee ballots is my entire point. In fact, of the states he lost, most of them were by a wide enough margin that the absentee ballot count absolutely couldn't hand the state to him. Remember, with the Electoral College, it's winner take all. So, there's no need to count ballots that can't swing the state (for instance, if Bush lost California by a million votes (non-absentee), and there are only 800,000 total absentee ballots, there's simply no point in counting them). This is exactly what happened. But of those 800,000 uncounted absentee ballots in California alone, statistically speaking Bush would've gotten at least 500,000, probably closer to 650,000 judging by the past voting tendencies of absentee voters (I.E. military men and women). So what margin do the "Bush lost the popular vote" crowd claim? 500,000 and change? If the absentee ballots were counted in California alone, algore would most definitely have come out on bottom.

All I'm saying is that the myth that Bush lost the popular vote is just that, a myth. But it's all the liberals seem to have left to hang on to. They sure as hell don't offer any reason to vote for them, just against Republicans (and Bush in particular).

Oh, and not having a time machine available for your dissertation is no excuse! :D

[DLRDUDE]

Bush rules! One of the first things out of Kerry's mouth when he chose Edward's as his running mate was "now we'll get some neat hair in the White House" something to that effect. What a shmuck In my opinion I don't feel that Bush will be given enough credit for what he has done or for what his plans were when he was elected. Only so much you can do when your country has been attacked. Yes, the focus was on Bin Laden but couldn't find him or so they say. Going after Saddam has always been on the "to do" list so that's where they went. Folks say GW only did that to finish what pops didn't get done. It's a fight on terror, plain and simple. Sure I wake up and see the awful things that are happening in Iraq but that is the time we live in. Anyway, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and now he wants to retract it. Says it was a mistake. Just makes me wonder if I want a Commander-in-Chief that can't make up his mind. What if he pushed that lil red button sending nukes somewhere and thought Hmmh? maybe I shouldn't have done that.

[DeadOrAlive]

A vote for you DLRDUDE!

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I have attended concerts with FORD and have enjoyed beers with him. Have you? I agree, FORD is a good guy and I have nothing against him personally. He's hilarious in person, and often misunderstood on these boards.

I just get frustrated when he's been proven wrong time and time again on an issue, and he refuses to back down. I gave him the opportunity to acknowledge that at least part of his statement was a falsehood, but he declined the opportunity. He keeps spouting incorrect information as "fact," perhaps hoping that the truth will get obscured simply because those of us who care get tired of correcting him. It reminds me in many ways of a certain someone that you had a hand in removing from this site. (Which, btw, I would never advocate in FORD's case.)

I'll take your comments about the 2000 election with a grain of salt, given your Canadian citizenship. That said, I agree with you that any electoral system is fucked up if it allows the winner to be anyone other than the person who received the most votes. I even wrote my dissertation on that very issue in college. But that's the system we operate under, and I don't agree that "tampering" played a role in the Florida election. You can probably point to isolated cases, but that happens in every election and frankly it goes both ways. There was nothing illegal about it here. You may disagree with the Supreme Court's reasoning but they had a basis for the decision they made.

And before you jump to any conclusions about my motives, you should know that I am voting for Kerry. I have never voted for Bush and never will.

A few things:

1) A great many things FORD posts are, in fact, true. And people will jump on him because they don't want to believe that their government would even conceive of doing something corrupt. So they claim that FORD is just "lying again" and, eventually, people feel that's the proper conclusion. Anyone who doesn't see the unbelievable corruption that's existed in the last handful of Republican governments should get a reality check. This isn't utopia we're living in. And it certainly ain't the best version of democracy one could picture. America is a good country...and a powerful one. But that doesn't make it flawless. And that doesn't take away the fact that America has done a great many disgusting things in this world, some of which have gained it enemies (not that the enemies are necessarily right either). What's more believable? The government is perfectly moral and always right OR the government will often do things that will benefit the actual politicians? Funny how people will almost always state that "politicians are scubmags", but once you actually throw a case or two in front of them, they refuse to believe it.

2) Who cares if I've had beer or not? Our personal relationships here have nothing to do with the rights or wrongs in debate.

3) I am an American citizen, actually.

4) I used to believe there was no tampering in Florida myself, until I saw forms with little rulings signed by Jeb Bush or his cohorts, finding an excuse to leave some region (with high minority population) out of the vote count. I don't believe what happened in Florida was honest. And I hope that asshole Jeb Bush doesn't get away with that crap again.

We're just debating here. I think you're a stellar guy, SHARKY! You know that.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Rikk
A few things:

1) A great many things FORD posts are, in fact, true. And people will jump on him because they don't want to believe that their government would even conceive of doing something corrupt. So they claim that FORD is just "lying again" and, eventually, people feel that's the proper conclusion. Anyone who doesn't see the unbelievable corruption that's existed in the last handful of Republican governments should get a reality check. This isn't utopia we're living in. And it certainly ain't the best version of democracy one could picture. America is a good country...and a powerful one. But that doesn't make it flawless. And that doesn't take away the fact that America has done a great many disgusting things in this world, some of which have gained it enemies (not that the enemies are necessarily right either). What's more believable? The government is perfectly moral and always right OR the government will often do things that will benefit the actual politicians? Funny how people will almost always state that "politicians are scubmags", but once you actually throw a case or two in front of them, they refuse to believe it.

2) Who cares if I've had beer or not? Our personal relationships here have nothing to do with the rights or wrongs in debate.

3) I am an American citizen, actually.

4) I used to believe there was no tampering in Florida myself, until I saw forms with little rulings signed by Jeb Bush or his cohorts, finding an excuse to leave some region (with high minority population) out of the vote count. I don't believe what happened in Florida was honest. And I hope that asshole Jeb Bush doesn't get away with that crap again.

We're just debating here. I think you're a stellar guy, SHARKY! You know that.

I agree that some of what FORD posts is fact. A lot of it, however, is opinion passed off as fact.

There's a big difference between a "sheep" who believes everything the government says, and a person who rejects anything and everything the government says if that government is of the opposite political party. FORD generally falls into the latter category. I fall somewhere in the middle, like most people do.

So do you drink beer or not? If so, let me know if you're ever up this way and I'll buy you one. Hell, maybe FORD will drive up from Olympia, assuming he's not buried by Mt. St. Helens ash from a freak easterly wind... :D

[Warham]

So the Clinton Administration wasn't corrupt in any way?

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Warham
So the Clinton Administration wasn't corrupt in any way?

Hell, of course they were. Very. But I do believe that administration had the long-term interests of the country in mind much more than this administration does.

What I can't stand is this attitude I see a lot in here that when someone questions or criticizes their government, they are bad and should leave the country. Or they should shut up and leave it to the Americans that love Bush. That's bullshit. It's those that feel one shouldn't question or criticize the President that are doing more harm. Democracy is based on leaders being accountable and not lying. Leaders should be criticized. There's too much at stake for them not to be. And if your leaders are lying to you because they've done something wrong, that's a big deal when you're dealing with the economy and global interests of a country like the United States. Freedom is about questioning your government and everybody being allowed to have an opinion. Those that wish other people would just shut up and leave the President alone are missing the whole point of democracy.

I've even heard the argument that America is a Republic, not a democracy. First off, when were the two mutually exclusive. Second, if you really mean that, I guess you don't agree with the freedoms America claims it is based on.

[John Ashcroft]

So why does the Democratic party propose at every opportunity feeding this untrustworthy government???

I share with you a general mistrust of Government, period. But the left side of the aisle want's to expand government control into healthcare and the market. They want to feed the beast with more tax money collected from you and I (and not them, check the facts on Edward's and Kerry's tax records if you don't believe me. They're taking advantage of every loop hole they can. In fact, it's reported that Theresa Kerry's effective tax rate is 15%...)

You mistrust government, great. But why would you ever empower the proponents of it's growth? Do you really trust the government with handling your health care?

And Rikk. We are a Republic. Thomas Jefferson was not fond of Democracies at all. In his words: "Democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner". We are a Republic by design. And it's the best design for government ever devised by human kind. The problem is, we've figured out a way to vote ourselves money from the Treasury.

Another quote, this time from Alexander Tyler about the fall of the Athenian Republic:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Wonder where Hillary would put us?

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft

Another quote, this time from Alexander Tyler about the fall of the Athenian Republic:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. "

Wonder where Hillary would put us?

Hillary? I think you had better read that quote again and realize that the BCE and their corporatist-fascist friends have done exactly that - raided the public treasury for their personal profit leading us into a dictatorship in all but name.