ChasingBlueSky 0 #326 November 4, 2004 I still don't see how a race that went down to the last states coming in could be considered "spanked." It was a close race,_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #327 November 4, 2004 QuoteIt was a close race, Too bad close doesn't matter. Bush is your POTUS. You can stand behind him and support him and our country or you can complain and whine. Choice is yours. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #328 November 4, 2004 Well, considering how many pundits were predicting Kerry, I find it very significant that Bush won the popular vote in a record turnout. Bush won the electoral college by 34 votes. Bush's party demolished Kerry's party in other federal elections. If that's not a spanking, well, I'll just keep you away from the paddles.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #329 November 4, 2004 You hit the nail on the head. The liberals got spanked hard. It's time they take a step back and take a good, hard, long look at themselves and their beliefs. By the time there is another election the republicans will have held the WH 20 out of 28 years. Seems like no one is buying the liberal mindset. And to add insult to injury, republicans now control the house and senate. Also, Bush will nominate more than one supreme court justice (maybe up to three). It is indeed time the liberals take some time and take a good, long, hard look at themselves in what they believe in and what they expect us Americans to believe in. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #330 November 4, 2004 QuoteIt is indeed time the liberals take some time and take a good, long, hard look at themselves in what they believe in and what they expect us Americans to believe in. Once again. Half of this country believes that Bush shouldn't be President, or support his beliefs. To say we must blindly follow any leader is dangerous - that is what allowed Hitler to rise to power. No thanks, I'll spend the next four years getting to know my representative quite well, and will be sending out many letters. The last time I decided to get very proactive I ended up on the front page of all the Chicago newspapers. I'm feeling very proactive._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #331 November 4, 2004 QuoteYou hit the nail on the head. The liberals got spanked hard. It's time they take a step back and take a good, hard, long look at themselves and their beliefs. By the time there is another election the republicans will have held the WH 20 out of 28 years. Seems like no one is buying the liberal mindset. And to add insult to injury, republicans now control the house and senate. Also, Bush will nominate more than one supreme court justice (maybe up to three). It is indeed time the liberals take some time and take a good, long, hard look at themselves in what they believe in and what they expect us Americans to believe in. Shhhhh..... Don't tell them why they keep losing. Let them stay delusional. That way we will have more than 60 seats in the Senate and over 300 in the House eventually. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #332 November 4, 2004 Bush won and now the media is saying how smart he was and how the Dems are out of touch. They weren't spouting that shit yesterday. The news outlets were plainly in the Kerry pro-left camp. I think some of it was the underdog thing but clearly they were against the American proactive defense strategy. Iraq news was totally negative day after day. I am sure that all of the major networks had stories in the can about how 'the misguided expansionist policy of the failed Bush administation' damaged our standing in the world. Let the talking heads pat themselves on the ass about great they are and how the 'moral silent right' came out in droves to save their country from the ' liberals, homosexuals, and traitors'. The truth is not in their portfolio, only exageration and spin. Maybe these screwheads will one day come down to the peoples' level and try to be journalists, but I doubt it. Thank the Lord that this Bush was not mistreated like his father and will have a chance to really make a difference. All of us, today and in the future, everywhere in the world, are much better off because of yesterday's very close election. -------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #333 November 4, 2004 ok guys, lets just say this: Bush won... not by a huge amount, but he did get 51% of the vote. Yes that means 49% of the voters didn't want bush. the election is over and bush is the pres for four more years... can we please stop the partisan bickering now? MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #334 November 4, 2004 Were you out there ten years ago spouting the truth that MORE than 50% of voters didn't want Clinton?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #335 November 4, 2004 more than 50% didn't want Clinton both in 92 and in 96... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #336 November 4, 2004 QuoteIf that's not a spanking, well, I'll just keep you away from the paddles. Spanking not really, more like a small slap across the face. Real spankings are Reagen both terms, BC both terms, but no comparison to Reagan v Mondale. Mondale got what 13 EC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #337 November 4, 2004 Well, I wanted to post this link from the 2000 election, since the hard liberals are spouting off since they lost. http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #338 November 4, 2004 Which gets back to whose votes count more? Right now, people who live in densely-populated areas have votes that count for less than people who live in sparsely-populated areas. People vote, not acres. I'm not saying that it should be exactly the same, but it is votes that we count, It still sounds like the electoral college, in its current incarnation, is like affirmative action for rural votes. I'd like to see proportional allocation for the house-numbers, and the state either throws both senate-number to the winner, or allocates them, as they see fit. That still gives the rural voters a little extra punch, without its being quite as disprorportionate. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #339 November 4, 2004 QuoteRight now, people who live in densely-populated areas have votes that count for less than people who live in sparsely-populated areas How do you figure? The number of EC delegates are determined by the number of represenatives/senators each state has in the congress, which is based on popoulation (except for senators), not size. More population, more representation. How those delegates are split is up to the states... Most states are winner take all, but not all... CO had a reforendum of changing how their's were to be split, and it failed. But that is the only way it is going to get changed, state by state.All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #340 November 4, 2004 QuoteThe number of EC delegates are determined by the number of represenatives/senators each state has in the congress Which means the less populated a state is, the more disproportionate its representation because they ALWAYS have those 2 senate electors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,146 #341 November 4, 2004 For one thing, a state gets an electoral vote for both the congresscritters (which are population-driven) and the senatorcritters (which come in pairs, regardless of the population of the state). So a state with 50,000,000 gets the same number of "extra" votes (i.e. senators) as one with 300,000. That does increase the oomph of the rural voters. Combine that with winner-takes-all -- it means that as long as there are more rural than urban voters (more common, you might agree, in sparsely-populated states), the urban voters' votes won't matter if they differ from the rural voters'. That is how it currently works. Yes, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to change it across the whole US. Just pointing it out. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #342 November 5, 2004 QuoteSpanking not really, more like a small slap across the face. Real spankings are Reagen both terms, BC both terms, but no comparison to Reagan v Mondale. Mondale got what 13 EC. I hope that BC isn't Bill Clinton. He didn't even get the majority of the popular vote. According to some complaints here, that's the same as saying MORE than 50% of voters didn't want him as president. If it is Clinton, well, your standard for a spanking is even less than mine. One the day the map turned red, Mondale won Minnesota. Only Minnesota. I think they are ten, but they could be thirteen. Or maybe he carried DC (which doesn't count in my mind) and that could be three, and ten and three is thirteen. That wasn't a spanking, that was a slaughter.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #343 November 5, 2004 So by that logic, less populated states have disproportionate representation in the congress too... If we were to change it, nation wide, to a system that apportions it by congressional district, and then the winner of the popular vote take the senantor's votes, we might as well just have the congress select the president... I don't see any benifit or change. Sure it will change the numbers, but it will almost ensure that the HoR is the same party as the President, and perhapse the Senate too... that is not always a good thing. We are a represenative democracy, not a pure one, the EC is an extension of that.All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #344 November 5, 2004 QuoteIf we were to change it, nation wide, to a system that apportions it by congressional district, and then the winner of the popular vote take the senantor's votes, we might as well just have the congress select the president... I don't see any benifit or change. That doesn't really follow. I voted different parties for congress and President. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #345 November 5, 2004 QuoteI voted different parties for congress and President. While I don't have numbers to support this, my feeling is that you are the exception, rather than the rule... did you split your ticket for HoR or Senate, or both? JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #346 November 5, 2004 Rep for house and senate. Lib for state auditor and treasurer. Dem for state atty. gen'l and pres. Rep for state house. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #347 November 5, 2004 Had another thought... Quotea state gets an electoral vote for both the congresscritters (which are population-driven) and the senatorcritters (which come in pairs, regardless of the population of the state). I stated that in my original post... QuoteSo a state with 50,000,000 gets the same number of "extra" votes (i.e. senators) as one with 300,000. That does increase the oomph of the rural voters. It would only do that if the popular vote had any weight at the national level... since the popular vote only counts at the state level, there is still one person, one vote. The EC, as is the case with the Senate, hedges the power of states with lage population vs. states with smaller ones. It is a fundimental part of our system, ensuring that those state's interests are not trampled. How a state chooses to distribute their EC delegates is a state issue, any change should happen there. And as was seen in CO, there was not a lot of support for that change. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OATSF14 0 #348 November 5, 2004 Bush won...great. Repubs gained more power....great. Next move is the Supremes.....go team.....go!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #349 November 6, 2004 QuoteI voted different parties for congress and President. And you also said the following..... QuoteTurn out is huge and that is hugely in his favor. QuoteNo need. Kerry will win, in a landslide, period. There's no doubt about it. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #350 November 12, 2004 Quote I'm calling for Kerry decisively with Bush conceding tonight. Turn out is huge and that is hugely in his favor. Wow....How does your shoe taste?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
