• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

?Reelect Gore in 2004?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: her209
I say we should put Clinton back in office.

It pisses Republicans off that if an election were held today between Dubya and Clinton, Clinton would win, even though he couldn't serve. 🙂


Some us live in a realistic world.

And yet believe that Dubya is an intelligent man.
HA, I started a thread for this: here.
 
Originally posted by: minus1972
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: her209
I say we should put Clinton back in office.

It pisses Republicans off that if an election were held today between Dubya and Clinton, Clinton would win, even though he couldn't serve. 🙂


Some us live in a realistic world.

And yet believe that Dubya is an intelligent man.
HA, I started a thread for this: here.

Clinton won, 6 to 3. Or are we going to leave it open until Bush wins?
 
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"I think that is the leadership and direction that was rejected by America, but what concerns me alot was the slim amount of rejection."

You do realize that more people voted for Gore than voted for Bush ? I don't see how you can call getting a majority of the votes a rejection.

Not every vote was counted in the now famous Florida counties or in any other state or county in the country. Many, spelled thousands, of absentee ballots were not counted. For whatever reason be it mail problems or other. There are votes that go uncounted in every state.

Besides, we have the genius of the Electoral College in the US. Bush got more votes. Get over it!
 
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"I think that is the leadership and direction that was rejected by America, but what concerns me alot was the slim amount of rejection."

You do realize that more people voted for Gore than voted for Bush ? I don't see how you can call getting a majority of the votes a rejection.

Not every vote was counted in the now famous Florida counties or in any other state or county in the country. Many, spelled thousands, of absentee ballots were not counted. For whatever reason be it mail problems or other. There are votes that go uncounted in every state.

Besides, we have the genius of the Electoral College in the US. Bush got more votes. Get over it!

"Genius of the Electoral College"?!? Are you nuts?!? ANY election system that causes the person with the majority of votes to lose is a system that is fundmentally flawed.

Sure, the outcome might have ended up in your favor, but that is NO reason to praise an outdated and unfair system of counting votes. In most democraticly elected countries, the guy with the most votes wins the election, and that is how it should work here as well.
 
Originally posted by: grasshopper26
Split over another Gore campaign

Nobody should mistake west Los Angeles for the rest of America, but the long lines outside Brentano?s bookstore here Tuesday night offered a sharp counterpoint to the inside-the-Beltway notion that Al Gore has few friends left in the Democratic Party.

MSNBC

News flash... Bush won, Gore lost, now will you PLEASE get over it? :disgust:

Some Democratic insiders, still bitter over Gore?s 2000 performance, would prefer to see the former vice president slip into permanent political retirement, freeing the party to find a fresh face to challenge President Bush in two years. But many rank-and-file Democrats still believe Gore, after winning the popular vote in 2000, deserves another chance.

Grasshopper

Funny how the argument of republicans is always "get over it". I guess that's all you have when you know your candidate lost.
 
Originally posted by: Tominator
With no electoral college only 5 or 6 regions in the US would dictate how the rest lived. Fewer people would vote.

That's because the majority of the people live in those states. Its not fair when states with not nearly as much people have the same say.
 
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: her209
I say we should put Clinton back in office.

It pisses Republicans off that if an election were held today between Dubya and Clinton, Clinton would win, even though he couldn't serve. 🙂


Some us live in a realistic world.

And yet believe that Dubya is an intelligent man.
It doesn't matter if Dubya is intelligent or not. What does matter is if he's good enough to pick intelligent people to run the various Government administrations.

I think many people mistake intelligence with being able to speak properly in public. Sure, Dubya has had a few blunders when publically speaking. However, Bill Clinton was a very capable speaker --- capable enough of speaking lies to the American public to the point that most citizens believed what he was saying. Personally, I'd rather have someone who wasn't so polished with their public speaking abilities. People in this position have little to hide. Most great public speakers that I've watched, heard, whatever, have perfected their speaking for a reason --- they don't want anyone to question their true message or agenda and by having the words roll easily off of one's tongue, prevents a lot of questions from being raised.

 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Tominator
With no electoral college only 5 or 6 regions in the US would dictate how the rest lived. Fewer people would vote.

That's because the majority of the people live in those states. Its not fair when states with not nearly as much people have the same say.


The electorial college is a good thing.
 
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"I think that is the leadership and direction that was rejected by America, but what concerns me alot was the slim amount of rejection."

You do realize that more people voted for Gore than voted for Bush ? I don't see how you can call getting a majority of the votes a rejection.

Not every vote was counted in the now famous Florida counties or in any other state or county in the country. Many, spelled thousands, of absentee ballots were not counted. For whatever reason be it mail problems or other. There are votes that go uncounted in every state.

Besides, we have the genius of the Electoral College in the US. Bush got more votes. Get over it!

"Genius of the Electoral College"?!? Are you nuts?!? ANY election system that causes the person with the majority of votes to lose is a system that is fundmentally flawed.

Sure, the outcome might have ended up in your favor, but that is NO reason to praise an outdated and unfair system of counting votes. In most democraticly elected countries, the guy with the most votes wins the election, and that is how it should work here as well.

You really are ignorant in this area and need to do a little reading. Is the current electoral college perfect? No I think it needs a few changes but just going by popular vote is INSANE. It would mean california, texas and new york would decide for the entire country(I don't think that the other 47 states would like that). Just because you have a highly populated state doesn't mean that you should be able to decide for the rest of the country. It basically helps every one have an equal vote instead of some pocket of highly dense population make a decision for the rest of the country.

As already stated....in a state like South Carolina that ALWAYS go republican for the President they don't count all the votes once it is seen who will win regardless so your popular vote count doesn't even matter because there are PLENTY of votes in many states that were never counted for Bush.
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Tominator
With no electoral college only 5 or 6 regions in the US would dictate how the rest lived. Fewer people would vote.

That's because the majority of the people live in those states. Its not fair when states with not nearly as much people have the same say.

But it is when you're talking the federal government, the union of 50 states, otherwise the interests of the 50 states would not be represented equally. If the more populated states didn't feel this equal representation is fair, let them secede 😉
 
Originally posted by: Tominator
With no electoral college only 5 or 6 regions in the US would dictate how the rest lived. Fewer people would vote.

So, in other words, you like the electoral college, because it essentially makes the votes from highly populated states like New York and California worth less than states like Montana and North Dakota? I'd imagine that most New Yorkers like myself would resent that.
 
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Tominator
With no electoral college only 5 or 6 regions in the US would dictate how the rest lived. Fewer people would vote.

So, in other words, you like the electoral college, because it essentially makes the votes from highly populated states like New York and California worth less than states like Montana and North Dakota? I'd imagine that most New Yorkers like myself would resent that.


That is why we live in representative republic and not a pure democracy. The equal representation you speak of would be mob rule for the rest of the country. New York is free to run their state as they please, but they are not free in controlling the legislation that covers the other 49.
 
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Tominator
With no electoral college only 5 or 6 regions in the US would dictate how the rest lived. Fewer people would vote.

So, in other words, you like the electoral college, because it essentially makes the votes from highly populated states like New York and California worth less than states like Montana and North Dakota? I'd imagine that most New Yorkers like myself would resent that.

Move or start a movement to rewrite the Constitution. Those are the choices.

 
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Tominator
With no electoral college only 5 or 6 regions in the US would dictate how the rest lived. Fewer people would vote.

So, in other words, you like the electoral college, because it essentially makes the votes from highly populated states like New York and California worth less than states like Montana and North Dakota? I'd imagine that most New Yorkers like myself would resent that.

Montana and North Dakota don't deserve as much say so, because they suck. If they didn't suck, there'd be more people there and the would deserve more say so. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Tominator
With no electoral college only 5 or 6 regions in the US would dictate how the rest lived. Fewer people would vote.

So, in other words, you like the electoral college, because it essentially makes the votes from highly populated states like New York and California worth less than states like Montana and North Dakota? I'd imagine that most New Yorkers like myself would resent that.

Montana and North Dakota don't deserve as much say so, because they suck. If they didn't suck, there'd be more people there and the would deserve more say so. 🙂
I've lived in North Dakota before - it sucks.
 
Originally posted by: Tominator
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Tominator
With no electoral college only 5 or 6 regions in the US would dictate how the rest lived. Fewer people would vote.

So, in other words, you like the electoral college, because it essentially makes the votes from highly populated states like New York and California worth less than states like Montana and North Dakota? I'd imagine that most New Yorkers like myself would resent that.

Move or start a movement to rewrite the Constitution. Those are the choices.

The less populated states will just shoot it down.
 
Clinton was great, but I never really liked Gore. I don't think he would balance the budget like Clinton did.
It is funny that some of the same people who are still not over 1992 are telling the rest of us to get over 2000. 😀
 
We all know, of course, that a consortium of newspapers recounted the Florida ballots and added them up in various ways. They then announced that Bush won according to most of those counts. What they buried was one important count. If you took all on the legal ballots cast in Florida and counted them exactly as marked, Gore won. Gore got the majority of legal votes in Florida. The Supreme Coup selected the looser.

That said, I really don't thing all the haranguing about Bush being a moron is really fair. Yes, he can't talk and his thoughts or self talk are doubtless as screwed up as his speech. And yes he has degrees from prestigious universities, the work to complete for which there isn't the slightest chance he did himself. But a party is under an obligation to run a candidate that can garner support among it members.

There isn't the slightest chance the modern Republican party could run a candidate who isn't a moron and win.

Democrats have to get over it.
 
Back
Top