We've had our debates and we've had our election. It is time to get the healing process started.
Senator Kerry, I voted for you and I want you to step down with dignity.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Well, I'd kind of like for them to make sure that he actually lost before he concedes.
BTW, congrats on hitting 1000 posts! Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Thanks. I was saving it for a special occasion. I guess this qualifies. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The provisional ballots won't be counted for 11 days, to give the state time to receive military absentee ballots postmarked by election day and to count them. If the gap between the candidates is less than the number of provisional ballots, the provisionals will be counted.
The margin in Ohio is 136,221 (2,794,346-2,658,125). 96,221 provisional ballots have been used so far, but 25 counties remain to report. If there are 175,000 provisional ballots, Kerry would need to win 155,611, or 88.92%, to close the gap. If there are 250,000 provisional ballots, Kerry would need to win 193,111, or 77.24%. Not all provisional ballots received are counted.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug*
I can't say I'd do differently if I were Sen. Kerry. He and Sen. Edwards made very specific promises to count every vote, and as time passes it would appear that those promises are what's left of their campaign. It's still the morning after the election, and it is possible that things will swing his way.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bullshit.
Count every vote, until it is impossible to win...then count them again.
I called this election for Bush a few days ago, but that doesn't mean I am happy about it...
What pisses me off the most is the people like John McCain, who I would have voted for 4 years ago, campaigning for the very man who hacked him apart so bad during the primaries 4 years ago. I thought McCain was a good man, with strong values, but it turns out he sold out like the rest of those politicians....stumping for ultra-conservitive right wing groups that he wouldn't ahve wanted to be associated with 4 years ago.
It just goes to prove that they are all morally coppupt, and more concerned with saving their own cusy jobs than standing up for the isues they claim to represent.
The same people who ran the SBV ads are now calling for "an end to partisianship"....what a crock!
Kwea
[ November 03, 2004, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Kwea is bitter old man!
He can take as long as he wants. kerry doesn't even have to give a concession speech. He is free to sit around brainstorming ways to turn this into a win all day long, it won't make a difference...he still lost.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, we are begining to hear the "spin" already, about how Bush "has won by the largest margin in history, adn so obviously has a clear mandate from the American people"....which ignors the fact that a record number of Americans ALSO showed up to vote against Bush ans his policies.
How can any group, Bush OR Kerry, claim a mandate after an election this close? It should be clear that one way or another half of American isn't happy about the way things are or where they are going. That would be true regardless of who won.
Just because half of American is from the bible belt doesn't mean that a clear mandate exists for either of them...
Kwea
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nah, remember...I also said that this country is far stronger than any one man, even the President. We survived 4 years of complete incompetence and deceit, we will survive another 4.
At least People like OSC can't blame the Democrats for everything this time around, as it looks like the Republicans now have a slim majority in Congress.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I thought McCain was a good man, with strong values, but it turns out he sold out like the rest of those politicians....stumping for ultra-conservitive right wing groups that he wouldn't ahve wanted to be associated with 4 years ago.
It is possible to be a good man with strong values, but do the things John McCain has done. Just because he does not seethe with disgust for Dubya as you do, doesn't preclude his being a good man.
And let me say this, Kwea: if the shoe were on the other foot, I think you would be less than charitable if it were Bush doing the not-conceding.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They had a slim majority in Congress. Now it's less slim, but not fillibuster proof.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag's right. As long as there are still Democrats alive, people will find ways to blame things on them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
True. Luckily, the Republicans are there to provide the same service to the left.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, Rakeesh, as far as I can tell McCain does seethe with disgust for Bush, he just puts it aside during elections due to party loyalty.
I certainly wouldn't be at all surprised, given the character assassination job Bush pulled during the primaries four years ago (watch that recent special about Bush and Kerry's political lives? It had an interesting segment first showing a guy making McCain out to be an unpatriotic traitor while Bush sat next to him and smiled, then showing McCain protesting how Bush was characterizing him that way on a news show along with Bush, and Bush becoming offended saying that he never said any of those things, he thought McCain was an upstanding guy), and the complete disregard for the fiscal conservatism McCain is such a champion of.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Luckily, the Republicans are there to provide the same service to the left."
Oh, please. Is it really necessary to point out that Republicans have firm control of all three branches of the federal government AND most state governments? And that although things are bound to go wrong on their watch, they will of course attempt to blame their mistakes on the largely powerless Democratic minority?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It should start "Sorry, folks, but the Republicans stole this election fair and square. And if Democrats can't keep an election honest, America deserves bad government."
It's like I told DougJ a long time ago, an election is war by other means: ballots instead of bullets. And deceit, deception, and dirty tricks have always been a legitimate part of war.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Luckily, the Republicans are there to provide the same service to the left."
Oh, please. Is it really necessary to point out that Republicans have firm control of all three branches of the federal government AND most state governments? And that although things are bound to go wrong on their watch, they will of course attempt to blame their mistakes on the largely powerless Democratic minority?
Tom, this has got to be the most incoherent thing I've ever seen you post. Of course the Deomcrats blame things on the Republicans. Just as Republicans blame things on Democrats.
This board is replete with people who voted for Kerry who have been doing that since I got here.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My point, Dag, is that it's almost technically impossible for the Democrats to block Republican policy. And that as these policies fail, Republicans will of course not say, "Oh, gee, I guess this was a bad policy of ours. It was all those Democrats and their immoral, undemocratic attempts to filibuster this policy that doomed it."
Do you think that's a stretch, or an accurate call?
[ November 03, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I don't think it's accurate.
Republicans are much more likely to blame "activist judges." Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Good point. I'll hand you that one. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, according to constitutional scholars, the Gang of Five are the most activist of any set of USSupremeCourt Justices.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First, that has no bearing on how Republicans perceive things.
Second, I just edited an article that had a fairly comprehensive review of the literature on this issue, and the justices are almost exactly equally activist. Since O'Connor moves back and forth between the two wings, it's hard to assign one as more activist than the other.
Third, the 5 most conservative justices are far less activist with respect to Constitutional interpretation, as opposed to the statutory interpretation that occupies most of their time, than the other 4, with O'Connor being almost evenly split. And "Constitutional activism" is the kind most villified by Republicans.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)