|
Grex > Agora35 > #124: Win the electoral college but lose the popular vote? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 409 responses total. |
aaron
|
|
response 379 of 409:
| 
Dec 13 05:36 UTC 2000 |
Oops. In scrolling through PDF, I skipped over the Ginsburg dissent,
joined by Stevens, and in part by Breyer and Souter. (I was trying to
determine the nature of the 5:4 split, before reading the full text.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 380 of 409:
|
Dec 13 05:50 UTC 2000 |
I'm reading Justice Souter's dissent right now, in which Justice Breyer joined
and Justices Stevens and Ginsberg joined "in regard to all but Part C", which
I haven't gotten to yet.
|
bru
|
|
response 381 of 409:
|
Dec 13 13:05 UTC 2000 |
well, I guess if the supreme court can amke new law on things like abortion
and voting rights, they can make new law on voting proceedure. (?)
Hell, I won't even try to understand beyond the fact that the SCOFLA tried
to change state law regarding elections and the SCOTUS said, "it ain't
happenin' baby!"
|
sno
|
|
response 382 of 409:
|
Dec 13 14:10 UTC 2000 |
While I applaud the decision which, in effect, enforces the original
deadline result (if not the actual numbers), I have to wonder if we
are headed for a serious "States Rights" litigation sequence.
|
scott
|
|
response 383 of 409:
|
Dec 13 14:26 UTC 2000 |
So Bush wins, I guess.
I'm actually glad for that. I'd *hate* to be on the "winning" side at this
point.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 384 of 409:
|
Dec 13 18:06 UTC 2000 |
Actually, the State Supreme Court did NOT change the election law; it merely
interpreted conflicting clauses and then reset the clock, allowing no more
time than would have been available if the courts had not been asked to
intervene.
The United States Supreme Court's actions are harder to understand. I
strongly suggest that anyone interested read the opinions. Yesterday's
is only 65 pages.
|
aaron
|
|
response 385 of 409:
|
Dec 13 23:24 UTC 2000 |
Joe is correct, with regard to bap's error. In the most recent Supreme Court
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court basically held that Florida's Supreme Court
violated the Equal Protection Clause, because it did *not* make new law.
They essentially want it both ways - you can't make new law, but you also
can't fashion a remedy without making new law, under their two decisions.
|
senna
|
|
response 386 of 409:
|
Dec 15 06:07 UTC 2000 |
Indeed, being on the losing side, especially in as meangingless an
election as this, is probably better for one's long term political
prospects. Gore, naturally, made a full concession and called for
everyone to support Bush. As an "average" voter, I found it
heartening. Naturally, having a brain, I can see the sort of ground
Gore can make up in public opinion with such a move. He looks really
good.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 387 of 409:
|
Dec 15 06:08 UTC 2000 |
Why "meaningless"?
|
janc
|
|
response 388 of 409:
|
Dec 15 15:47 UTC 2000 |
I thought Gore did OK. I'd said earlier that someone would have to deliver
"the mother of all concession speeches" when this was over, and he came up
with a reasonable approximation. Very little whining (though he did say he
disagreed with the result). No doors left open. Good enough.
|
gull
|
|
response 389 of 409:
|
Dec 15 15:50 UTC 2000 |
Re #387: Because no matter who won, about 50% of the population was going to
hate them for it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 390 of 409:
|
Dec 15 16:29 UTC 2000 |
Ah. It wasn't "meaningless" in October, but it is in December. Is that what
you are saying?
|
aruba
|
|
response 391 of 409:
|
Dec 15 19:30 UTC 2000 |
All of the TV commentators were falling all over themselves saying how
sincere and "graceful" Gore sounded. I thought he sounded fake, just like
always.
|
mdw
|
|
response 392 of 409:
|
Dec 15 21:55 UTC 2000 |
I don't know that he sounded "graceful", but to me he at least sounded
"honest" and "sincere". I think it was ok for him to say that he both
disagreed strongly with the supreme court and agreed to abide by their
decision.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 393 of 409:
|
Dec 15 22:04 UTC 2000 |
re #386: "being on the losing side ... is probably better for one's
long-term political prospects."
Sorry, Steve, but that sounds to me like the lamest sort of
rationalization -- "those grapes were probably sour anyway.."
Bush, Jr. gets to be the next president of the United States
and this is a move which is better for Gore's long-term political
prospects than it is for Bush's? Please..
|
gelinas
|
|
response 394 of 409:
|
Dec 15 22:30 UTC 2000 |
In *this instance only*, yes, being on the losing side is not the end of
the world. ("A plus" is possibly overstating the matter.) Others who
have lost in a similar way have subsequently won. As has been pointed out
before today. :)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 395 of 409:
|
Dec 16 00:18 UTC 2000 |
I still find ludicrous the idea that losing was better for Gore's
long-term political prospects than winning would have been.
|
aaron
|
|
response 396 of 409:
|
Dec 16 01:18 UTC 2000 |
As do I. I think he's pretty much done.
|
mdw
|
|
response 397 of 409:
|
Dec 16 01:47 UTC 2000 |
I think the argument runs that if he had succeeded, he would have been
faced with a very slightly republican congress & senate, and that that,
plus any continued legal challenges from the bush team, would have left
him a relatively weak president. Now that he's failed, he has another
chance to run in 4 years, and if he succeeds then (after the presumable
hash that evil Bush guy will make of things) he might have a shot at 8
years as a much stronger president. I think there are a few too many
iff's there to make this necessarily a likely case, but since it's not
impossible, it's surely not safe to say that Gore is 'pretty much done'.
I think we'll all have to wait a couple of years, so that we all have
time to digest this election and decide what we think really happened,
and how we feel about the players. If it turns out (for instance) after
the press gets through counting the Florida votes, that Gore should have
won, that is likely to make some people think differently or more
positively regarding Gore and his failed attempt to have those votes
counted.
|
aaron
|
|
response 398 of 409:
|
Dec 16 02:06 UTC 2000 |
Oh, I just think he's pretty much done as a presidential candidate. Unless
he gets another office, or somehow miraculously transforms himself into an
"elder statesman," I think he will be remembered by the people (and by
his party) as an ineffectual candidate. Why re-nominate a guy who couldn't
cut it the first time, particularly following eight prosperous years while
facing opposition from a candidate as weak as Bush.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 399 of 409:
|
Dec 16 02:20 UTC 2000 |
Everyone should recall that Nixon rose from the ashes of 1960 to succeed in
1968 and 1972. So there is no "rule" that "Gore is forever done".
|
gelinas
|
|
response 400 of 409:
|
Dec 16 03:01 UTC 2000 |
Andrew Jackson lost the first time he ran, too.
|
aaron
|
|
response 401 of 409:
|
Dec 16 04:08 UTC 2000 |
Nope. No "rule". Just probability. Hey - maybe Dukakis will come back, also.
|
senna
|
|
response 402 of 409:
|
Dec 16 05:45 UTC 2000 |
Gore could come back, but he wasn't who I was talking about. I was
talking about the losing *side*. The dems could gain a post-Mulrooney
style windfall in four years, and democratic voters get all sorts of
peck opportunities at republicans for that same period.
|
sno
|
|
response 403 of 409:
|
Dec 16 14:56 UTC 2000 |
Two thoughts...
Hillary Clinton is now the "leader" of the Democratic Party.
Gore's concession speech was nothing of the kind. In fact, key
factions in the Democratic party are lobbying Electors as we speak
to convince them to cast their vote Democrat instead of Republican.
Should they succeed, I can bet my house and cars that Gore will
again "rescind" his "speech". We may yet see more extraordinary
turmoil as the intent to subvert the common expectation continues.
|