|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 24 new of 406 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 383 of 406:
| 
Nov 8 10:07 UTC 2000 |
That's a very un-american policy. The outcry would be awful.
Your caution is well-placed. Nobody is going to call this until after the
recounts, now. Crazy.
|
bru
|
|
response 384 of 406:
|
Nov 8 12:14 UTC 2000 |
on the other hand, that would make a nice payment on the election costs...
|
scott
|
|
response 385 of 406:
|
Nov 8 13:36 UTC 2000 |
That would be an easy law to pass. It's the non-voters who would probably
oppose it, and if they don't vote...
|
gull
|
|
response 386 of 406:
|
Nov 8 15:46 UTC 2000 |
With all ballots in except the overseas absentee ballots, Bush wins Florida
by 1,788 votes and takes the electoral college (but loses the popular vote.)
There's going to be a recount, of course, and the overseas ballots will be
coming in over the next ten days, so we won't know for sure for a while.
Overseas ballots do tend to go Republican, though. Looks like Bush squeaked
out an incredibly close victory.
Some people will blame Nader, but the fact is it's Gore's fault for taking
that part of his support base for granted.
|
gull
|
|
response 387 of 406:
|
Nov 8 15:49 UTC 2000 |
Another interesting factor is that some Democrats are pushing for an
investigation into the handling of the Florida vote. Apparently some ballot
boxes "went missing" for a while. (The suggestion is that they were
stuffed.)
|
aaron
|
|
response 388 of 406:
|
Nov 8 15:50 UTC 2000 |
It is not clear that all of the ballots are in. Apparently, the Secretary
of State's office called all 67 state election supervisors (getting most of
them out of bed) to double-check to see that all absentee ballots already
received have been counted. The overseas ballots not accounted for are
primarily from members of the military, so they probably won't help Gore
on the whole.
I don't think it is particularly reasonable to say that Gore erred in not
catering to the Nader extremes - which include fiscal and military
isolationism and a $10/hour minimum wage. He would have lost more votes
than he gained. OTOH, I think those who voted for Nader to make a point
just bit off their noses to spite their respective faces.
|
aaron
|
|
response 389 of 406:
|
Nov 8 15:50 UTC 2000 |
The ballot boxes were never missing, btw. They were accumulated in a single
location and transported en masse.
|
gull
|
|
response 390 of 406:
|
Nov 8 16:03 UTC 2000 |
Re #388: It was mostly Gore's support of excessive military spending and the
death penalty that I found distasteful. Basically he took a huge step
towards the right and arrogantly expected everyone to follow him. The Nader
voters didn't follow.
|
aaron
|
|
response 391 of 406:
|
Nov 8 17:00 UTC 2000 |
Gore (and his pollsters) obviously felt that they would lose more votes by
moving away from either the death penalty, or from military spendiing.
IMHO, the military needs to be re-evaluated from the top down, to cut a lot
of waste and overlap. I also wish it were a lot cheaper to have the world's
most powerful military, or that I felt that it was in our nation's best
interest to reduce the military, but I'm not sure that is the case.
The death penalty is a different story. Clinton was weak-kneed about it,
and although he set up a stringent review system to control its application
in federal cases, he has consistently postponed the first scheduled federal
execution so it will occur after he leaves office. Gore (and his pollsters)
obviously believe that he comes across better on the whole supporting the
death penalty. I found his endorsement of its deterrent effect to be weak
during the debate. Of course, it beat Bush's near-ejaculation while talking
about how many people had been executed in Texas. Ah, but the candidates
agree that (although others may disagree) the death penalty can only be
justified by deterrence. Yeah, right.
But to say that the Nader voters went to Nader over those issues, I think,
is incorrect. And it is no less "biting off their noses to spite their
faces" than going to Nader over any other issues. Gore's stand, from an
anti-death penalty perspective or a military spending perspective, is more
sensible than that of Bush.
|
gull
|
|
response 392 of 406:
|
Nov 8 17:41 UTC 2000 |
I don't disagree that Gore's stand is more sensible in a lot of cases. But
I think electing him would have only reinforced the Democrats' rightward
drift. Four more years of that and they might as well merge with the
Republican Party.
I would have preferred to see Gore elected instead of Bush, but with Bush
loosing the popular vote he's likely to be one of the weakest Presidents in
recent memory. I can live with that. Between that and the near-ties in the
House and Senate, I think this is the most evenly divided government I've
ever seen.
|
jep
|
|
response 393 of 406:
|
Nov 8 18:01 UTC 2000 |
If Bush becomes the president, which is fairly likely at this point,
he's going to have backing from both the House and Senate. It'll be
weak backing, but it will be the majority of both houses. He's gotten a
greater percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in the last
election, and lots more votes than Clinton did in either election.
(Didn't Clinton get less than 50% of the vote in his 1st election as
well?)
Gore, of course, got those things as well; he got more votes than Bush.
If Gore winds up with the presidency, he will have the weakest claim on
power of any president in history. Bush looks to me to be in better
shape with regards to wielding power than Gore, or than Clinton in his
2nd term.
Bush certainly doesn't have a mandate, such as what Reagan had when he
was elected. But one of the attributes he claimed was that he's a
consensus builder.
If he does win the election, and carries out very much of the agenda he
promised, it will back up his claim of being a consensus builder.
If the government falls apart and little of his agenda gets
accomplished, *then* it will be time to say Bush is a weak president,
and to sneer at his claims of crossing party lines and all that.
If he changes his agenda to match what Congress wants, it'll be hard to
ignore comparisons to Clinton in 1994.
And if he loses Congress to the Democrats in 2002, Bush will have a
legacy to match Clinton's.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 394 of 406:
|
Nov 8 18:06 UTC 2000 |
Last I heard, "they" hadn't confirmed that the Dem's had made it to 50 senate
seats yet. If they do, it will be the winning ticket's Veep that will break
ties in senate votes.
|
senna
|
|
response 395 of 406:
|
Nov 8 18:24 UTC 2000 |
If Gore wins, Lieberman will abdicate his seat, and the governor will
presumably appoint a republican. The Reps control in any case.
|
brighn
|
|
response 396 of 406:
|
Nov 12 03:35 UTC 2000 |
All other comments aside, I'd just like to gloat over one issue:
I said that half of Nader's voters would change their mind at the last minute
and go for Gore. Nader was polling at 5% in the days before the election, and
got roughly 2.5% of the vote.
On top of that, voter turnout is roughly 2% higher than it was 4 years ago,
last I heard. Hm. Nader got 2% of the vote. 2% more people showed up. Hm.
Do the math. Nader's net effect? Virtually nil. What would the people who
voted for Nader have done if they hadn't had Nader to vote for? Most of them
would've stayed home. The slight fringe that WOULD have voted for Gore were
negated by the slight fringe that voted for Buchanen over Bush.
|
scott
|
|
response 397 of 406:
|
Nov 12 13:23 UTC 2000 |
Well, definitely a good job there, brighn. By posting scare stories about
why people should vote for Gore instead of Nader, you've successfully defended
the strictly limited two party system. :/
|
brighn
|
|
response 398 of 406:
|
Nov 12 20:29 UTC 2000 |
If I'd been successful in the defence, I wouldn't have intelligent people
accusing me of using scare tactics.
|
scott
|
|
response 399 of 406:
|
Nov 12 21:51 UTC 2000 |
Maybe I should just shut my mouth and accept the compliment? ;)
What I meant was that with Nader not getting 5%, the Green party doesn't get
matching funds and therefore we're still with 2 (and only 2) parties which
can afford to count. And if there hadn't been so many people predicting dire
consequences with a Gore loss, maybe Nader would have gotten that 5%.
|
brighn
|
|
response 400 of 406:
|
Nov 12 22:12 UTC 2000 |
I hardly think my particular postings had any significant impact on Nader.
Would that I were that powerful. ;}
|
polygon
|
|
response 401 of 406:
|
Nov 12 23:55 UTC 2000 |
As I said elsewhere, the Electoral College pretty much makes the 2-party
system inevitable. We don't need to blame it on brighn. :-)
|
mdw
|
|
response 402 of 406:
|
Nov 13 01:20 UTC 2000 |
You might with just as much accuracy say that the capitalism makes 2
world auto companies inevitable. It's only a matter of time...
|
gull
|
|
response 403 of 406:
|
Nov 13 03:51 UTC 2000 |
Actually, pure capitalism probably makes *one* auto company the inevitable
result. Presumably who does the job best (for a particular definition of
"best") will "win." After that happens you don't really have a free market
anymore, though.
|
brighn
|
|
response 404 of 406:
|
Nov 13 04:19 UTC 2000 |
The electoral College in and of itself doesn't make the two-party system
inevitable. Having a voting system that requires a majority, rather than a
plurality, does. when was the last time the winner of the presidential
election even HAD a majority of the popular vote? Reagan in 88? As you add
parties, the likelihood of a majority vote decreases dramatically.
(Er, that would be Reagan in 84, I s'pose. Much as he wanted to, he wasn't
allowed to run in 88. ;} )
|
mdw
|
|
response 405 of 406:
|
Nov 13 05:28 UTC 2000 |
The forces that work to make a monopoly don't actually distinguish
between small numbers like one or two - so two is probably actually more
likely. By the time the count gets to one, what's left is often so
rotten it can't even compete successfully as a monopoly - kind of like
the soviet economy, Penn Central, or British Leyland.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 406 of 406:
|
Nov 13 06:21 UTC 2000 |
Competition/monopoly depend upon many factors, not just size. The chemical
industry is *very* competitive. Plants can be built almost anywhere,
and they do not require a large general labor force. So any one company
finds difficulty with a multitude of other companies making the same
product closer to their customers (and/or suppliers). Some companies
are very BIG, but that is because of the variety of products they make.
The competition is at the product level, not at the corporate level.
|