|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 372 of 536:
| 
Nov 16 05:04 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps the notion that he could do better in the election if he
didn't accept those limits?
|
bru
|
|
response 373 of 536:
|
Nov 16 05:59 UTC 2003 |
I doubt that all the republican money came from one source.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 374 of 536:
|
Nov 16 07:00 UTC 2003 |
re #371:
> A $12E6 donation to the democrats is a drop in the bucket compared
> to the $200E6 in Bush's bucket.
$2E8 / $1.2E7 ~= 17
I've never seen a bucket which only held 17 drops..
|
tsty
|
|
response 375 of 536:
|
Nov 16 07:26 UTC 2003 |
... re 371, 374 .. carter arithmetic, of course ...
it is good that two (maybe three later) capitalists donate their
'winnings' to the downtrodden politicians who have no vision nor policy
nor concept of 'new europe', teh 'new world', the better way.
facing abject failure is terrifying. it *seems* taht democrat cantidates,
aside from liberman and kerry, have not moved past 9/12/2001.
of course having kennedy barzenly lable black, female judges as
neanderthal helped the cause. did he burbble anything about hispanic
nominees? probably, but i missed his slur.
|
other
|
|
response 376 of 536:
|
Nov 16 18:15 UTC 2003 |
Casting Kennedy's 'neanderthal' remark as a racial slur is prima
facie evidence of a political agenda, if only because I know you,
TS, are insufficiently ignorant to actually believe that it was one.
|
gull
|
|
response 377 of 536:
|
Nov 17 14:30 UTC 2003 |
Re #371: It's an apples-to-oranges comparison anyway, since the
contribution wasn't to a specific candidate. I bet the Republican party
has raised a lot more money than just the $200 million Bush has.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 378 of 536:
|
Nov 17 17:35 UTC 2003 |
Imagine how indignant we'd all be if a single donor had given $12 million
in "soft money" to the Republican party and earmarked it for the upcoming
presidential campaign.
Call me a fool but I'd like to believe there's still room in politics for
people who believe standards are something you expect your own side to
abide by, not just your opponents.
|
twenex
|
|
response 379 of 536:
|
Nov 17 18:00 UTC 2003 |
You're a fool. "(i'm joking, but I do fear you may be being optimistic.)
|
gull
|
|
response 380 of 536:
|
Nov 17 19:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #378:
> Imagine how indignant we'd all be if a single donor had given $12 million
> in "soft money" to the Republican party and earmarked it for the upcoming
> presidential campaign.
I'm guessing that's already happened, many times.
|
tsty
|
|
response 381 of 536:
|
Nov 18 06:55 UTC 2003 |
re #376 ... you are correct .. any balck female judge who escapes the
clutches of the democrat-welfare enclave/slavery *must* be soemting
of a neanderthal - a vicious poitical agenda not worthy of america.
|
tsty
|
|
response 382 of 536:
|
Nov 18 06:56 UTC 2003 |
so, kennedy should announce this on espn?
|
gull
|
|
response 383 of 536:
|
Nov 18 14:21 UTC 2003 |
Been listening to Rush, eh?
|
bru
|
|
response 384 of 536:
|
Nov 18 14:23 UTC 2003 |
sounds like you must be too!
|
tsty
|
|
response 385 of 536:
|
Nov 18 14:57 UTC 2003 |
" ... as i was saying ......"
|
klg
|
|
response 386 of 536:
|
Nov 21 18:41 UTC 2003 |
The (other) "illegitimate" president who lost the election, cut taxes,
and took us war. Oh, the outrage!
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
A Minority President: George W. Bush "lost the popular vote." So did
JFK.
Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:01 a.m.
. . .
The effect of potential vote stealing on the outcome of the (1960)
election was not the only historical argument cut short by Kennedy's
assassination. . . . But was Kennedy, like George W. Bush, actually
a "minority president," elected without a popular-vote plurality?
. . .(I)n Alabama, JFK's name didn't actually appear on the ballot.
Voters were asked to choose between Nixon and a slate of "unpledged
Democrat electors." A statewide primary had chosen five Democratic
electors . . . pledged to JFK (and) six who were free to vote for
anyone. The Democratic slate defeated Nixon, 324,050 votes to
237,981. In the end, the six unpledged electors voted for Sen. Harry
Byrd of Virginia, a leading Dixiecrat . . . When the Associated Press
at the time counted up the popular vote from all 50 states it listed
all the Democratic votes, pledged and unpledged, in the Kennedy
column. Over the years other counts have routinely assigned all of
Alabama's votes to Kennedy.
But scholars say that isn't accurate. "Not all the voters who chose
those electors were for Kennedy--anything but," says historian Albert
Southwick. Humphrey Taylor. . . (I)n Alabama "much of the popular
vote . . . that is credited to Kennedy's line to give him a small
plurality nationally" is dubious. "Richard Nixon seems to have carried
the popular vote narrowly, while Kennedy won in the Electoral College,"
he concludes.
Congressional Quarterly . . . (r)eporter Neil Pierce took the highest
vote cast for any of the 11 Democratic electors in Alabama--324,050--
and divided it proportionately between Kennedy and the unpledged
electors who ended up voting for Harry Byrd. . .
With these new totals for Alabama . . . Nixon has a 58,181-vote (nation-
wide) plurality, edging out Kennedy . . .
Remember this the next time a Democrat complains that President
Bush "lost the popular vote." . . . .
Copyright 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 387 of 536:
|
Nov 21 18:46 UTC 2003 |
this is not news.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 388 of 536:
|
Nov 21 22:33 UTC 2003 |
I'd never heard it before.
|
other
|
|
response 389 of 536:
|
Nov 22 03:35 UTC 2003 |
"Anything but..." Yeah, right. If that was the case, then why
didn't they vote Republican?
|
bru
|
|
response 390 of 536:
|
Nov 22 03:59 UTC 2003 |
Don't they still refer to the 1960 vote as the closest in american history?
|
polygon
|
|
response 391 of 536:
|
Nov 25 08:36 UTC 2003 |
Now wait a minute. The term "highest elector" implies that Alabama voters
in 1960 could vote for any combination of up to 11 elector candidates.
That means that anyone who didn't want to support JFK could simply
withhold their vote from the five elector candidates who were pledged to
support him. Hence, the vote for five Kennedy electors could plausibly be
a measure of support for JFK.
On the other hand, I suppose that voting for one elector (in a state with
eleven electoral votes) is casting just one-eleventh of your vote to them.
But what if you were a 100% Kennedy supporter voting in Alabama? Better
to vote for Byrd candidates to keep Nixon from getting those electoral
votes. The analysis quoted above would count you as 6/11 for the
unpledged slate.
Up to about 1930 or 1940, every state's ballot listed individual electors,
and no presidential candidate names appeared on the ballot anywhere.
In West Virginia in, I think, 1916, the state ended up with a split
electoral vote because one of the candidates on the dominant slate
withdrew, and the message to substitute another candidate didn't get out
to every county. Because the votes were split, the substitute candidate
lost, and the top candidate on the minority party slate was elected.
It just goes to show how complicated this electoral college business can
get.
|
klg
|
|
response 392 of 536:
|
Nov 25 17:03 UTC 2003 |
Particularly when one attempts to "divine" the "intention" of a voter,
rather than objectively counting the actual vote.
|
gull
|
|
response 393 of 536:
|
Nov 25 18:14 UTC 2003 |
Or when voting officials are too stupid to empty the chads out of
punch-card machines, making it impossible to actually punch out a hole.
|
klg
|
|
response 394 of 536:
|
Nov 25 20:59 UTC 2003 |
(You mean the stupid Democratic voting officials?)
|
polygon
|
|
response 395 of 536:
|
Nov 25 21:10 UTC 2003 |
I was unaware of any dispute over what the vote totals were in Alabama
in 1960. Rather, there is a question as to how to interpret those votes.
People think of voting for president in the same terms that they think of
a simple local election for mayor or sheriff. But presidential elections
don't work that way, and the further back you go in history, the less well
they match that model.
|
gull
|
|
response 396 of 536:
|
Nov 25 22:00 UTC 2003 |
Re #394: Incompetence does not respect party lines. ;>
|
