Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

How can you recognise that Bush got the record number of people voting agianst him and not recognize that the a record number of voters voted for him? My first post still stands. As for my comentary on Clinton, I am right. He never got more than 50% of the popular vote. I'd like to see you oppose that. Under new Democratic rules he never deserved a mandate.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

According to these statistics, Clinton did not get a clear majority of the popular vote in 1992 (though he did get more popular votes than GB Sr.). However, he did get a clear majority in 1996.

Not only that, but all indications are that he would have gotten a majority in 92 had Perot not reentered the race. Most of the people who supported Perot did so because they opposed Bush.

_________________

I understand that Bush got the majority, I'm merely stating that you were misinterpreting the post about Bush's record loss of votes.

I'm rather confused. If you go to the Wikipedia sites (again, 2, 3) that have all of the information about Clinton's elections, you will see that he does indeed have the majority.





Still think you're right about Clinton?

EDIT- I must have misunderstood your use of "majority". I took it as just being the larger amount, but apparently, this is not so. However, look at your use of it in your post about the 2004 election, and look at the results there (only about a 3,000,000 difference)

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

TFBM:

Those stats you cited do not include the Perot votes. Had you included those, you would see that Clinton did not receive a majority in 1992. He scored higher than George Sr., but his total was less than 50% overall.

His total in the 1996 was just over 50%, so he did have a majority in 96.

_________________

No_loafing, since this is your seventh time only posting about the "TOTPD", you are deliberately spamming, and it's no longer an accident. Stop. If you need any evidence that you are indeed spamming, send a PM to a mod.

Didymus- Ah, I misinterpreted the meaning of "majority" (even though there is just one meaning.. yeah..). Sorry!

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

NO THEY DO NOT! How many times is this, six? Just leave the art of TOTPD as it is, and let the newbies figure it out for themselves.

On the argument of the mandate: Back then, there were such things as third party canidates. Remember back when people had a voice? Neither do I. Thus, with the new debate thing (CPD?), all third-party voices were quashed (as learned by Michael Badnarik and David Cobb, who tried to get into a debate and were promtly arrested on the spot). So, back then, this new mandate was completely useless. Not that it isn't to begin with.

good thing bush won he dosn't want the world to fall.i'm a felllow republican

_________________
loooonnng paaannnts

YOUR NOT A BROOM

bush should be elected in the next election too.

_________________
loooonnng paaannnts

YOUR NOT A BROOM

thank God for term limits.

hey, guys, remember 2000? Gore won the popular vote? yeah, as you'll recall, the popular vote doesn't mean squat. Bush won with 286 electoral votes (assuming Iowa or New Mexico don't turn out differently from how they're currently projected), which (aside from 2000) is the smallest margin since Wilson was re-elected, as mentioned above. Carter had more EVs in 1976 and I don't think anyone was claiming he had a mandate.

We must have wanted Bush in both years, otherwise he wouldn't have made it. If our government liked Gore better, then he might have gotten the electoral votes. However, I don't know why the Democrats are whining this year. America has spoken, and Bush won. Kerry said something about not asking for a recount because he didn't want to divide our nation.

_________________
[porplemontage studios]
>>internet entertainment

Precisely. Kerry's own analysts have already gone over that with him, and concluded that there really isn't any sense in fighting it. The contested votes simply aren't enough to fill in the gap.

_________________

First: Due to the result of the House and Senate races, had John Kerry been elected he would have become an automatic Lame Duck. That is, majority of the House and Senate are republican, and that would have created a huge amount of obstacles for John Kerry to overcome in order to pass anything.

Second:


Interestingly enough, I've written an article on the importance of paper backups for electronic voting. Paper backups, such as the ones used in Nevada (if you caught the CNN report), help to safeguard against those problems. There's also a reference to an incredibly green press release from Diebold Election Systems.

Goto: http://www.geocities.com/lucky79bos/evotebackups.txt

Let me know what you think.

-LuckyX6

homestar, this is the fourth time you've double posted. It's becoming deliberate and annoying.

Also, you don't seem to understand the election process in America. A president can only run for president two times.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

To clear up some confusion, Clinton got a plurality of the the votes. It's only a majority if it's more than half -- if you only get more than anybody else, it's a plurality. (For some reason my high school Government teacher found it necessary to drill this into our heads.)



So far as I can tell, there's not much whining. Overall, everybody's being fairly dignified about it. But just because he won the election fair and square (which is debatable, but whatever) doesn't mean that anybody has to like him now. The majority of the country still believes that the country is on the wrong track; half of the country still believes he's doing a poor job (it's Monday, I'm not gonna do the searching for you -- drag your own self over to Google if you want to know the numbers). Did you think that would magically change on November 3? If we had reason to "whine" (There's a bit of nuance, here -- Republicans call it "wining", Jefferson called it dissent) before the election, we have just as much reason to "whine" now, and I have confidence that the amount of stuff we have to "whine" about will steadily increase for the next four years.



This isn't quite accurate. It would be correct to say a person may be elected to the presidency to no more than two times, and a person may serve no more than ten years in the presidency. There's a little bit of fuzziness here, though. The ten-years rule is in place to allow for vice presidents succeeding to the presidency if a president dies in office. The fuzziness is this: what if the next Democratic nominee chose Bill Clinton as his VP running-mate (yes, Clinton is eligible; yes, it would be a big faux pas if he tried it), and then died after one year in office? Could Clinton fill out the last three years as President? Well, we don't really have any laws to deal with that.

_________________

For those of you who were asking about voter intimidation, take a look at this short video of Republican vote challengers in inner-city Ohio. Charming bunch.

P.S. This is not a double post; I've exceeded the two-hour limit.

_________________

I know you're a mod, but just to let you know:

_________________
[porplemontage studios]
>>internet entertainment

Heh. My bad.

Oh well. One of the other mods can reprimand me for that one. I haven't had a wage cut lately.

Let's get.... back on topic.

Here's a very compelling article from the New York Times about the sorts of activist judges that Bush will be appointing to the Supreme Court. I just hope that one of the soon-to-retire justices has the will to stick it out another four years.

And to follow up on the cause for "post-election Democratic whining", here's a good article to get you started.

And since Didymus identified the fact that exit polls must be at least a little inaccurate, let's take a look at just how inaccurate they must have been. Make sure you take note of which graphs are for paper ballots and which are for e-voting. And take note of the fact that in every single instance the difference between the exit polls and the ballots favors Bush. I don't think I need to tell you about the statistical likelihood (read: lack thereof) of that happening.

_________________

51%. More than Half. 49% is Less than Half.

I couldn't resist.

I'd say more, but since my views are different from a certain moderator, I'm not going to risk being called a troll.

Ah, I'm probably too late anyway.

_________________
"Hey Dudes, thanks for rescuing me. Let's go for a burger... Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!"

Slashdot casts its geeky eye on the many voting irregularities of this election. Twilight Zone stuff. Gah.

_________________

My thoughts exactly, both of you.
Jones, about your signature- look, that site is wrong. There is absolutely no way that it could be "most of us", because face it, Bush won. More people voted for him, so it couldn't have been most of America for Kerry. It seems to me that that site is just the product of some Bush-opposer who was severely disheartened by Kerry's loss. At least, that's my opinion.

_________________

I tried to figure out where your "most of us" thing is coming from, TEF, and then I saw that it's in this sentence:



Nowhere does it say that "most of us" didn't like the outcome of this election, or that "most of us" were for Kerry. It says that "hopefully most of us" have a concern for how the rest of the world will be effected by this election. I certainly have that concern. I'd like to believe (hence the "hopefully") that even most Republicans have some regard for the rest of the world and our role in it. Bush himself would certainly claim to be among the "most of us" crowd (because who would vote for a President that said "I'm not trying to understand or appreciate the effect of our recent election will have on the rest of the world"?). So what's your problem.

At any rate, the site has a bunch of contributed images by some very disheartened voters (presumably most for Kerry, but certainly not all -- many from non-Americans, even). I put a link in my signature because it struck a chord with me. Does that mean that I agree with every single image on the site, or believe that it contains 100% facts facts facts? C'mon.



If you enter any civilized debate with the phrase "I am right", then rest assured that you don't belong there. And "I'd like to see you oppose that" is equally out of place here. If that's the kind of attitude you have to people with viewpoints contrary to your own, then you need to find a different forum.

Anyhow, Clinton did get a plurality of the popular vote twice, which is something that Bush didn't do the first time around, and barely did (by a far barer margin than Clinton) the second time around. I'm not sure why Republicans are always so interested in talking about Clinton, but I'm sure not, so let's move on.

The only reason that I brought up the fact that more people voted against Bush than any candidate in history is because Bush supporters are so hooked on the "mandate" kool-aid. You say that I'm obliged to recognize the other side of this coin; that is, that move people voted for Bush than any other candidate ever, and I have recognized that, and so do I assume that you recognize my point. You cannot recognize one without recognizing the other.

The fact is that Bush doesn't have a mandade. He has a responsibility, and that responsibility is to recognize that he didn't get 70% of the votes, he didn't get 60% of the votes, he didn't even get 55% of the votes. He got barely more votes than the other guy, and he's obligated to recognize that when enacting policy for the next four years.

But of course, he won't.

_________________

Your views are the same as a certain other moderator, so rest assured you wouldn't be called a troll, assuming you keep things civil.

Bush has been ruling from the far right since the 2000 election. I think the chances of him being considerate to Democrats now are slim to none. I'm just hoping that the Supreme Court Justices other than Rehnquist can hold on for four more years.

Oops, sorry, Jones. I'm not very good at discussing politics. I'll leave you guys alone now.

_________________

I resent the above statement -- if anything, it in and of itself is trolling. I have never deleted or edited a post, locked a thread, or taken any action against any user simply because their views differ from mine, and I take considerable pause before taking any such action in any R&P discussion for the very reason that I am very sensitive to this (if you've been paying attention, you might also have observed that when I do happen to call someone a "troll", it is just as likely to be someone who purports to share my views as it is someone who disagrees with me). Your views are your own and so long as they are expressed in a way that is respectful to others in this forum I have no cause to treat them with any less esteem than my own, no matter how strongly I may disagree with them.

If you elect not to post in the R&P forum, that's your choice, but if you do so only because of some imagined fear of persecution by me, then clearly you have misjudged me and are doing yourself a great disservice.



Don't do so on my account, please. Nobody's truly bad at discussing politics -- so long as your respectful of others (and you have been), you're welcome here.

_________________

IJ, THANK YOU SO MUCH for clearing up that majority vs plurality thing.. I have been trying to figure that out since last week. I couldn't figure out how they could say bush was the first president to get the majority of votes in x years... I assumed that the most votes was the majority, so Bush being the first majority elected pres in x years didn't make any sense to me. I'd never heard of plurality. You deserve a trophy and/or a pizza...

Maybe an IJ montage? I don't have any interruptor jones music, so can I'd have to use Basketball Jones, instead?

As for the Double Posts, you're a mod.. You can do anything you want, well, except for making people's heads asplode.. I'm sure the man would come down on you for that. LOL

Seriously, though, thanks for the plurality thing.. I owe you..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Thank my high school government teacher, Mr. Pierce. If nothing else, he taught me what a plurality is and how to fill out a 1040EZ (he was also the Economics teacher).

_________________

I thought you folks might enjoy these electoral maps, which show how people voted and where. The cartograms are really crazy. They look like head cheese. Ew.

_________________

John Ashcroft, as I'm sure many of you have heard, has resigned.

Great news, right?

First of all, let's look at the circumstances of his resignation. He wrote the president a letter of resignation in which he claimed "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." Oh, I see. ..WHAT?! President Bush's entire fear-mongering re-election campaign was based on the premise that the U.S. is still under the constant threat of global terrorism. But now, a week after the election -- "Oh, we're safe now. Do I get a cookie?" Do the words "Mission Accomplished" ring a bell?

But wait, it gets better. In a letter to Justice Department employees, he also claimed credit for "an extraordinary era of justice". Hmm, let's see.. Abu Ghraib? Check. Guantanimo Bay? Check. Tora Bora? Check. Patriot Act? Check. Ethnic Profiling? Check. Oh, yeah, "extraordinary" doesn't even begin to describe the Ashcroft era.

But wait, I'm not done yet. Guess who's replacing Ashcroft? Nobody could be worse than Ashcroft, right? How about friendly old Alberto Gonzales, token cabinet Hispanic? Supports detainment of suspected terrorists without access to a lawyer? Check. Thinks the Geneva Convention shouldn't apply to us? Check. Partner in the law firm that defended Enron? Check. Oh, he'll fit right in!

_________________

LOL

I suppose this Gonzalez is better than the person I thought got the job. I figured Bush had appointed Kansas City Chiefs' Tight End Tony Gonzalez.
I can hear him now.
Bush: "This guy's rackin up a bunch of points for me in my fantasy football league. My next 2 appointments are Tiki Barber and Terrell Owens. We're gonna win this thing!!"
OK, back to "reality"..

Hopefully this guy will be better than Ashcroft.

As for his Geneva Convention thing, I almost kinda slightly agree with him a little bit. As I understand it, the Geneva Convention, as it applies to the treatment of prisoners is supposed to go both ways. The people we're up against don't seem to give two piles of what the poopsmith shovels about the Geneva Convention. Perhaps, at least when dealing with them, we shouldn't either. Then I decide that we have to be "above them" and should probably not shrug our international commitments...

Anyone know if Condi Rice is gonna take another position or keep her current one?

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.