Elections

[Capt_Picard 0]

Just woundering who people vote for if we were the only ones voting.

[Kor37 9]

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR. THE MAIN THING IS THAT PEOPLE VOTE AND MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE. THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO LOOK UP THE FACTS CONCERNING A CANDIDATE AND WHO RELY SOLEY ON RUMOURS,CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENTS AND INNUENDO WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING. SOUND LIKE ANYONE YOU KNOW?

[Matt 0]

Well first of all it Kor how about saying instead of it doesn't matter who you vote for as long as you vote we say no matter who you vote for as long as you vote. If it was my country I'd be voting for Kerry.

[Jim Phaserman 0]

Number one, I thought this belonged in Election talk, but I think that voting INFORMED is important. that's how I voted. However, I wish it would just be over.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

I can't vote (as it is not my country) but if I could I would vote Kerry. I share the sentiment that I wish it would all be over but from what I've heard it could be really messy (up to 6 months to determine a winner).

Does anyone know what happens in that scenario? I would think Bush would retain leadership until its proven otherwise but that would cut time (approx. 4 months?) off of Kerry's term if he won. Would leadership fall to an interim president like Speaker of the House of Representatives? I thinks it's an interesting thing to consider as it never has happened before.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I think six months is a little extreme - a few days maybe.

[Jim Phaserman 0]

if there is no President chosen at the time of the Inaugural, the President Pro Tempor of the Senate acts as Interem President

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Wrong. It's the Speaker of the House.

[Jim Phaserman 0]

I sit corrected.

[Wishfire 2]

I voted. That's all that matters.

[Jim Phaserman 0]

Is it too early to claim victory for one candidate or another?

[Odie 0]

Bush just needs one more electrial vote to get to 270 and win the election.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I don' t know Odie, I saw that and then flipped the channels and they had different figures on that channel.

[Odie 0]

I am getting this information from MSNBC online. So far the numbers are:

 

Electrial Votes

 

Bush ® 269

Kerry (D) 221

 

John F. Kerry (D) 1,471,352 50%

George W. Bush ® 1,459,031 49%

[Theunicornhunter 2]

As of this hour CNN has:

 

Bush 254

 

Kerry 252

 

My point was that since these figures represent projections we have to wait until it is official - which according to the state of Ohio could be several days.

[Odie 0]

It looks like the media is doing the samething that they did last election.

[Gotabite 0]

I voted for Kerry two weeks ago. My state had early voting. I went to bed last night, without watching any election results....I sort of figured that when I woke up this morning that I still won't know.............and I was right. I still don't know.

[Mike 5]

I expect it'll be a few days before we know for sure..But it does look like it'll be another 4 years of Bush..

[Kyra_Ashleigh 0]

I voted. That's all I'm saying. I have to admit that the last few elections to me were more of a "pick the lesser of the two evils" than "pick the best candidate."

 

I went to bed early last night... I didn't expect them to have a clear-cut winner this morning, so I didn't bother to pay too much attention the the coverage last night.

 

The Washington State Governor's race looks pretty darn close though... I'm keeping an eye on that one!

[Ace 0]

Bush has the popular vote by a large margin, and the commentators are saying it's almost impossible for Kerry to take Ohio. I wont be surprised if there's another recount, but I honestly feel that Kerry was defeated (which, personally, makes me very happy).

[Jeanway 0]

What can I say??? :fear: :msn-cry:

[terrafirma54 0]

It looks like a solid win for Bush.If one looks at the map and the states that he won it becomes apparent that he really connected more with those voters than Senator Kerry.I did not vote for President Bush.It seems that people responded more to cultural issues and values rather the arguments that were logically stated as to why President Bush must go.President Reagan started a political re-alignment - over the last twenty years or so {not withstanding Clinton's two terms} the Democrats have become the minority party.President Bush apparent re-election includes a solid popular vote and an electoral college victory.It also is apparent that it is difficult for a legislator to win the Oval Office.I can think of only two in the last one hundred years, Harding & Kennedy.President Truman was a senator but he was VP when he became president in 1945. Nixon was no longer in the senate when he won in 1968.I really though that Kerry had a real good chance but the in your face tactics utilized by Karl Rove worked.I was listening to Andrea Mitchell and she pointed out that unless Democrats begin to connect with the "red state" voters they could become a definite minority party.The 2006 mid-terms have begun! Next year New Jersey will have an election for governor.That will be the begining of attempts to begin a long climb back for the Democrats. It is clear that a Democratic candidate for the Oval Office will probably not be selected from the Northeast & New England again for a very long time to come.All that any of us who disagree with the Bush agenda can do is to pay attention, support legitimate actions that offer an alternate point of view, hold our representatives feet to the fire, try to really understand the red states & work to make everything more positive.Right now President Bush is in the cat bird's seat.He has about two years to get his agenda through Congress. These are interesting times that we live in.

[Jeanway 0]

Well stated terrafirma54, good post for #1.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

 

 

I don' t know Odie, I saw that and then flipped the channels and they had different figures on that channel.

277520[/snapback]

 

I was noticing that last night, every station had different electoral projections... More of the same this morning.

 

As of this hour CNN has:

 

Bush 254

 

Kerry 252

 

My point was that since these figures represent projections we have to wait until it is official - which according to the state of Ohio could be several days.

277525[/snapback]

 

No it's over, within the last hour Kerry called Bush and conceded the race

[Kor37 9]

AMERICA HAS SPOKEN AND I BELIEVE THAT THE BEST MAN WON!

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

What was funny to watch was CNN's treatment of Ohio's decision. They officially labeled it "Too close to call" when there was a 4-percentage point spread and 93% of the precincts had reported their results. However, several times earlier, they had called races that were much closer than that. They even said that there was virtually no chance that Kerry could take Ohio but yet they refused to make the call.

 

It was funny flipping back and forth between CNN and Fox. Fox made the Ohio call much earlier.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

I think six months is a little extreme - a few days maybe.

277488[/snapback]

 

Ok, let me just say that the six month prediction was based on the potential legal battles in the state of Ohio. I really didn't think it would be over this quickly, and I am really not happy about how it turned out.

[Klingonmike 0]

It looks like a solid win for Bush.If one looks at the map and the states that he won it becomes apparent that he really connected more with those voters than Senator Kerry.I did not vote for President Bush.It seems  that people responded more to cultural issues and values rather the arguments that were logically stated as to why President Bush must go.President  Reagan started a political  re-alignment - over the last twenty years or  so {not withstanding Clinton's two terms} the Democrats have become the minority party.President Bush apparent re-election includes a solid popular vote and an electoral college victory.It also is apparent that it is difficult for a legislator to win the Oval Office.I can think of only two in the last one hundred years, Harding & Kennedy.President Truman was a senator but he was VP when he became president in 1945.  Nixon was no longer in the senate when he won in 1968.I really though that Kerry had a real good chance but the in your face tactics utilized by Karl Rove worked.I was listening to Andrea Mitchell and she pointed out that unless Democrats begin to connect with the "red state" voters they could become a definite minority party.The 2006 mid-terms have begun! Next year New Jersey will have an election for governor.That will be the begining of attempts to begin a long climb back for the Democrats. It is clear that a Democratic candidate for the Oval Office will probably not be selected from the Northeast & New England again for a very long time to come.All that any of us who disagree with the Bush agenda can do is to pay attention, support legitimate actions that  offer an alternate point of view, hold our representatives feet to the fire, try to really understand the red states & work to make everything more positive.Right now President Bush is in the cat bird's seat.He has about two years to get his agenda through Congress. These are interesting times that we live in.

277543[/snapback]

 

 

 

I would not say it was a solid win for Bush. Almost half the country voted for Kerry, it was just not enough. So it looks like we're stuck with Bush for another 4 years....darn-it!

[DixonHill1989 0]

If I could vote I would vote for Bush.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I wasn't happy with either choice - although I did pick what I thought was the candidate who would do the least harm. Now, we just have to hope for the best.

 

However, as I've mentioned in other posts. The Presidential election wasn't the only election and I was very disappointed with how the voting went on proposed state amendments in my state.

 

As far as the presidential election, I agree to some extent with terrafirma554, in that there was a non-financial issue which I believe influenced a lot of votes. But "cultural" issues are not trivial and they ultimately have financial impact as well.