Hillary...There's someone who is more in touch with middle America. :-)

My P.R card is dated September 11, 2003. So hopefully I'll have enough time to get registered to help thwart that one. Won't be able to help in 06 here in NY though.

Cheer!

Trevor

"man, you are clueless on that one."
- - Good opening for dialogue!!

"it's 51% to %49...it's not 90% to 10%. it's not like the vast majority of the US was pro Bush..."
- - Let me help you with that. First of all, the popular margin was the biggest EVER, nearly 4,000,000 votes. Second, if you look at the map of county by county voting, you see a thin blue border on a red country. Pubbies +4 in the Senate and now holding every single high card - Senate, House, Governorships and Supreme Court. If that ain't a mandate then I don't know what is. Maybe we can just call it a major repudiation of Kerry and the Dimocrat agenda. Either way, it was an ass whuppin'

"the dems wouldn't need a lot to tip the scale in the other direction..."
- - I've said that as well. Unfortunately, they weren't able to come up with whatever that tiny bit was that they needed.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"you see a thin blue border on a red country"

They're called cities.

More people voted against Bush than any president in history.

let's be real honest now. the difference in this election wasn't 4 million. the difference in this election was about 150k or whatever the final difference in ohio ended up.

20% of the country voted for bush. about 30-35% of eligible voters opted for bush. everyone needs to go easy on the mandate nonsense. every election people go overboard with that crap. i can make an argument that the real mandate came from the fact that 35-40% of eligible voters didn't vote for either candidate. that's more than voted for either bush or kerry. maybe both parties have a fundamental disconnect with a solid portion of the electorate?

further, as rb said, more people voted against bush in this election than anyone in history. also, plenty of people didn't like bush, but couldn't stand kerry. and therefore bit the bullet and voted shrubya for 4 more years. hardly a ringing endorsement.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

unlikely. the repubs don't have enough votes to stop a filibuster by the dems should bush nominate a pretty convservative candidate as a justice. caveat--if/when rehnquist steps down, i wouldn't be surprised to see a conservative justice take his place without a whole lot of hemming and hawing from the dems. but if o'connor steps down, bush would have to nominate a moderate, else there will be some serious consequences and repercussions. he'd have to at least nominate a moderate if one of the liberal justices stepped down as well(and even then that person better have more liberal tendencies).

right now the court is fairly balanced on most issues. i can't see the dems allowing a major shift in that balance.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

In 2000 you wanted the popular vote to mean something though. Now its totally irrelevant? The fact of the matter is in 2004 the popular vote and electoral college went to the GOP. Ain't democracy a bitch! :-)

in 2000, the popular vote meant more since there was a split between the electoral college and the popular vote. gave the appearance that the will of the people was thwarted. it would be the same this year had kerry taken ohio.

my larger point is that the 4 million spread isn't any where as large as it appears because this election really boiled down to ohio and it was extremely tight there. in other words, the victory wasn't so clear cut.

i am most certainly disappointed that kerry didn't win. however, i am glad that there was no controversy surrounding the election results.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

That sounds like a terrific approach for the Democrats to me. It worked so well for Daschle, the architect of that policy.

Step through the Senators in MT, SD, ND, FL, LA and any number of other states where Democratic Senators hold seats in states that Bush swept. Do you think they will hold the filibuster line?

I hope the answer to that question is yes.

The Democrats are down to 4 Southern Senators from 19 around 20 years ago. Want to go for zero?

Daschle went down because Thune was able to make the charge stick that Daschle had turned the Senate into a dead zone. We can have more of the same if the Democrats will cooperate.

Bush substantially increased his Hispanic vote in this election. Let's go for another Estrada filibuster. Works for me. He increased his black vote as well. Follow that with another Clarence Thomas clone filibuster. That works too.

Moral values were a big issue in the election and that is exactly why I wouldn't vote for George Bush. You know the whole love your neighbor as yourself...to me that golden rule doesn't mean "except if they are gay, have fallen on hard times, or don't like them". I know I will probably take some flack for this but sometimes a little socialism balanced with democracy and capitalism is a good thing...

even though everyone here knows that I didn't want to see W president again, the fact is that he won it fair and square
4M for the popular vote
and 35 seats or so (I think he took Iowa?) at the Electoral college.
So clearly, this time around he has the support of everyone.

The Democrat party should indeed plan carefully the future. They are behind in the popular vote for president, for the congress, house etc.

I agree that 4M isn't very large. A bit more than 3% of total voters.

Let's go for another Estrada filibuster. Works for me.

That makes one of us.

I'll say this- if I lived in a state that was close, I might seriously have considered voting for Bush simply because of the upcoming Supreme Court vacancies. He concerns me even in that area, though- he nominates great people, IMO, but never fights for them. It leads me to suspect that he nominates them not in order to actually get good judges on the bench, but to pander to his base. "Look at all the conservative judges I've appointed!" Which is true, and then he leaves them twisting in the wind. Let's not forget that Estrada never made it to the bench.

You might think it's great to have the issue for re-election. I'd rather have the judge.

Do you think Bush will appoint real conservative judges to the SC, and if so, do you think he'll fight to have them confirmed?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I hope he will. I just do not know.

For all the ranting about Bush being some radical conservative, I only wish he were. I really don't think getting constructionist judges is too high on his list of priorities.

Art,

Don't you think this could be part of a normal cycle in American politics? I agree there are some things that need to be worked out in the democratic party, especially for it to appeal to voters in the south, but if I remember correctly the democrats held an edge in the senate and maybe the house during some of the Clinton administration. The problem for the party with the most governmental power is at some point they'll screw up, people will blame them, and the other party will take charge for a while. Do you think something like is what is happening right now?

I know I will probably take some flack for this but sometimes a little socialism balanced with democracy and capitalism is a good thing...

We already have too much socialism.

-----------------------------

If a large group of polygamists approached and requested that marriage would be rewritten to say "a man and multiple women" or "a woman and multiple men" ... would their request even see the light of day ... let alone be a major issue of political elections? What is it that drives gay marriage to feel as though it deserves special attention and consideration?

I don't understand how this is not treating gays the same way ANY OTHER group would be treated if they came forward requesting a change in the definition of marriage.

I appreciate it when the government chooses to let charities, etc help to poor and the needy, rather than take it upon themselves to take money that others have earned and given it to someone else. At least with charity, people have a choice. If people choos enot to help fellow Americans, then we deserve the country we get from those choices.

Socialism is not a bad thing ... but it is for this country.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

"let's be real honest now. the difference in this election wasn't 4 million. the difference in this election was about 150k or whatever the final difference in ohio ended up."
- - NO, NO, NO!! Let's be brutally honest. Four years ago, a lot of folks said a lot of crap because Bush lost the popular vote. This year nearly FOUR MILLION more people voted for him than voted for Kerry, and more people voted for him than have ever voted for any president. That and the overwhelming majorities in the House, Senate and soon to be Supreme Court will need to be reckoned with.

"20% of the country voted for bush. about 30-35% of eligible voters opted for bush. everyone needs to go easy on the mandate nonsense. every election people go overboard with that crap."
- - Yes they do. When Clinton won with a plurality, that was supposed to be a mandate, according to his backers. Thisd one actually IS. It doesn't matter that a lot of folks didn't vote. Of the ones that did, Bush took an overwhelming majority - enough to prevent the Democrat army of lawyers from even getting a foot in the door. That was HUGE (even if you use Tom's definition of "huge" as funny!)

"i can make an argument that the real mandate came from the fact that 35-40% of eligible voters didn't vote for either candidate."
- - Not in any rational way you can't. Those folks ratified by their silence.

"that's more than voted for either bush or kerry. maybe both parties have a fundamental disconnect with a solid portion of the electorate?"
- - I would absolutely agree. Doesn't change the facts, however. If either party figures out how to tap those numbers, the balance of power would be tipped dramatically. I don't see that happening.

"further, as rb said, more people voted against bush in this election than anyone in history. also, plenty of people didn't like bush, but couldn't stand kerry. and therefore bit the bullet and voted shrubya for 4 more years. hardly a ringing endorsement."
- - Sorry, that's just noise. The red team now controls the entire playing field, and even the parking lot. Like it or not, that's a mandate.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"More people voted against Bush than any president in history"

You're a "glass is half empty" kinda guy, aren't you? If so many voted against him, how did he end up nearly FOUR MILLION to the good. If the country wasn't endorsing the Repub agenda, why do Repubs now hold EVERY SINGLE high card in the deck?

Governors, Senators, Congresspersons, SC Justices and Presidents, majority in each case is Repub. If you're a Democrat, you need to put some ice on that and be quiet until called upon. The Dims did this to themselves. Bush was vulnerable, but the Dims couldn't close the deal. Now it's time to wait for '08, and try not to make the same mistakes.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Well, I hope it is part of a cycle. The Democratic Party is the most successful party in the history of the world. I hope they will regain some of their nationwide appeal.

Clinton lost the House and the Senate in 1994. The Democrats had the Senate back only briefly when Jim Jeffords did his switch. Actually, the Democrats should count themselves fortunate to have as many Senators as they do. If they don't clean up their act, they will lose several more.

We don't bother with House elections anymore, so that is a non issue.

If the Democrats don't get competitive, the Republicans will become lazy and corrupt like the Democrats did in the 80s and early 90s. That process has already started. That is why we need two competitive parties in order to provide a little discipline.

Also it was the slimmest reelection margin since Wilson in '17

The Dems first order of business should be to get rid of all the Diebold voting machines:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109141/

"The Dems first order of business should be to get rid of all the Diebold voting machines:"

Could be, but the Repugs now control everything!!

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

The guy they really should have nominated is Bob Kerrey. He got slimed, probably by John Kerry, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time at a real Vietnam disaster. Kerrey, unlike Kerry, was a real war hero. Funny bastard too, and from Nebraska.

Kerrey's my guy, too. I wrote him in in the 2000 election. Former Navy officer, MofH winner, lost a foot in combat, sensible guy and not given to histrionics. All that, and he was in special warfare, too. What more could you ask!?! ;-)

I'd follow him into combat anytime.

K

Not being big on politics b/c I see it as more...what can I do for the special interest who has donated a few dollars to me than by the people for the people...as it says in the constitution, can anyone explain exactly what are the "family values" the candidates talked about? Lots of references to them but no candidiate specified what they were.

Why both candidates plans to fix social security would not fix social security?

what the big deal is over gay marriage? - who really has time to give a flying F*ck if George wants to marry John?

Why neither candidate seemed to realize that the EU is actually the biggest economic force in the world?

IMO it seemed to me that Bush described things more as a visionary and Kerry backed everything up w/ references and facts. Also that most americans would rather not have to deal with a complex reality when a simple version is offered.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

The Dems first order of business should be to get rid of all the Diebold voting machines:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109141/


Slate engages in more screeching from deep in the depths of the liberal Fever Swamp. How surprising. ;-)

K

I am a hard core Republican, but I would sleep well know he was Commander in Chief. I probably wouldn't vote for him, but he would likely win if he ever got the nomination.

He did do a lousy job on the 9/11 commission though. No one is perfect.