Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   It's official: Kerry concedes to Bush; 4 more years of Bush. (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/74761-its-official-kerry-concedes-bush-4-more-years-bush.html)

djtestudo 11-03-2004 08:07 AM

Kerry concedes
 
According to the AP.

irateplatypus 11-03-2004 08:13 AM

It's Official: George W. Bush wins with a majority vote!
 
The AP is reporting that Senator Kerry has called the President to concede the race. The President has just won with the last plurality victory since 1988.

It's over. It feels good to have it over. It feels even better to have the President secure another term.

rocinante2003 11-03-2004 08:13 AM

Just heard too

ShaniFaye 11-03-2004 08:13 AM

He will be making a speach at 1 pm EST to the public at Faneuil Hall in Boston

rocinante2003 11-03-2004 08:16 AM

Good info Shanifaye.. Thanks

the_marq 11-03-2004 08:17 AM

This just came up on the CNN ticker:

Quote:

Posted 11:13 a.m. ET, November 3
Sen. John Kerry calls President Bush to concede presidential election, CNN has learned.
I guess that's it. Best of luck to my American friends.

ShaniFaye 11-03-2004 08:17 AM

Im so happy I could cry...I understand that there are those so upset they could cry too....Even though I think different from the Kerry Supporters...we all have one thing in common...we want the best for our country...we just see a different approach to get there.

Everyone that voted has a right to be proud today even if you dont like the results

ubertuber 11-03-2004 08:19 AM

Congratulations to Sen. Kerry for running strongly and showing a great deal of class in defeat. Here's hoping for the best over the next four years.

Phantom Power 11-03-2004 08:20 AM

Where did you get your info, Mr. irateplatypus? The AP? Associated PRess? CNN says its still in the air as of 12:20 Atlantic Time

ubertuber 11-03-2004 08:21 AM

Can we merge this with irate's thread??

denim 11-03-2004 08:22 AM

You should update your clock, Phantom Power. You posted at 11:20 ET.

CNN.com reports Kerry conceeded. Well, this sucks ass. Now we've got a Republican Party which thinks it has the right idea.

djtestudo 11-03-2004 08:23 AM

Congrats to Senator Kerry as well. He ran a tough campaign.

rocinante2003 11-03-2004 08:26 AM

Yes he did djtestudo.

subnet_rx 11-03-2004 08:28 AM

Kerry concedes
 
John Kerry has conceded to Bush. I hope Bush realizes that he won on the fact that he has good moral values, and not because of the war on Iraq. Kerry got 49%, in my opinion, because he was against the war.

Lasereth 11-03-2004 08:30 AM

Looks like Bush DID win because of the War on Iraq. If Kerry lost because he was against it, then Bush obviously won because he was for it. :) I do agree that it's Bush's overall morality that southerners and rural areas favored.

-Lasereth

djtestudo 11-03-2004 08:31 AM

Let me say this; I wouldn't have been particularly happy with Kerry as President, but I would have supported him as an American like we all should no matter who won (while doing my best to get a change in 2008, of course :)).

grendel 11-03-2004 08:32 AM

or perceived morality, at least.

subnet_rx 11-03-2004 08:33 AM

I think it was a lesser of two evils for a lot of people. A lot of rural voters got out during this campaign, and I think it was because they just couldn't let John Kerry win. But most CNN exit polls showed that over half the country thinks the war in Iraq has gone all wrong.

subnet_rx 11-03-2004 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grendel
or perceived morality, at least.

well, I think John Kerry tried that throughout his campaign. But a lot of people see through that when you stand where you stand on issues. Bush was firm in all the debates on moral issues.

Stompy 11-03-2004 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo
... I would have supported him as an American like we all should no matter who won...

No offense, but what kind of sheepish thinking is that? Part of the problem with this country is the people who just follow the herd like that!

People act too patriotic with all this "pride, respect" stuff... sorry, but it's perfectly okay to not support the current US President.

It's not anyone's "duty" to just blindly follow regardless of issues or platforms, nor is it anyone's duty to respect those in office, especially if they don't even remotely represent what you think/feel.

avhg1 11-03-2004 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subnet_rx
I think it was a lesser of two evils for a lot of people.

I remember thinking the same thing for the past couple elections. You would think with such a great country to live in, we would be able to find someone that could really unite the country. Well, I keep hoping maybe next time!

Cynthetiq 11-03-2004 08:43 AM

I'd like to remind everyone that doesn't frequent the political boards:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=74566

PLEASE READ, CONCERNING ELECTION...

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

Since the election for the President of the United States is being held tomorrow, I wanted to make the following VERY clear before anything happens...

Sour grapes of any kind will result in a multiple-day suspension, up to one full week.

We will be extra vigilent and far less lenient with regard to rule violations and their punishments following this event.

Rudeness, pettiness, and general show-boating-type behavior will be sternly dealt with. I don't want to have to babysit you people, you're adults, so take the win/loss as you will, but don't have out your grievance here.

Thank you.

powerclown 11-03-2004 08:43 AM

Yeah they're saying Kerry is conceding victory to Bush now.

I'm very surprised Bush won. What this says to me is that there is more to the country than the Right & Left Coasts, and the constant vocalization of the Media's hatred for Bush. This was a solid vote of confidence for Bush from the heartland.

As far as Iraq, the end of this election should signal the start of a massive military campaign to pave the way for elections there in January. Fallujah, Ramadi and other insurgent strongholds are now going to be dealt with brutally and decisively.

Phantom Power 11-03-2004 08:44 AM

Okay guys, lets not get too out of hand here. The dust will settle soon enough...

DelayedReaction 11-03-2004 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy
No offense, but what kind of sheepish thinking is that? Part of the problem with this country is the people who just follow the herd like that!

People act too patriotic with all this "pride, respect" stuff... sorry, but it's perfectly okay to not support the current US President.

It's not anyone's "duty" to just blindly follow regardless of issues or platforms, nor is it anyone's duty to respect those in office, especially if they don't even remotely represent what you think/feel.

I disagree. You should respect the fact that he is President, and that the majority of the population elected him into office. You may disagree with his views, but George W. Bush is still President of the United States. He should be respected for that.

You may disagree with the man, but you should still respect the office.

Stompy 11-03-2004 08:55 AM

But the majority isn't always right (nor educated).

Remember, the majority of people believe that Iraq had (or still has) ties to Al Qaeda and believes they had a part in 9/11 despite numerous reports against it.

The majority believes that gay marriage should be banned. Didn't the majority approve of slavery, or (nearly 100 years later), a segregated society?

I respect the position of president in terms of the amount of power that one has to do something good, but I don't respect the person holding it and misusing it or the people who put him there.

The_wall 11-03-2004 09:13 AM

Well whether you like him or hate him, we have to try and work with him for another four years. I really hope things start getting better, I just don't see it happening. Democrats and republicans alike need to start working together, and they need to start NOW.

Stompy 11-03-2004 09:15 AM

Actually, I believe Kerry could still win even though he conceded.

If it turns out that the votes in OH go to Kerry, he'll take office.

Rdr4evr 11-03-2004 09:17 AM

Following the majority will never amount you to anything in life. I will NOT support GWB under any circumstances, I voted against him and I will be against him till the day he is out of office. He will not receive my respect whether he is commander in chief or otherwise.

MSD 11-03-2004 09:31 AM

Gore conceded before weeks of legal challenges ensued. This doesn't mean a damn thing yet.

Ohio:

Bush
2,794,346 51%

Kerry
2,658,125 49%

It's going to be a long-ass court battle

reiii 11-03-2004 09:32 AM

FOR THE DEMS:

Reasons to feel better:
1.The Daily Show will be funny for another 4 years
2.Almost half of everyone in the country agrees with you
3.British Columbia isn't really all that cold....

ShaniFaye 11-03-2004 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Gore conceded before weeks of legal challenges ensued. This doesn't mean a damn thing yet.

Ohio:

Bush
2,794,346 51%

Kerry
2,658,125 49%

It's going to be a long-ass court battle

I dont understand....they have already said the number of total provisional votes doesnt even equal the difference 136,221 votes seperating the two...so why isnt it over (not being sarcastic....just trying to understand if I am missing something here)

SiN 11-03-2004 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subnet_rx
... I hope Bush realizes that he won on the fact that he has good moral values....

[a bit OT] this is precisely what I think is flawed/what I simply cannot comceptualise regarding America.
Morality should have nothing to do with public(servancy)/gov't/state/etc. Ethics, on the other hand...by all means, the more the better. ..but morality :confused: How can that have any place/bearing other than the private sector/religious sector? [/a bit OT]

...and that'll sum up my thoughts on the election, for the moment. :)

powerclown 11-03-2004 09:44 AM

Bush not only won, he won with the largest % of the Popular Vote of any President EVER.

Stompy 11-03-2004 09:47 AM

51% was the largest ever? I don't think so...

But still not over yet :)

djtestudo 11-03-2004 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown
Bush not only won, he won with the largest % of the Popular Vote of any President EVER.

No, I think it was the largest vote total: 58 million or however much it was.

There have been much higher percentages then 51%; see: Washington, George.

reiii 11-03-2004 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown
Bush not only won, he won with the largest % of the Popular Vote of any President EVER.


FDR first re-election, was 62 percent or something like that. Probably many more that contradict your fact as well


edit:factoid

ShaniFaye 11-03-2004 09:54 AM

I think maybe he was getting it mixed up

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html

Quote:

"President Bush's decisive margin of victory makes this the first presidential election since 1988 in which the winner received a majority of the popular vote," said Card, referring to the White House victory by Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush. "And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country's history."

Stompy 11-03-2004 09:55 AM

It's also relative. Kerry got 48%, which is actually as much, if not more, than what the average winner gets.

irateplatypus 11-03-2004 09:57 AM

i think powerclown meant to say that Bush won with the greatest number in the popular vote (a function of voter population and voter turnout), not by percentage over his opponent.

DDDDave 11-03-2004 10:06 AM

Bitter much?

No, the majority do not believe that Iraq had a direct role in 9/11. Some do, but certainly not a majority. Some people believe that today is Thursday too.

The majority do not believe that gay marriage should be banned, but enough that came out and voted in the states where it was put to a vote do.

I have voted in the past 7 presidential elections and I never felt it this was 'the most important decision of our time'. I didn't this time either. One thing is certain, there will be a new guy in 4 years. I think Bush is an honest man who is doing what he feels in his heart is the best thing at the time. Is it always right, no, absolutely not. But I wouldn't expect that from anybody. Did Clinton believe in his heart that firing missles into an abandoned tent in the desert was the best way to get at terrorists at the time, probably. He was wrong. I don't hold that decision against him (much :) ).

John Kerry voted to support the President in his decision to invade Iraq based on the same evidence that the president had at the time. Was the evidence faulty?, it appears after the fact that yes, it may have been. For Kerry to say now, 'I wouldn't have went in' is disingenuous and monday morning quarterbacking. IMHO, I think people saw that and lost respect for the man.

The next guy to get elected will tell us what he is going to do to make things better. He will relate that to all (or at least a majority) of the people in the entire country. Telling us what the other guy did wrong is telling us what we already know.

Anyway, I hope Bush can get us out of this Iraq mess. It seems to me that he will. I was prepared for a 3-4 year plan. I don't know if everyone else was. These things are always messy and the best plan is a fluid plan. Quelling the rebels and holding elections will accomplish a lot. With best wishes for the next four years.......

Scipio 11-03-2004 10:09 AM

I don't really have anything to say. Us democrats fought a brave, honest, and tough campaign, and unfortunately for us, incumbent advantage was enough for Bush to squeak by. I don't regret any aspect of our efforts, or our choice of nominee. Kerry ran like a champ, and did all he could. I don't know about any of that "most votes ever" spin the Bush people are putting out. The truth is, this election was quite close. Consider: had tuesday been a nice, sunny day in Ohio, we might not be here right now.

It's going to be a long four years.

laconic1 11-03-2004 10:52 AM

Kerry and the Democrats put up an excellent effort, and I was worried about how it would turn out, but fortunately Bush has won.

sailor 11-03-2004 10:56 AM

What the fuck is wrong with this country? I think Im moving to Canada.

Jesus Pimp 11-03-2004 10:58 AM

So they're not even going to bother counting the absentee balots?

ARTelevision 11-03-2004 11:01 AM

Fortunately, that statement was made in the past. As it is no longer the past, I review it in the light of the present.

First, I'll note the warning issued in this thread by my good colleague, analog:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...68#post1506168

to wit: "Rudeness, pettiness, and general show-boating-type behavior will be sternly dealt with."
..................................................

Fortunately, as well, there are priorities involved in what aspects of the past - as seen in the light of the present - I choose to honor.

For those of you having a great need to see my ass, I refer you to the proper forum here. As for the statement, "We Won." The priority here is to indicate that it is true as far as it may connote our ongoing collective identity as constituents in the great experiment that is The United States of America.

tecoyah 11-03-2004 11:12 AM

Art is Far More Diplomatic Than I......

D Rice 11-03-2004 11:24 AM

Coming from a Republican, I think Kerry just made an outstanding speech.

irateplatypus 11-03-2004 11:29 AM

good concession speech. very statesman like. as i've said before... kerry isn't a bad guy. he just isn't the man with the skillset for this time in our nation's history.

Lebell 11-03-2004 11:36 AM

I've been trying to get on a few of the far left sites today with no luck, including www.democraticunderground.com and www.michaelmoore.com.

DU has their forum closed to non-registered users and MM is offline.

I would be interested to know their take on this.

tspikes51 11-03-2004 11:40 AM

Hooray. Let's stop bitching and move on.

powerclown 11-03-2004 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i think powerclown meant to say that Bush won with the greatest number in the popular vote (a function of voter population and voter turnout), not by percentage over his opponent.

Greatest number of voters who voted, yes. Badly worded on my part.

Lebell 11-03-2004 11:47 AM

Update:

Apparently the forward is down, but you can get on MM with http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php

No update from yesterday.

aliali 11-03-2004 11:47 AM

Kerry was right to project some caution last night without being combative and was right to concede today. It doesn't look like there is any way for Ohio to flip. If there was, Kerry would still be fighting for every last vote. All in all, it seems that just about everyone, including the candidates and the media (Not the exit pollers) acted appropriately and rationally over the past two days. The whole democracy thing worked.

Bush got more votes than anyone ever, but not the highest percentage
Bush is the first pres who initially lost the popular vote to win re-election
This is the first re-election of a rep. pres and congress in over 100 years
First defeat of a senate leader (minority or majority) in 50 years.
Rep.s continue to lead in governerships

The country may be closely divided, but the power is not.

irateplatypus 11-03-2004 11:52 AM

i'm having trouble swallowing this "divided country" idea that is getting so much attention. of course, the political arena has it's divisions... but it always has. for the first time in 16 years we've elected a President under a majority vote. why isn't that proof that the country is more unified?

methinks that the messengers have tainted the message.

ShaniFaye 11-03-2004 11:57 AM

Maybe he means that BIG swatch of red dividing the north east and west coasts?

dogzilla 11-03-2004 11:58 AM

Lebell, democrats.com has a couple messages about the election that are publically viewable from their home page.

Redlemon 11-03-2004 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i'm having trouble swallowing this "divided country" idea that is getting so much attention ... for the first time in 16 years we've elected a President under a majority vote. why isn't that proof that the country is more unified?

Because it merely shows that fewer votes went to 3rd party candidates this year compared to last. It looks like 1% for 3rd parties this year, vs. 4% in 2000. I wouldn't even begin to consider the country to be unified unless one candidate got 75%.

EDIT: Looking back, all of the intervening years had a significant 3rd party (Nader or Perot), while the one 16 years back didn't.

89transam 11-03-2004 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
for the first time in 16 years we've elected a President under a majority vote. why isn't that proof that the country is more unified?

methinks that the messengers have tainted the message.

55.3 million of us disagree. He won 51 to 48 for shits sake.


Quote:

Originally Posted by DDDDave

Did Clinton believe in his heart that firing missles into an abandoned tent in the desert was the best way to get at terrorists at the time, probably. He was wrong.

Was he? How many 9/11 type attacks happened during his 8 years?

Captain Nemo 11-03-2004 12:15 PM

89 transam, remember the first WTC bombing?

ShaniFaye 11-03-2004 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Nemo
89 transam, remember the first WTC bombing?

Dont forget the two attacks in saudi arabia, the embassy in africa and the USS cole

Captain Nemo 11-03-2004 12:27 PM

I know, but I wanted to focus on the attack inside the U.S. Sometimes too little emphasis is placed on "external attacks". Everyone jumps down Bush's throat for allowing this to happen on U.S. soil. What would the nation have said if that first attack managed to bring the tower down?

smooth 11-03-2004 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 89transam
55.3 million of us disagree. He won 51 to 48 for shits sake.


Thank you for stating that. It's fucking ridiculous that people can't comprehend that a few million people does not a popular mandate make, when over 50 million people feel disenfranchised. Start talking to the center instead of pulling the whole damn spectrum around.

Stompy 11-03-2004 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
Dont forget the two attacks in saudi arabia, the embassy in africa and the USS cole

So, pretty much 0 :)

The first wtc bombing was not a "9/11 type attack". There was no warning for that. There was, however, a warning before 9/11.

The others are really outside of anyone's control. Had they happened under Bush's watch, it would equally be as absurd to say he's at fault.

We're talking about HOMELAND attacks.

Scipio 11-03-2004 12:41 PM

I don't know about whether or not the guy in office is able to prevent catastrophic terror attacks. Playing defense with a country as big and open as America is a daunting proposition. I don't blame Bush for 9/11, but I do strongly question the decisions he made afterwards.

That's all water under the bridge I suppose. The truth is, although Bush now has some kind of a mandate to govern, he left himself quite a few messes to clean up. The problems in Iraq won't solve themselves. His overall foreign policy vision has yet to play itself out, and I remain convinced that it is doomed to fail. We almost certainly face at least one or two bitter battles over the supreme court, with no certain victory (if there is such a thing) for either side.

Like he said, being President is a tough job.

roachboy 11-03-2004 12:50 PM

i am still working on getting my head around this act of collective self-immolation.
but i remain bewildered.

Kalibah 11-03-2004 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth
Thank you for stating that. It's fucking ridiculous that people can't comprehend that a few million people does not a popular mandate make, when over 50 million people feel disenfranchised. Start talking to the center instead of pulling the whole damn spectrum around.


why do 50 million people feel disenfranchised? :hmm:

djtestudo 11-03-2004 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth
Thank you for stating that. It's fucking ridiculous that people can't comprehend that a few million people does not a popular mandate make, when over 50 million people feel disenfranchised. Start talking to the center instead of pulling the whole damn spectrum around.

Disenfranchised? :rolleyes:

djtestudo 11-03-2004 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalibah
why do 50 million people feel disenfranchised? :hmm:

Because his candidate didn't win and apparently that is now akin to losing your voting rights :rolleyes:

roachboy 11-03-2004 12:58 PM

conservatives here seem bent on confirming the worst possible interpretation of this self-immolation. like there is some perverse glee taken in it.
yes this is what you think it is...
yes we are who you think we are....

all this mixed with calls for unity.
strange business, message boards.

Stompy 11-03-2004 12:58 PM

Quote:

Because his candidate didn't win and apparently that is now akin to losing your voting rights
If 58.8 million people voted to jump off a bridge, that's suddenly the right thing to do? That's pretty much what we have here..

Nope. It's irritating that this great tool we have to represent a government was used horribly... now we have to face consequences... or rather, you do. I just won't let any of it affect me because I voted otherwise.

Lebell 11-03-2004 12:59 PM

I don't see that sniping at each other is doing anyone any good.

djtestudo 11-03-2004 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy
If 58.8 million people voted to jump off a bridge, that's suddenly the right thing to do?

If 54 million people are going to whine for four years, then yes.

Stompy 11-03-2004 01:03 PM

Maybe you'll learn to pick wisely in the future.

djtestudo 11-03-2004 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy
Maybe you'll learn to pick wisely in the future.

As will those who pick the Democratic candidates...

irateplatypus 11-03-2004 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 89transam
55.3 million of us disagree. He won 51 to 48 for shits sake.

that's wonderful, but the fact remains that the winner garnered a higher percentage of the vote than any other president has for 16 years.

DDDDave 11-03-2004 01:08 PM

My Dad can beat up your Dad.

Redlemon 11-03-2004 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
that's wonderful, but the fact remains that the winner garnered a higher percentage of the vote than any other president has for 16 years.

As I keep noting in various threads, that's because very few people voted third party in this election. The votes for Nader and Perot in the previous three elections were enough to bring the winner's percent below 50%. There was no significant 3rd party candidate in the election 16 years ago.

The only thing this shows is that the people who might have ordinarly placed a protest vote with a 3rd party in other years thought it was important to go Rep. or Dem. this year.

Stompy 11-03-2004 01:10 PM

Why do people keep bringing up that statistic? It means nothing when you compare it to what Kerry got :lol:

I swear, someone on that side says something, they all run with it no matter how irrelevant.

Halx 11-03-2004 01:13 PM

Hey.. at least he was elected this time.

Four more years of priceless comedy.

<-- lookin on the bright side

splck 11-03-2004 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx
Hey.. at least he was elected this time.

Four more years of priceless comedy.

<-- lookin on the bright side

My thoughts exactly.

tecoyah 11-03-2004 01:46 PM

As many of you know in here....I am not exactly a Bush Supporter.....but it is time to accept the facts,...............He Won.

I have decided to watch carefully, and add my support to the country I love.....wherever I can do so in good conscience. It is a pointless gesture to complain about a lost election...reguardless of how close the contest was. For better or for worse,GWB is the president for another term and I for one am EXTREMELY tired of the infighting. And yes, it is infighting......we are all citizens of the United States, I honestly hope we can begin to act that way.

bill96ab 11-03-2004 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber
Congratulations to Sen. Kerry for running strongly and showing a great deal of class in defeat. Here's hoping for the best over the next four years.


Very well stated. I feel like i have more respect for him now simply by how much class and respect he had in losing.

THis might show my stupidity, but did he have to give up his Sen. spot to run for president, or can he pick up that where he left off?

lk_3000 11-03-2004 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill96ab
THis might show my stupidity, but did he have to give up his Sen. spot to run for president, or can he pick up that where he left off?

don't worry i was thinking the exact same thing.

Arroe 11-03-2004 03:32 PM

gosh, some people are really bitter...

I just hope now things will calm down a bit. I supported Bush and was amazed at the victory that was very clear since about 11pm MST, or 2am EST, after Ohio came in for Bush. About half of my group of friends are democrats and the past few weeks it's been a little tense within our group. But I think today it was a "shake hands and say good game like little kids on a sports team" day, and everyone was coming back to a common ground again.

You can't complain and say "if everyone jumped off a bridge..." I wish everyone would just face the facts and get over it that the majority of the country voted for Bush and what's done is done.

Mephisto2 11-03-2004 03:37 PM

He can pick up where he left. He didn't resign his seat as far as I know.

Mr Mephisto

tecoyah 11-03-2004 04:01 PM

He is still the Minority Senator of Mass.

Mephisto2 11-03-2004 04:37 PM

What does "Minority" Senator mean?

He come from the party that does not hold the majority of seats in the Senate?


Mr Mephisto

adam 11-03-2004 04:46 PM

He's not the "Minority" senator, he's the "junior" senator, meaning only that Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate longer.

Aladdin Sane 11-03-2004 05:00 PM

No matter how you slice, dice, or spin it, President Bush received an overwhelming mandate from the American people.
Yesterday, President Bush:
*** Became the first President to be re-elected while gaining seats in the House and Senate since 1936 and the first Republican President since 1924 to be re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities.
*** Became the first President to win a majority of the popular vote since 1988.
*** Received 57.4 million votes - more than any other candidate in history. He broke President Reagan's 1984 mark of 54.5 million. (96% reporting)
***Increased the popular vote by seven million votes since 2000 - more than twice Clinton's increase from 1992 to 1996.
***Improved his percentage in every state except four (MD, OR, VT and WY). This includes a four percent increase in John Kerry's home state, Massachusetts.

Now look at the map and data posted here: Have a look at the map here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

Mephisto2 11-03-2004 05:15 PM

I don't think anyone is taking away from Bush's victory.

Obviously more Americans wanted him rather than Kerry.

So, as most Democrats I've seen have been saying, surely now is a time to move on, heal the wounds and concentrate on America.

Rather than acting like a 12 year old and shouting the "Nyaa nyaa nyaa...we won! we won! you're such a loser... nya we won!..." kind of nonesense I've seen from some, why not accept your win gracefully and concentrate on what you believe is right your country?


Mr Mephisto

james t kirk 11-03-2004 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiN
[a bit OT] this is precisely what I think is flawed/what I simply cannot comceptualise regarding America.
Morality should have nothing to do with public(servancy)/gov't/state/etc. Ethics, on the other hand...by all means, the more the better. ..but morality :confused: How can that have any place/bearing other than the private sector/religious sector? [/a bit OT]

...and that'll sum up my thoughts on the election, for the moment. :)

Exactly.

Well put.

james t kirk 11-03-2004 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailor
What the fuck is wrong with this country? I think Im moving to Canada.

A lot of people are saying that actually.

The CBC was airing emails during the election last night received from Americans saying the same thing.

To all the disenfranchised democrats out there I would say, if you can stand the winter, you are welcome aboard.

We don't make "morality" an election issue here. Abortion is not an issue to be debated in an election. In fact, if you are anti-abortion, you won't get elected. Believe it or not, in the last election the Conservative guy Stephen Harper had commercials levelled against him saying that if he was elected, he would "restrict a woman's right to choose" Can't ever imagine that in the USA.

Gay marriage, most people have more important things to worry about.

smooth 11-03-2004 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk
A lot of people are saying that actually.

The CBC was airing emails during the election last night received from Americans saying the same thing.

To all the disenfranchised democrats out there I would say, if you can stand the winter, you are welcome aboard.

We don't make "morality" an election issue here. Abortion is not an issue to be debated in an election. In fact, if you are anti-abortion, you won't get elected. Believe it or not, in the last election the Conservative guy Stephen Harper had commercials levelled against him saying that if he was elected, he would "restrict a woman's right to choose" Can't ever imagine that in the USA.

Gay marriage, most people have more important things to worry about.

Thank you James.

It's amazing that people can't understand that when a president, who is supposed to and claims to represent all the people in the country, proceeds on a course of action that doesn't represent the will of all the people in that nation, regardless of the fact that more than 50 million people voted for him, he is disenfranchising them.

Some questioned how this means my vote didn't matter. Well, reconcile how my wishes to be represented by government are fulfilled when the person elected ignores them? That's how 50+ million people are currently being disenfranchised from the political realm--our interests are not being addressed.

89transam 11-03-2004 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
No matter how you slice, dice, or spin it, President Bush received an overwhelming mandate from the American people.
Yesterday, President Bush:

*** Received 57.4 million votes - more than any other candidate in history. He broke President Reagan's 1984 mark of 54.5 million. (96% reporting)
]

Yeah, and kerry also broke the record with 55.5 million votes.No, Aladdin , %51 to %48 is Not an overwhelming mandate no matter how you spin it.

Ustwo 11-03-2004 09:27 PM

Republicans gained in the house, gained in the senate, gained state houses, gained a gov, oh and won the presidency with the first plurality of the vote since 1988.

In 1992, Clinton with 42% of the vote claimed a mandate....

I think with all off the above, the Republicans are entitled.

To the victors go the spoils, most of these Republicans were not elected to be moderates.

tspikes51 11-03-2004 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy
If 58.8 million people voted to jump off a bridge, that's suddenly the right thing to do? That's pretty much what we have here..

Nope. It's irritating that this great tool we have to represent a government was used horribly... now we have to face consequences... or rather, you do. I just won't let any of it affect me because I voted otherwise.

That has absolutely nothing to do with disenfranchised people. Too bad you live in this country too. It sucks that a republican can get elected, doesn't it??? What if Kerry were elected, would I feel disenfranchised because I voted for Bush? Don't think so... get real dude.

tspikes51 11-03-2004 10:06 PM

And dammit, I sure as hell didn't vote for Bush because of his morals. Don't say that just because you voted for Bush that you are a stupid hick. I live in an urban area, come from a middle-class household, support civil union for same sex couples, and support stem-cell research. I mainly voted for Bush because he was better equipped to lead this country in war, which, I'm sorry, we're already in. Frankly, I don't give a shit whether Kerry would have gone to war or not. It's too easy to criticize somebody in power, but Bush had some major cajones to go to war. Kerry would rather sit back and say "I wouldn't have done that" than actually come up with something original. Why aren't we whining about the people who vote for the more handsome candidate or the guy who votes for the candidate that would make for a better dinner guest???

KMA-628 11-03-2004 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth
It's amazing that people can't understand that when a president, who is supposed to and claims to represent all the people in the country, proceeds on a course of action that doesn't represent the will of all the people in that nation, regardless of the fact that more than 50 million people voted for him, he is disenfranchising them.
.

The only problem is that there is no such animal.

Smooth -

What course of action could President Bush pursue that would reperesent your will and mine equally? You and I believe very differently; our will cannot be followed by a single candidate. It is an either/or situation based on the winner.

If Kerry had won, then you would more likely have your will pursued and I would be "disenfranchised". Conversely, with President Bush, my will (sort of) wins and yours loses.

I do not see any scenario with a President that would satisfy both of our "wills" equally. A little over half voted for him, so therefore, by majority, their "will" is more likely to be followed.

He can represent "all" people, but he (regardless of who "he" is) cannot please all of the people all of the time.

smooth 11-04-2004 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628
The only problem is that there is no such animal.

Smooth -

What course of action could President Bush pursue that would reperesent your will and mine equally? You and I believe very differently; our will cannot be followed by a single candidate. It is an either/or situation based on the winner.

If Kerry had won, then you would more likely have your will pursued and I would be "disenfranchised". Conversely, with President Bush, my will (sort of) wins and yours loses.

I do not see any scenario with a President that would satisfy both of our "wills" equally. A little over half voted for him, so therefore, by majority, their "will" is more likely to be followed.

He can represent "all" people, but he (regardless of who "he" is) cannot please all of the people all of the time.

well, technically, I wouldn't have had my will persued had kerry been elected, but that seems to go right over the conservatives heads on this board over and over and ov...

that's fine you think a majority's will ought to be followed. that doesn't detract from the fact that it's a slim majority. My entire point was that calling a few million over the top of the 55+ million people against does not mean your candidate has a popular mandate from the nation.

a popular mandate means that the country approves, as a whole, with what you are doing. we don't, this nation is very divided. and rather than shift a bit over to try and encompass their will, people are just cutting them out of the picture.

I can accept that my views along with a few hundred thousand people are so far radically to the left of mainstream politics that no candidate is going to seriously encompass all of my views.

But I don't understand how you can think half the population is wacky and irreconcilable with your views. I don't think the same way about the 55+ million people who voted for bush. I see agreement between lefts and rights all the time. It's up to the politicians not to select wedge issues to run on. People in the know do it all the fucking time--despite what they lead you to believe via the media. Bush and kerry are going to get along just fine during the next 4 years. the majority of people on both sides of the aisle are going to continue addressing each other with respect despite and work with one another to pass legislation that does what you claim can't happen--govern both sides of the political spectrum.

Now, bush can join that reality. or his administration can continue to stretch the right limits of your party's ideology. there isn't anything in your party that precludes you from wielding the power that has just been won in a respectful and representative fashion. that's all in the president's hands, now, and he hasn't shown a very willingness to do that.

what is your party going to do after the war? or is there never going to be an after the war?
if you build bridges you will create a lasting empire. if you don't, then your party will go down in flames because you don't have a popular mandate--your party won by its nose and failure to recognize that isn't going to make all those people suddently agree with you the next election cycle.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360