The OFFICIAL United States Presidential Election Thread! III

[Lefty Scaevola]

most presidential votes record

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Wasn't this Al Gore's record in 2000

No, Ronald Reagan's from 1984.


Now, by the way, name the last Democrat prseidential candidate who got a majority of the popular vote.

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The partisans at http://www.democraticunderground.com/ are going insane.

Damn, my school's firewall is blocking the site.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
All these people saying Kerry should concede... when not even FOX NEWS is calling the election for Bush, why should Kerry concede? When Nixon conceded, the results announced for Kennedy, so it isn't analogous.

The reason the networks don't want to call it is because they remember last year

If the information being provided is accurate, almost 93% of the outstanding ballots in Ohio have to be for Kerry for him to carry the state... Not likely

[Kontiki]

Personally, I'm a little disappointed but not at all surprised. You'd think this should jolt the Democrats back into some sense of reality. They put up a bad candidate and ran a crap campaign. IMO, this election should have been a slam dunk against Bush. The fact that the Democrats weren't up by 10 points going into yesterday speaks volumes about the failure of the party and Kerry himself.

[DanielXY]

EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results.

In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the margin of error.

So we have MATCHING RESULTS for exit polls vs. voting with audits

vs.

A 5% unexplained advantage for Bush without audits.

So whats up with these eVoting machines? Can anyone confirm the claims (+5% for bush, if no paper trail, no diffrence if there is)? Or is it indeed some insane conspiracy theory?

[SpencerH]

Fox news have called 269 electoral votes for Bush which is the number he would require to win (since it would then go to the house).

Bush is ahead in the popular vote by 3.5M votes do you not think that lead will translate into electoral votes? Bush squeaked by in 2000 without winning the popular vote but the difference was 500K-1M votes.

Its interesting to note that it wasnt even close in Florida this time. I guess without the ****ing media intereference (i.e. the early call for Gore) that the panhandle voters, who are overwhelmingly republican, actually had their votes recognized this time.

[lord of the mark]

1. No one has gone straight to the white house from the Senate since John F. Kennedy.
2. No democrat who is not a Southerner has won the White House since John F. Kennedy.
3. Its long been claimed that running to the center suppresses the base vote, and that the Dems could increase base turnout by presenting a clearer choice. That is true, but results in a higher turnout on the part of the GOP base as well.
4. Despite 3, many Democrats will suggest that Kerry did not present a clear enough choice, and that Dean would have done better.

[MOBIUS]

My commiserations - you poor slobs!

Here's to Ignorance, stupidity, religious extremism and just plain greed...:beer:

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
All these people saying Kerry should concede... when not even FOX NEWS is calling the election for Bush, why should Kerry concede? When Nixon conceded, the results announced for Kennedy, so it isn't analogous.

I think Kerry should concede.

Dirty tricks or not, fraud or not, there's a snowball's chance in hell that they'll get Ohio to come out as they want, especially with Republicans throwing up every legal roadblock they can muster.

With the popular vote numbers looking as they are, I wouldn't want Kerry to "win." He'd be in far worse shape to lead the country than Bush was in 2000, since he would have lost the vote by a clear majority, and he would also face a presumably very hostile Congress intent on questioning his legitimacy at every turn.

His presidency would be hamstrung from the get-go, so I say let Bush keep his messes for the next four years. I don't think Iraq will play out any better for them, and by the end of it people truly will be fed up with him. And it also could lead to a GOP civil war as moderates desperately try to stave off a tide of neocon and right-wing assaults on our country.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by DanielXY


So whats up with these eVoting machines? Can anyone confirm the claims (+5% for bush, if no paper trail, no diffrence if there is)? Or is it indeed some insane conspiracy theory?

Interesting. This goes along with the rest of the "coincidences" I posted in another thread.
These machines look highly suspicious to me, especially since they seem to be coming from private companies w/o any control exerted over them.
It's like you take a private company and let them count the voting cards....

[SpencerH]

Chris Matthews made some interesting comments on NBC this morning (I was flipping by). He said (paraphrasing) that the dems have lost contact with the values that most americans hold to, that there is a schism between the people who fly from LA to NY and those they fly over, and that without a dem who can appeal to the southern voters that they'll never win.

[JohnT]

One thing that does seem very clear tonight -- at least if what I'm hearing from the exits is true -- is that the much-ballyhooed youth vote simply did not show up. Simple as that.

That is a remarkable turnabout from the expectations that had been growing over the last week. And Democrats weren't the only ones who bought into the idea. Public pollsters and even Republicans in the final days of the campaign were coming to believe it too. And that shaped expectations greatly.

Whatever happens tonight a lot of thought and study will go into just what happened. Was it a mirage? Was it a problem with the GOTV operation? It can't simply be the later. Even the best ground operation can only amplify a demographic trend or spike that has some deeper socio-political basis.

-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_31.php#003925

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Chris Matthews made some interesting comments on NBC this morning (I was flipping by). He said (paraphrasing) that the dems have lost contact with the values that most americans hold to, that there is a schism between the people who fly from LA to NY and those they fly over, and that without a dem who can appeal to the southern voters that they'll never win.

I've been saying that for years, this total victory by the Republicans should hammer that home but I doubt it.

[Kaak]

the simple fact is that kerry is a lil b*tch, and always has been. The chances of him admitting a fair defeat are slim to none, even though he lost the popular vote by 3.5 million.

[Atahualpa]

With the popular vote numbers looking as they are, I wouldn't want Kerry to "win." He'd be in far worse shape to lead the country than Bush was in 2000, since he would have lost the vote by a clear majority, and he would also face a presumably very hostile Congress intent on questioning his legitimacy at every turn.

Nonsense! In 4 months nobody cares about that anymore. The same way nobody cared for Bush questionable victory.
President is president and he would not be any weaker.
Or has Bush been, because of that, in his descisions?