You may now remove your tinfoil hats: (Official Recount Thread)

[Boris Godunov]

Writing off Kerry now is premature. Plenty wrote off Nixon after 1960, you'll recall. Kerry certainly has the ambition and drive to keep himself in the running. His biggest asset going forward might just be that, having been subjected to the character assassination if this election, he'll be more innoculated against it in 2008. There won't be any surprises at the mud flung at him.

(please note that I am not saying I want Kerry in 2008)

[notyoueither]

How often does it happen that someone gets the nomination a second time after losing the first time out?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There aren't significantly more people in 2004 than in 2000. More people just voted.

281 Million vs. 294 million, an increase of about 4.6%

That's not insignificant, though there were a lot more people voting percentage-wise too.

-Drachasor

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Doesn't make his point any less stupid.

What it means, Kuci, is that alot of people voted for Kerry, regardless of the population. Thats the only point.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/1754249&tid=226&tid=126&tid=103

Yeah, I know, wrong state, but I still found it interesting (their methods seem a bit shaky, but there does seem to be some curious data there.)

And Ohio was another big e-voting state, wasn't it?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
How often does it happen that someone gets the nomination a second time after losing the first time out?

Nixon was the last to do so, disregarding failed primary bids. Before him, Stevenson. It used to be perfectly possible.

I think, had Gore played his cards right, he would have been able to snag the nod this year. After all, many Dems still think of him as the true winner in 2000.

It will be harder for Kerry, though, since Dems moreso than Repubs tend to want to forget their losers as quick as possible. Carter, Mondale and Dukakis weren't remembered fondly by the party.

I think the key to the 57 million vote thing is that over 57 million people voted for a boring placeholder like Kerry who was portrayed by the right as an ultraliberal Massachusetts tax-and-spend weenie. If such a perceived candidate can come so close, it speaks volumes about the weakness of Bush as an incumbent.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by dv8ed

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/1754249&tid=226&tid=126&tid=103

Yeah, I know, wrong state, but I still found it interesting (their methods seem a bit shaky, but there does seem to be some curious data there.)

And Ohio was another big e-voting state, wasn't it?

Note sure about how much they were used in 2004 but Ohio e-voting is known, and officially recognized, to have problems:

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/news/release/12-02-03.htm

[Shi Huangdi]

Ya know, it was closer in PA then in OH, so why not have a recount here? Anyway, it is extraordinarily unlikely anything will change.

As far as 2008 goes, the biggest obstacle in the way of Kerry or any other Dem who would like to be President is Hillary Clinton. Her fundraising skill and popularity among the Democratic party makes her the woman to beat for the Dem nomination.

[Admiral]

Hillary Clinton's popularity is overrated. The Right talk about her much more than the Left.

[The Mad Monk]

Ya know, it was closer in PA then in OH, so why not have a recount here? Anyway, it is extraordinarily unlikely anything will change.

Because Kerry won that state, so obviously that vote was completely fair and above board. Yes, Michigan too.

Duh.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Ya know, it was closer in PA then in OH, so why not have a recount here? Anyway, it is extraordinarily unlikely anything will change.

As far as 2008 goes, the biggest obstacle in the way of Kerry or any other Dem who would like to be President is Hillary Clinton. Her fundraising skill and popularity among the Democratic party makes her the woman to beat for the Dem nomination.

It has nothing to do with the fact that it was close, its the fact that Bush leads by 136,000 while there are still almost 250,000 ballots yet to be counted. Compare that with PA where only about 60,000 prov. ballots were cast. A PA recount would be useless.

And extrodinarliy unlikely isn't accurate at all. I'd put it at about 50/50 at this point. Look at the numbers.

[civman2000]

I hate Bush as much as anyone, but I think it's hypocritical to manipulate the Electoral College to try to beat his popular majority. I think that, not any questions of partisan bias or whatever, is the biggest problem here.

[The diplomat]

Kerry lost, let it go.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by civman2000
I hate Bush as much as anyone, but I think it's hypocritical to manipulate the Electoral College to try to beat his popular majority. I think that, not any questions of partisan bias or whatever, is the biggest problem here.

Bush Vs. Gore 2000 proved that point is irrelevant. And it wouldn't be "manipulating" the vote, thats how our voting system works. Its to prevent "tyranny of the majority", which just happens to work in our favor now.

Kerry lost, let it go.

No. Bush won't steal another election.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Bush Vs. Gore 2000 proved that point is irrelevant. And it wouldn't be "manipulating" the vote, thats how our voting system works. Its to prevent "tyranny of the majority", which just happens to work in our favor now.



No. Bush won't steal another election.

The problem is, I (and most educated Democrats I know) think the 2000 election and the entire Electoral College is flawed and illegitimate. From our perspective, then, trying to win the Electoral College against the will of the popular vote is hypocritical and generally just plain wrong.