Europe, are you nuts?

It is more interesting that over 60% of self professing weekly church attenders voted for Bush while an equal number of "never attend church" folks voted for Kerry.

Urban areas are different in the US. Demographically, they are more likely to contain large numbers of traditionally Democrat black voters. They are also more likely to have large concentrations of powerful unions.

Having known many blacks personally, I think that if they voted their actual social and economic values their vote would split about 35% Republican, 65% Democrat.

A very small minority of our population describe themselves as "liberal"- something less than 20%. More than double that number describe themselves as conservative with a significant number of moderates leaning conservative.

I didn't say that now did I? I said that our system protects our rights against the mob rule of a simple majority.

Nope. The 2000 election had more issues than the Florida recount. There was widespread evidence of vote fraud by Democrats in various places to include Missouri, New Mexico, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and, yes, Florida.

This is one of the reasons the Republicans were so vocal about voter fraud before this election. They were putting Democratic supporting organizations on notice that they were going to be watched this time around.

Another thing that cannot be discounted when discussing the popular vote of 2000 is the fact that the media had spent a month telling the American people that if Gore won Florida then the election was over. At 7:00 pm Eastern time, they gleefully informed the nation that Gore had won Florida... this was before even all of the Florida polls were closed. Many speculate that the heavily 'Bush' panhandle might have produced 10's of thousands of more votes had they not thought it was over. (based on past election turnout and voting patterns).

It is really difficult to say how many people out to the west didn't vote because they thought it was meaningless. Bush narrowly lost Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico. The heaviest Republican voting tends to occur in the afternoon- after work. Certainly it is easy to speculate that Bush's turnout was suppressed enough to cover Gore's popular vote victory.

Many lessons were learned in 2000 and in Guiliani's first mayoral loss by the GOP. They learned how important it is to watch the polls for ballot box stuffing and voter irregularities. They learned how to reach voters directly with their message rather than letting the liberal media define them. They learned how to get their voters to the polls at near the same rates as Democratic organizations do.

BTW, Dems have only held the Presidency for 12 out of the last 36 years... and both of those guys ran as moderates- not liberals. Both were also from conservative southern states where they had served as conservative governors. Clinton was even pro-life at one point if I am not mistaken. Many people expected the "Baptist" Carter to help overturn Roe v Wade which was only 3 years old at his election.

 

That's also the point I was answering.

Today, when we consider our large cities, we must also consider the significant number of people who live in the suburbs. For instance, more people who work in Atlanta live outside of the city than within it.

The wealth of the cities that Galatian refers to cannot be arbitrarily separated from suburbanites who split in favor of the Republicans.

 

America is a federation of states.....most states voted for Bush. The US system is a compromise between the states and the total population, election-wise, and this is a good system, since it means the most populated states don't automatically get to choose the president.

Having said that, I enjoyed learning about the French system....i think we could learn from that. As for the British system - Blair has exposed its' weaknesses by tearing it apart and assuming presidential powers he has no right to.

 

Actually our governments are more alike then they are different.
To the poster who was talking about us here in the colonies being frontiersman in the colonies while they had monarchies,pointing out how advanced European society is compared to ours.Why don't we take the next step and say Eqypt and Assyria,and parts of Africa had great kingdoms while Europeans were nothing but savages means Europe would do well to follow an Iraqi form of government, Babylon being one of the more ancient civilizations,they naturally would be much more civilized than Europeans.

 

The "whole world" is wrong. Give us ONE documented source proving that "Gore had more votes than Bush.". EVERY unofficial recount after the election gave more and more votes to Bush.

 

I am constantly amazed at how much more Europeans know about America than Americans do. They know all of our mistakes and everything about us that is wrong.Since we have no idea on how to run our government and they have certain knowledge about how we should do things, I suggest they immigrate like Arnold did and run for political office.thier platform could be we are Europeans and we know how you should do it.Let's see how many times have they protected us and bailed us out? How many times have we protected them and bailed them out?

 

Er...Bill, don't be too down on Corinne re 'bailing out'. Her lot saved your bacon in 1778-81 and again probably in 1812 - if it wasn't for that you might still be tugging your forelock to Frau Windsor and calling her "Your Majesty"...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yes. And only someone totally unfamiliar with American politics would make such a statement.

Unions wouldn't do such a thing? They also wouldn't be tied to organized crime, huh?

The Democratic machines aren't what they used to be in places like Chicago but they aren't dead either.

Speaking of dead- in 2000, over 5000 dead people voted in heavily Democratic Atlanta GA districts... source: Atlanta Journal Constitution, a very liberal paper.

Just cited one. What do you need an admission by Democrats or the mainstream media that favors Democrats over Republicans about 12:1 and for the most part represent the most liberal element of the Dem Party?

Then your common knowledge is wrong. Several independent groups including liberal, Democrat leaning news organizations recounted the Florida votes after the election was validated. All but one found Bush to be the clear winner. The other could not make a definitive judgment.

These organizations for the most part recounted the whole state, not just a few select Gore counties. The Bush campaign expected an early resolution and failed to contend the selective recounts. This was a very poor decision.

Then perhaps the whole world needs to get over its bias, stop getting its American news only through the liberal filters of CNN and the NY Times, and accept the facts.

A very close election with many more problems than typically occur in American elections. The hanging chad non-sense was stupid. All of them should have been declared spoiled ballots and not counted. The voter has the responsibility to clearly mark their ballot and check it.

I have used the butterfly ballot and can assure you that it isn't difficult at all. It is a simple, reliable, verifiable means for voting. The ones I used had clear instructions to inspect your ballot to ensure that the holes were completely punched and that no chads were left hanging or else the vote would not be counted.

BTW, had Gore not been declared the winner in Florida so early, Bush could have very possibly won Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico... meaning that he in actuality didn't need Florida to win. Those states would have given him a slim electoral victory.

 

I don't think so. The British whipped us so many times it's pitiful. We drove em nuts because we would'nt quit.They were used to going to battle then whoever won signed a peace treaty. We would,nt do that. I think the revolution or rebellion by the colonies would still be going on if the British had not given up.After all of the battles they won when they were decisively beaten in one battle they quit,it just was,nt worth it.Sort of like we were thier Veitnam.
And the French would be speaking gewrman or russian.

 

"Speaking of dead- in 2000, over 5000 dead people voted in heavily Democratic Atlanta GA districts..."
"
This still happens?!
Very disturbing.

 

I am afraid so mioque. Some of the contested Democratic registrations in Ohio were of dead people. The media chanted the Democratic mantra that the Republicans were trying to "suppress the black vote" as a counter to the irregularities.

Another story I read witnessed that party activists were going into nursing homes with hands full of absentee ballots, visiting the alzheimer's patients, and emerging later with cast votes to turn in.

It is also the Democrats and liberals who are adamently opposed to more rigid standards for voter identification. They claim it is about voter disenfranchisement but one wonders if they aren't aware of how much voter fraud means to them seeing that gov't issued ID's are easy to get. If someone doesn't care enough about voting to go down to their local dept of motor vehicles and get a state issued ID then they don't deserve alot of compassion.

 

Oh, and just one more thing. The only documented case of voter intimidation I heard this year was of union reps in Florida attempting to prevent early Republican voters from going to the polls.

 

Plain Old Bill
"To the poster who was talking about us here in the colonies being frontiersman in the colonies while they had monarchies,pointing out how advanced European society is compared to ours."
"
Maybe you should reread CMG's post and my response to it and rethink your response to that.

 

Scott
Voting is a very different experience in my country. There are never any scandals, unionmembers don't show up at the polls to beat you up because you look like a bussinessowner, you don't register to vote (the government does that for you) and voting computers are used instead of butterfly ballots.

 

The "whole world" is wrong. Give us ONE documented source proving that "Gore had more votes than Bush.". EVERY unofficial recount after the election gave more and more votes to Bush. </font>[/QUOTE]I will give you more than one.

If not for a confluence of factors — poor ballot design, confusion among voters, and a ballot-rejection rate in African-American neighborhoods that was nearly three times higher than in white ones — Gore would have won, and not by some wussy 100-vote margin, either.

The New York Times, for instance, reported that of the 113,000 ballots cast for two or more candidates, 75,000 were marked for Gore and another candidate and 29,000 were marked for Bush and another candidate. {http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html} Obviously (because of the Supreme Court ruling) such votes can’t be counted, but if they could, there’s a 46,000-vote margin right there. Note to conspiracy theorists: that’s why the media’s first exit polls showed Florida going decisively for Gore.

The Washington Post found that Gore may have lost 8000 votes in Palm Beach County, home of the infamous butterfly ballots, and another 7000 in Duval County, where similar ballot confusion reigned. {http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html}

And these scenarios don’t even begin to address such imponderables as the number of African-American voters who were turned away at the polls because they had mistakenly been deemed felons. (See " Don’t Quote Me, " News and Features, December 22, 2000. {http://boston-dev.wfnx.com/archive/features/00/12/21/DON_T_QUOTE_ME.html}

These links show clearly that, even if Bush would have won a limited recount, had a statewide recount been ordered (as it should have and as it were by the Florida Supreme Court) Gore would have won the tally of all uncounted ballots.

Corinne

 

You have a short memory. Didn't the French help you beat the British a few hundred years ago? Forgotten Lafayette? No, your country even named a town after him. Wonder why. We bailed you out before you bailed us back from the Nazis. So we are quits, aren't we?

I also recall with pride that Napoleon preferred to cease Louisiana to the USA in order to piss off the Brits and give you the opportunity to expand. Louisiana at the time was not just the state it is today, it went from the gulf of Mexico to Canada and represented over 1/3 of today's USA.

Seems to me you owe more to the French than the French owe you. Without Napoleon's visionary decision, the USA might still be split in two in its mid-west, and you'd have to go through British or Spanish Territory to go from L.A. to NY.

About getting citizenship and running for local office, that is on my agenda, thanks a lot for reminding me.

I also thank the republicans for drafting an amendment which will allow citizens like Schwarzenegger (or me) to run for president of the United States.

Who's laughing now?

Corinne

 

No we would not be speaking German. At least, one half of France would still be speaking French, the one that resisted, the one my family is from. We would never have given in. We would have driven them out of France or we would have died to the last one.

Corinne