Post-Election Analysis

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I'm a Democrat and I don't feel that giving money to underprivileged people is more beneficial than teaching them. Teaching is a great idea. There should be plenty of job training programs for poor people. But I wonder, do you expect the teachers to volunteer? Because you know, it costs money to teach people, and the Republicans seem unwilling to spend that money.

The money goes to the states and the states determine how to spend the money from the federal government. So why don't you see how your state spends it's money, or complain about how much teachers make in your state.

But there it is - the old federal government handout so many democrats look for. I see you didn't disappoint me on laying the blame at the "republicans" feet and expecting the federal government to supply everything.

Technically NJ doesn't even get any money back from the government. For every $1 we get back in federal programs - we give $5,000 - because the democrats have even set it up - so the states are on wellfare programs. States such as Mississippi are supported by states like California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.

[Elfhelm]

The Federal Budget most certainly DOES include money for education. Under Bush the amount spent is less than under Clinton.

Bush spends the money on military equipment. Much of that military equipment is made by companies that have Bush cabinet members on their Boards of Directors. (Do I need to go find that information?)

We know the red states are in a dependent relation to the blue states. Did they just vote to become less dependent? Is that what you're saying? If all that pork that comes from being a red state isn't really a handout, what is it?

I love the way the tobacco industry got sued on the one hand, then got a tax break that was bigger than the lawsuit. And that big tax break for NASCAR? That's pork, man. NASCAR invited candidate Bush to start races and featured drivers saying they are Republicans.

But that's not handouts. That's not welfare. Why, because they are rich white businessmen?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

The Federal Budget most certainly DOES include money for education. Under Bush the amount spent is less than under Clinton.

It hasn't been less than under Clinton.

Bush spends the money on military equipment. Much of that military equipment is made by companies that have Bush cabinet members on their Boards of Directors. (Do I need to go find that information?)

Do I need to remind you that a lot of money Bush is spending that is required to get the security of the US in order after 9/11.

We know the red states are in a dependent relation to the blue states. Did they just vote to become less dependent? Is that what you're saying? If all that pork that comes from being a red state isn't really a handout, what is it?

Actually that isn't true. First of all - New Jersey really isn't a "blue" state. NJ has voted republican many times - just not in the last couple of elections. I do like your snide attitude though "blue states versus red states". Is that the most that democrats have anymore are ways to divide the country and show contempt for people who don't agree with them?

I love the way the tobacco industry got sued on the one hand, then got a tax break that was bigger than the lawsuit. And that big tax break for NASCAR? That's pork, man. NASCAR invited candidate Bush to start races and featured drivers saying they are Republicans.

Please - the pork is on BOTH sides. You want to be show you the largest abusers of pork? What about Byrd from West Virginia? He was the LARGEST pork spender. The democrats load up on pork barrel projects - so don't even try to act like it's solely a republican thing.

But that's not handouts. That's not welfare. Why, because they are rich white businessmen?

Where did I support pork barrel spending? Can you please show me? I gues if you have no argument on what I have to say - because you know I'm right - you just turn around and bring up something else or you try to do a "us versus them" attack.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The thing is here is they WANT unequal treatment - that is what affirmative action is. It's not about the most qualified - it's about the color of your skin.

criminy… jersey go out and find yourself twenty random black people and ask them hey you do you want unequal treatment from the government? Do you want free handouts and a permenant welfare state and no jobs to promote self sufficiency? And you know what? Pretty much 20 out of 20 of them will say no I don’t want that. Then ask them so then are you a republican? And probably 18 or 19 out of 20 will say no Im a democrat OR no I don’t buy into the whole political system at all. its stacked against me. Why do they think that jersey? Because they are “misguided and blinded”? No. Its because of PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Why did you choose to carefully ignore that point exactly? Blacks in this country from inception until just about 30 odd years ago have been second class citizens in every sense of the world. They now find themselves within a system in which there is a ruling class that has had a 400 year head start on them to establish their own security both financially and socially. And you are going to get up and tell them shut the hell up you don’t deserve any help in reaching that equal playing field? Well that’s the height of arrogance and the height of cruelty to me. And THAT’S EXACTLY the face they see when they look at the republican party. A party that doesn’t care about them and that actually has the audacity to tell them that they shouldn’t have any extra help after this very same group discriminated against them and enslaved them and financially and socially isolated them for 400 years. What hypocritical nonsense. And I don’t want to hear oh I had nothing to do with it. It not about slavery. Its about the reality of the social structure of the US. A reality you aren’t willing to deal with apparently. Oh and I also don’t want to hear “my grandfather worked his way up from nothing!” because if your grandfather managed to make a living in a country where he was enslaved then discriminated against for generations and socially isolated and restricted as far as education and jobs then hes a rare person and NOT the typical individual who would have been stuck in poverty under those unfair conditions. So you certainly cannot use that as an argument AGAISNT affirmative action because its essentially promoting social Darwinism. It doesn’t matter that you had a severe disadvantage theres still a chance you can make it all by yourself. And for the vast majority of you that cant (because statistically there HAS to be a much larger number that don’t make it) well too bad for you eh.

Yeah I'm against affirmative action - not because it helps blacks - because it does NOT help blacks. Sorry - why do blacks need affirmative action? Aren't they good enough to get in on their own merits? Aren't they smart enough? I believe they are and don't need affirmative action to get into schools and get ahead.

hey jersey let me tie your neck to a tree and then let me castigate you for needing “extra” help in a 100 yard race with me. What do you mean you need the government to free you from your rope first! That’s unfair treatment! I don’t want any of my tax dollars going to such a self defeating program!! Learn to survive on your damn own! Stop always asking for hand outs! You should be able to compete with me despite the tree!

Again thank you for confirming my statements so wonderfully.

no thank YOU for selectively ignoring MY points and promoting the classic republican double standard I was referring to. Good show ol chap! Oh woops… I mean yo way to keep it real dog.

By the way - the democrats feel that GIVING a money to person is much more beneficial than actually TEACHING them to care for themselves. As long as they continue to adhere to the democratic programs of "give give give" they will never be able to support themselves and they will always expect these handouts.

no. progressive democrats believe giving AND teaching go hand in hand. Time to face the reality that that’s the ideal way to handle this issue. Not by cutting them loose before they’ve managed to climb out of the lion pit they started in.

[jerseydevil]

IR go ahead - continue to snidely call me Jersey. But I guess by saying my "name" with such contempt makes you feel big.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

criminy… jersey go out and find yourself twenty random black people and ask them hey you do you want unequal treatment from the government? Do you want free handouts and a permenant welfare state and no jobs to promote self sufficiency? And you know what? Pretty much 20 out of 20 of them will say no I don’t want that. Then ask them so then are you a republican? And probably 18 or 19 out of 20 will say no Im a democrat OR no I don’t buy into the whole political system at all. its stacked against me. Why do they think that jersey? Because they are “misguided and blinded”? No. Its because of PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Why did you choose to carefully ignore that point exactly? Blacks in this country from inception until just about 30 odd years ago have been second class citizens in every sense of the world. They now find themselves within a system in which there is a ruling class that has had a 400 year head start on them to establish their own security both financially and socially. And you are going to get up and tell them shut the hell up you don’t deserve any help in reaching that equal playing field? Well that’s the height of arrogance and the height of cruelty to me. And THAT’S EXACTLY the face they see when they look at the republican party. A party that doesn’t care about them and that actually has the audacity to tell them that they shouldn’t have any extra help after this very same group discriminated against them and enslaved them and financially and socially isolated them for 400 years. What hypocritical nonsense. And I don’t want to hear oh I had nothing to do with it. It not about slavery. Its about the reality of the social structure of the US. A reality you aren’t willing to deal with apparently.

No - I don't think they should have extra help anymore. We can go on forever using the slave excuse. Everyone in the history of the world were at one time slaves. You can think it's hypocritical - but I feel that people should be judged as people - you seem to be perfectly happy with splitting people up based on color. I don't think most blacks need help - I think they can actually make it on their own if they would just cut themselves off from the purse strings of the democratic party.

Oh and I also don’t want to hear “my grandfather worked his way up from nothing!” because if your grandfather managed to make a living in a country where he was enslaved then discriminated against for generations and socially isolated and restricted as far as education and jobs then hes a rare person and NOT the typical individual who would have been stuck in poverty under those unfair conditions. So you certainly cannot use that as an argument AGAISNT affirmative action because its essentially promoting social Darwinism. It doesn’t matter that you had a severe disadvantage theres still a chance you can make it all by yourself. And for the vast majority of you that cant (because statistically there HAS to be a much larger number that don’t make it) well too bad for you eh.

So in other words because slavery at one time existed and because in the 60's there wasn't the freedom to blacks - the US is forced to pay for that forever? Come on - under your terms it will never be enough - because there is always the excuse. Well damn - you know everyone is put down sometimes. And yeah - you know my ancestors came over here and made their life better. You know - if you look at what they went through and the prejudicism against the immigrants you would damn well know it wasn't a picnic and that it was very hard. But for how long will we be accepting the "slavery" issue as being an excuse.

hey jersey let me tie your neck to a tree and then let me castigate you for needing “extra” help in a 100 yard race with me. What do you mean you need the government to free you from your rope first! That’s unfair treatment! I don’t want any of my tax dollars going to such a self defeating program!! Learn to survive on your damn own! Stop always asking for hand outs! You should be able to compete with me despite the tree!

hahahahaha - so here we go again. I have to listen to another one of your way out there examples. You really are hilarious.

no thank YOU for selectively ignoring MY points and promoting the classic republican double standard I was referring to. Good show ol chap! Oh woops… I mean yo way to keep it real dog.

My statement was correct. I said that the reason why most blacks vote for democrats is because democrats is because democrats support special handouts just for blacks. You said - no that wasn't the case - but then you proceeded to say about how why would blacks vote for republicans who which to take away these special benefits they enjoy. So i didn't ignore your points. You just happened to confirm all mine.

no. progressive democrats believe giving AND teaching go hand in hand. Time to face the reality that that’s the ideal way to handle this issue. Not by cutting them loose before they’ve managed to climb out of the lion pit they started in.

Ahhhh yes - the PROGRESSIVE democrat. The new name you guys are trying to call yourself so it seems like you actually want to move the country forward - but instead want to live in the past by constantly bringing up a issue that has not existed for 140 years in this country, the civil rights movement is 40 years old. Give me a break. You see - democrats NEVER want them climb out of the lion pit. It's all about keeping blacks down so them you can say "see - you need the democrats help."

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

IR go ahead - continue to snidely call me Jersey. But I guess by saying my "name" with such contempt makes you feel big.

uh what? Your screen name isn’t jersey? You of all people find the term “jersey” offensive? And please tell me how you can “hear” my tone of voice when I type your name exactly. And why don’t you let me know what youd rather I call you if not whats in your screen name… I don’t have a problem with people calling me Insidious. Its my name! So what is your problem exactly?

No - I don't think they should have extra help anymore. We can go on forever using the slave excuse. Everyone in the history of the world were at one time slaves.

um we are talking about the United States here. Not “the whole world”. We are talking about a culture in which Africans were at one time slaves for generations. Then were discriminated against for generations. And were isolated in lesser social groups putting them at an even bigger disadvantage in a country in which the dominant culture writes all the rules.

So in other words because slavery at one time existed and because in the 60's there wasn't the freedom to blacks - the US is forced to pay for that forever?

forever?? Come on its been less then a generation! How can you conceivably say everything is fixed. Yer on yer own folks! Sorry. Yes we know we oppressed you for 400+ years in the most inhumane ways possible and that weve established a second class society that blacks have been forced to live in that makes jumping into the primary dominant culture a disadvantage to you but we think 30+ years is quite enough compared to those 400+. So stiff upper lip! Im sure youll find economic and social and establishment connections like we have somewhere. Toodles! Its off to the country club!

How ridiculous. I mean really how can you possibly say the massive ship of discrimination and jim crow and segregation and cultural inferiority has been righted so quickly. Are you basing this on data or just on the whole crack head welfare caricature that was promoted during the Reagan era?

You know - if you look at what they went through and the prejudicism against the immigrants you would damn well know it wasn't a picnic and that it was very hard.

yes yes. But they made it. I know. But you missed my point about the VAST numbers of those like your ancestors that DIDN’T make it. So as I said in effect your argument is a social Darwinism one. And do you really want to have that kind of approach to society?

I have to listen to another one of your way out there examples. You really are hilarious.

well I try to keep you entertained to better magnify my point.

My statement was correct. I said that the reason why most blacks vote for democrats is because democrats is because democrats support special handouts just for blacks.

actually I think yer exact wording was they vote for democrats because they are “misguided and blinded”.

You said - no that wasn't the case - but then you proceeded to say about how why would blacks vote for republicans who which to take away these special benefits they enjoy. So i didn't ignore your points.

you certainly DID ignore my points! I said “The vast majority of blacks feel disenfranchised by the policies and ideals of the republican party.” And then I even asked you WHY this is so. You didn’t answer that. Or was that covered under the “misguided and blinded” thing? THEN I EVEN said that it basically comes down to the fact that blacks KNOW from experience that there has been and still is unequal treatment. They experience this ok? You didn’t address this either. Do you think its just a myth? That they havent actually experienced that? That its just a dream?

I don’t really understand how you can at one moment say “most” blacks are just looking for a hand out and then turn around and say blacks are the same as whites and work hard for their money and don’t need any help to succeed in this society. Either they are mostly welfare cheats or they are mostly hard working decent people. Which one is it? Or are you saying they SHOULD be hard working decent people like whites because they are capable of it but they don’t for some reason. If so then I have millions and millions of examples I could show you to help cure you of this delusion. But if you even ask these people who HAVE worked had and HAVE been successful and are playing the game as they should be according to you is the republican party on their side they will tell you in high numbers NO they don’t represent me. They don’t care about me. So even the “good” blacks disagree with republican ideologies when it comes to race. Why is that? That’s my point. Is your answer gonna be once again because all those people want hand outs?

Ahhhh yes - the PROGRESSIVE democrat. The new name you guys are trying to call yourself so it seems like you actually want to move the country forward - but instead want to live in the past by constantly bringing up a issue that has not existed for 140 years in this country, the civil rights movement is 40 years old. Give me a break. You see - democrats NEVER want them climb out of the lion pit. It's all about keeping blacks down so them you can say "see - you need the democrats help."

um scuse me look over here in my direction. Stop talking to that picture of jimmy carter or whatever you are looking at. Im talking about whats the right thing to do. Not looking to mouth some party’s platform. All I said was that blacks generally tend to identify more with democrats because of the issues ive already laid out. I ALSO said its NOT as if they think the democrats are the best thing in the world. They just happen to realize well they are better then the republicans so what choice do we have. So if yer gonna make a straw horse then make a new post so you can yell about it all you want. But unlike you with the republicans, I don’t feel it necessary to wave the flag of the democrats like some kind of zombie. If I did I certainly wouldn’t have said that democrats take blacks for granted and that blacks only pick democrats because they feel it’s the lesser of two bad choices. That’s been true for generations you realize. Again ask a bunch of blacks. They’ll tell you.

[Elfhelm]

Ah yes, I see you are right. Funding for the Department of Education is at an all time high at 56 billion.

I fail to see what good it does our nation when the tobacco industry gets to make up their lawsuit losses with pork. With all the hungry people in the world, that land should be used for growing food. I would call that a moral value.

What the heck is this with the generalizations about black people? They're all looking for a handout? They refuse to work? If that isn't racist, I don't know what is. But yesterday you called it racist to even wonder if the South would vote for Condi.

By the way, I heard someone call her "Aunt Tom" today. In fact, they were having fun making up other names like Thomasina, Tom-ette, mini-Tom. I do not think Bush will convince the black voters to switch to his party by promoting her. Didn't you say she made it on her own? I heard her Daddy is rich.

I don't think you'll win over black voters in Ohio. They don't appreciate being made to wait in the rain to vote because some Republicans at the front of the line are challenging every black voter and making them use provisional ballots. They are well aware that this is not happening in white districts. And they are pretty sure the whites did not have to stand in line. They think the whites had more machines per person. They want Kenneth Blackwell to step down.

Do I think we have finished making up for the period of slavery? Not at all. The slaves and the chaingang workers (Irish and Chinese) built this country. They've never been paid for that. Even so, I don't believe a handout is the answer. I think affirmative action is the only way. If the state population is 15% black, the college students in the state college should be 15% black.

[Elfhelm]

This morning I read that the first order of business in the House of Representatives by the party elected for their "moral values" was to lower the ethical standards for a representative. Delay has been admonished three times for violating ethical standards, but now they have lowered the bar.

As anyone can tell who has been following this thread, I'm not exactly a genius. So perhaps someone can explain what's so moral about that right. I go by feelings too much, I know, I am an idealist. So I still believe we on the left should stand our ground, that our morals about feeding the hungry and not waging war for oil are totally valid, and that whatever makes people say the right is moral (opposing gay marriage, I guess) is just a double standard.

Or maybe they've coopted the word "moral", just as they coopted words like "bashing" and "hate". People die from bashing, but the spin-meisters have no qualms against calling criticism of the President "bashing". Maybe that's what's happening. So they can take an easy position on polarized issues and call themselves moral, relying on the tendency of the electorate to on see things in a superficial way.

It's just like the way Newt was doing the same things in his personal life as Clinton was but nobody asked him to stop leading their party, even as they impeached the President while he was trying to get bin Laden.

I know I'm not very bright and will soon be corrected for all my failings, but my heart tells me there is something wrong here, and that's what I'm going to stand by.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I don't think you'll win over black voters in Ohio. They don't appreciate being made to wait in the rain to vote because some Republicans at the front of the line are challenging every black voter and making them use provisional ballots. They are well aware that this is not happening in white districts. And they are pretty sure the whites did not have to stand in line. They think the whites had more machines per person. They want Kenneth Blackwell to step down.

This seriously hapenned!? What's the whole story? (Who was behind this etc.) Was it on the news?

[Insidious Rex]

EDIT: response to Elfhelm. Nurvingel jumped in in the middle.

Not to worry. Your heart is right on this one in a big way. The republicans are proving themselves to be the worlds biggest hypocrites by spouting on and on about morals and values and then turning around and altering the rules THEY put into effect 10 years ago to deal with so called democratic corruption so that their speaker can avoid any seniority repercussions in case he happens to get indited for doing criminal things! What enormous stinking vile hypocrisy of the worst sort… Its sleazy. Its pathetic. And it only undermines everything they rail about when they talk about taking a firm stand of high morals. And this wasn’t just a couple republicans mind you this was almost all of them! But of course they voted in closed chambers so they can get away with saying oh I didn’t vote for that down the road. What a bunch of repugnant double talking slime balls. It should be noted that a few republicans followed their convictions and voted against this atrocity and the sad thing is these republicans will most likely get punished for it by aggressive corrupt bullies like Tom Delay and others. How sad.

You’ve got a guy here who used possibly criminal tactics to strong arm people into rearranging the voting districts in texas so he could ensure a super majority in the state and increase his power and republicans want to shield him from the rightful legal repercussions of such corrupt tactics? Is this what the next four years are going to be like? Republicans mouthing words of moral indignation and then turning around and doing highly immoral acts in the name of power and protecting their own? I guess they want to be able to use the moral card as their secret weapon like they did in the election and yet be able to flaunt the rules and reject their OWN moral standards when it benefits them eh.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This seriously hapenned!? What's the whole story? (Who was behind this etc.) Was it on the news?

I don't know who was behind it, Nurv, but the Representative for that area, Kucinich, has pledged to investigate the allegations. The Secretary of State is responsible for voting in Ohio. We have to wait. It won't change the election, of course, but there might be a case that sec. 5 of the Voters Rights Act of 1965 was violated.

The news isn't interested in the election right now. It's old news. Besides, there's a war on.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Your heart is right on this one in a big way.

Thanks, IR. I really think so. It just puts such a bad taste in my mouth. This just can't be right.

[jerseydevil]

I'm going off to Cape May for the weekend. I have no desire right now to set you guys straight on your erroneous information. But hey - maybe inked or someone can jump in and explain what is going on with the House Majority leader.

BTW - Nurv - nope that's mnore liberal whining - there were plenty of people whoo had to stand in line, not just blacks - not just democrats. Instead of taking the word from someone not even from Ohio - why don't you ask a REAL Ohioian (SGH) what the voting was like in Ohio. Also - on the news - they had on how the democrats had the "vote watcher" at the polls to make sure the republicans didn't try to discourage anyone from voting - yet - the republican didn't show and the democrat just stood there.

See Nurv - basically what it is is that the democrats can't believe they lost and now they can't handle it. They want to use every excuse in the book, they want to blame voter fraud - even though there was none, they want to call republicans racist, they want to bitch about the republicans and anything they do. Thye're basically in sore-loser mode. I hope they get out of it - because it's getting rather old. If Kerry won - I would have accepted it and moved on. Instead there are democrats saying they're leaving the country because they don't like how a democratic country voted. YOu should see some of the letters in Time magazine - one even suggests splitting the country apart.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

If Kerry won - I would have accepted it and moved on.

Do I read this to mean you will accept it and move on if -- by some stretch my liberal imagination -- it turns out that Kerry actually did win? That's a yes/no question, by the way. If...

1. The University of California at Berkeley can prove that 260,000 votes were awarded to Bush incorrectly by voting machines, which would change Florida from Bush winning by 380,000 to Kerry winning by 140,000, making the electoral count Bush 259 / Kerry 279.

-or-

2. 81% of the 155,000 provisional ballots in Ohio turn out to be accepted, and they are Kerry votes (bringing the gap down to 9,000 votes) and at least half of the 98,000 ballots rejected by the scanners are included in the manual recount requested of Ohio by the Green and Libertarian candidates, giving Ohio to Kerry, making the electoral count Bush 268 / Kerry 272.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Do I read this to mean you will accept it and move on if -- by some stretch my liberal imagination -- it turns out that Kerry actually did win? That's a yes/no question, by the way. If...

1. The University of California at Berkeley can prove that 260,000 votes were awarded to Bush incorrectly by voting machines, which would change Florida from Bush winning by 380,000 to Kerry winning by 140,000, making the electoral count Bush 259 / Kerry 279.

-or-

2. 81% of the 155,000 provisional ballots in Ohio turn out to be accepted, and they are Kerry votes (bringing the gap down to 9,000 votes) and at least half of the 98,000 ballots rejected by the scanners are included in the manual recount requested of Ohio by the Green and Libertarian candidates, giving Ohio to Kerry, making the electoral count Bush 268 / Kerry 272.

Here's a question for you - will you accept that Bush won - or are you going to bitch and moan for the next four years like the previos four? Independant studies show that there was no fraud - there were tons of people overseeing the voting - but the democrats still seem not accept the votes.

This is my last post here until Monday - I haven't even addressed the posts from IR yet. I may just drop this all together - because it seems like the discussion is getting more and more ridiculous with each passing moment. I wish the liberals could just accept the election and move on. There will be another election in 4 years.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Instead of taking the word from someone not even from Ohio - why don't you ask a REAL Ohioian ...

Here you go. An article in a paper from Columbus, Ohio.
http://www.freepress.org/departments...ay/19/2004/886

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Here you go. An article in a paper from Columbus, Ohio.
http://www.freepress.org/departments...ay/19/2004/886

Oh yeah - supply a highly left wing website. As I said - Liberals are grasphing at anything they can get their hands on.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Here's a question for you - will you accept that Bush won - or are you going to bitch and moan for the next four years like the previos four? Independant studies show that there was no fraud - there were tons of people overseeing the voting - but the democrats still seem not accept the votes.

I admit I am not as knowledgeable as you, JD on matters of government. But because my guts told me on the evening of November 2nd that the exit polls couldn't possibly be wrong (they have never been wrong before), I have been looking everywhere for HOPE. I have been told, and I hope it is true, that a state has to certify its results. Then they choose their electors on December 18th. Then in a joint session of Congress some time in early January the results of the electoral college are presented. I was told that a concession speech is not binding. So it seems to me that I don't have to "accept" a winner until then.

I notice you didn't answer my simple yes/no question.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Oh yeah - supply a highly left wing website. As I said - Liberals are grasphing at anything they can get their hands on.

Does it matter whether a paper leans one way or the other? I thought you told me it is wise to get both sides. Go ahead and supply a link to the other side of this story, please, just for balance.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I admit I am not as knowledgeable as you, JD on matters of government. But because my guts told me on the evening of November 2nd that the exit polls couldn't possibly be wrong (they have never been wrong before), I have been looking everywhere for HOPE. I have been told, and I hope it is true, that a state has to certify its results. Then they choose their electors on December 18th. Then in a joint session of Congress some time in early January the results of the electoral college are presented. I was told that a concession speech is not binding. So it seems to me that I don't have to "accept" a winner until then.

I notice you didn't answer my simple yes/no question.

I felt I didn't need to answer the question. What happens happens. If it ends up that Bush didn't get enough votes - then he isn't president. The thing is though - your grasping at straws. You know - you forgot another 3rd way kerry can win. Maybee - just maybe enough Bush electors will defect and vote for Kerry. Do you think that will happen? It gives you one more thing to hope for. However - that is about as likely as Kerry winning Ohio or Florida.