Post-Election Analysis

[Elfhelm]

Have electors ever voted differently than for the one they were sent to vote for? That isn't the sort of thing I stake my hopes on.

Regardless, the fact remains that an allegation such as this MUST be investigated, no matter WHO wins:

Werner Lange, a pastor from Youngstown, Ohio, who said in part:
“In precincts 1 A and 5 G, voting as Hillman Elementary School, which is a predominantly African American community, there were woefully insufficient number of voting machines in three precincts. I was told that the standard was to have one voting machine per 100 registered voters. Precinct A had 750 registered voters. Precinct G had 690. There should have been 14 voting machines at this site. There were only 6, three per precinct, less than 50 percent of the standard. This caused an enormous bottleneck among voters who had to wait a very, very long time to vote, many of them giving up in frustration and leaving. . . . I estimate, by the way, that an estimated loss of over 8,000 votes from the African American community in the City of Youngstown alone, with its 84 precincts, were lost due to insufficient voting machines, and that would translate to some 7,000 votes lost for John Kerry for President in Youngstown alone. . . .”

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

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.

I do - but it's written in an editorial style - instead of presenting just facts.

The unavoidable conclusion is that this year's election in Ohio was deeply flawed, that thousands of Ohioans were denied their right to vote, and that the ultimate vote count is very much in doubt.

Who determined that - the writer?

Give me the facts - and let me make up my own mind. Those are key points I look for when judging how realiable a source is.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Have electors ever voted differently than for the one they were sent to vote for? That isn't the sort of thing I stake my hopes on.

Yes they have - including one not voting for Gore - but leaving their ballot blank. There are penalities for not voting as dictated, but there was talk that one of the electors of west virginia were unhappy and might not vote for Bush. That was stated BEFORE the election though and was used to demonstrate the 269/269 tie vote scenario.

[Elfhelm]

Well, editorial style aside, the quote from Pastor Lange should be enough to warrant investigation. And Kucinich has said he is looking into it. He says it probably won't affect the election, but the rights of the voters must be protected.

And my point from the start really was about the Republican Party trying to reach out to black people, and I said y'all won't score a lot of points that way.

[Starr Polish]

I believe there are only 26 states that have laws and thus disciplinary action for unfaithful electorates.

And Elfhelm, about the exit polls: You MUST take the margin of error into consideration when it comes to things of that nature.

[Elfhelm]

I know, Starr, but I'm going to go on hoping right up until the electors are chosen. Many people in Ohio have stated that they feel something went wrong. I've seen precinct listing that show 1000% turnout. So...

If all the discrepancies are cleared away, and, as they say, 81% of the 155,000 provisional ballots are being accepted, and Cobb and Badnarik are getting a recount that will include looking at 98,000 ballots rejected by the scanners, then Ohio (which has not yet certified its vote) could still go to Kerry.

[Starr Polish]

I don't really care either way. The bickering scares me more than whoever's in office. Since, really, when you get down to it, they're both rich white men that are more concerned about their own power than the country, no matter what they say.

[Elfhelm]

I really do think they are different. I hope you'll bear with me while I explain. (And thanks for giving me the chance.)

I'm often confused by the world and I have never been able to answer to my own satisfaction why it's OK for some dictators to massacre their people, but not Saddam, and why we went after the Iraqis instead of the Saudis because of 9/11. Using Occam's Razor (one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything), I am inclined to see the oil in Iraq as the real reason we are there. And to me that's wrong.

Our pattern in dealing with countries that are difficult is to apply economic pressure, then sanctions, and finally to use force. I know this happens under either Democrats or Republicans. It's ugly, embarassing, and sad. I wish we who have love in our hearts for our fellow man could make our government stop it, but I fear they won't listen.

But with John Kerry, I felt that finally here was someone who would care. I've marched for the same causes as him. I've watched as he took on bank scandals that implicated Democrats as well as Republicans. I also feel that Kucinich is for real. So many other politicians just seem to be going with the flow for their own careers. I think Kerry has put his neck out more often than not, so I really, really, do care and cling to hope.

[Starr Polish]

But that's still just a perception. Politicians are more about an image than actually sticking to what they say, anymore. (Well, it's been like that for a long time I guess). ::shrug:: And it's just a difference in opinion, I suppose. I am extremely cynical, however, and I think almost Americans (myself included, of course) are full of themselves, and politicans are the worst. I also think they're both just puppets of powerful companies. Just because we don't know about Kerry's ties doesn't mean they aren't there. I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe there are things that are kept from the general public (and most of the time rightfully so).

I do not think John Kerry was the best democratic candidate, either.

edit: And kudos for you to clinging to hope, and I think it's great that you feel like you've found a candidate that stands for you. Same for all those that feel about both Kerry and Bush. But I am not one of those people.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

Here's an analysis from Britain by M. Phillips in The Daily Mail that I think is accurate as a reflection from across the pond on the happenings in the USA.

link:http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=1618

Reflects on the cultural factors pretty accurately for both GB and US.

sorry, but the daily mail is not actually a reliable souce for anything, except racist-homophobic-tory nonsense.

not really a very nice newspaper at all!

[inked]

LCoU,

There are nice newspapers in Britain?

Define "nice".

Or, do you merely disagree with some stance of the paper? Is there analysis invalid or not in agreement with yours?

As an American tabloid has it, Inquiring minds want to know!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

there aren't many 'nice' newspapers in uk, and by nice i mean at last partly
neutral, presenting issues in a concise and unbiased manner, but the mail
truly is one of the worst - never do they present facts, and the owner is
allegedly a top man in the porn industry - what does that tell you about their
stance? - at least there isn't a naked lady on every other page, like it is with
the 'redtops'.

[Draken]

The analysis tells more about its target audience than anything happening in America. The Daily Mail has clung steadfastly to the various disastrous incarnations of the Conservative Party since they lost the 97 election. This 'disenfranchised majority' it speaks of is actually quite comfortably a minority - that's why their government of choice still isn't in power. I would see the article as a "why oh why" whinge aimed at the paper's Conservative readership to get it's arse in gear and win an election. Somehow.

[inked]

Does this mean that it essentially the British equivalent of the truly disappointed American media and Democratic Party after the elections of 2000 and 2004? Sounds like it!!!

[EarthBound]

Interesting quote:

Chris Patten, the EU's outgoing foreign minister says, "The world deserves better than testosterone on one side and superciliousness on the other."

[Insidious Rex]

So was Kerick's withdrawl really just about the nanny?

[EarthBound]

The mistriss, their apartment, unpaid taxes concerning the illegal alien...just that kind of stuff Bush's camp is really upset about the choice, I think they felt they got burned a bit.

[Insidious Rex]

what about the mob connection talk and some of the more sinister stuff?

[Elfhelm]

This is why Giuliani can't run for Senate, much less President. His ex-wife, Donna Hanover, publicly accused him of cheating on her with both Judith Nathan and Cristyne Lategano-Nicholas. Now he recommends Kerik who has similar dirty laundry. Giuliani has no future in politics, thank goodness. He visited Bush last weekend. I think Bush told him to get lost.

[inked]

Ahh, the post-election analysis of Red and Blue, Happy Holidays to YOU et alia!
******************

Re: Multiculturalism & The Denial of Christ
In praise of ‘Jesusland’ by Mark Steyn 'Spectator' 18th December, 2004

New Hampshire

As in previous years, Planned Parenthood has been selling greetings cards for abortion proponents filled with seasonal cheer to send to each other: ‘Choice On Earth’, they proclaim. I can just about understand being a proponent of abortion; I find it harder to fathom someone whose obsession with the subject extends to sending out holiday cards on the theme. Especially as, insofar as the Christmas story is relevant to this question, it’s a season to reflect on the potential of every new life.

Two thousand years ago, if a betrothed woman such as Mary became pregnant by a man other than her intended, she was guilty of adultery and liable to stoning. But Joseph, St Matthew tells us, ‘being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily’ — i.e., a quiet divorce. Given the prevailing social climate back then, had they had ‘Choice On Earth’ — abortion on demand — Jesus would have been first in line for it. There would have been no Christ, no Christmas, no New Testament, no lines about ‘peace on earth’ for abortion fetishists to riff off for their holiday slogan.

Scripturally derivative even in its repudiation thereof, ‘Choice On Earth’ seems an apt summation of the muddled state of Christendom at the dawn of its third millennium. These days we don’t say ‘Christendom’, of course, except in an ironic way. We say ‘the Muslim world’ all the time, without thinking — ‘The Iraq invasion enraged the entire Muslim world,’ declares the Democrats’ website. The notion of a ‘Muslim world’ is acceptable to the progressive mind. ‘The Christian world’ is a more problematic concept.

But it’s still out there, just about, and 2004 was a good year for Jesus. He had the big box-office smash of the past 12 months with The Passion of The Christ, scorned by Hollywood but popularised by word of mouth, or word of tongues. And, a couple of days after His man won the US election, a couple of Democrat wags, in a widely disseminated Internet cartoon, renamed a big swath of the North American continent after Him — ‘Jesusland’, stretching across the vast southern interior and pushing up along the Rockies to the 49th parallel. The godless coastal fringes, meanwhile, were joined with Her Majesty’s Northern Dominion and rechristened (if you’ll pardon the expression) the United States of Canada, a fate I wouldn’t wish even on Democrats. And, while the thought of joining their own shrivelled redoubts in a grand union with the biggest ‘blue state’ of all evidently cheers them up, they may be overestimating the blueness of the Great White North: large chunks of Alberta and the British Columbia hinterland would be happy to sign up with the Bible-thumpers, if only for the non-confiscatory tax rates. So Jesusland could well be even larger than its disparagers suggest.

Jesusland isn’t exactly Christendom: the latter evokes Rome, bishops, cathedrals, bells, incense, oratorios; the former is evangelicals, pastors, church suppers, ‘WWJD’ buttons (‘What Would Jesus Do?’), ‘Christian rock’. Some Democrats in the beleaguered fleshpots advocate accommodation with the God-fearing rednecks: for a week or so after the election, Nancy Pelosi, the Dems’ leader in the House of Representatives, was quoting Scripture in every soundbite, albeit the wimpy social-workerish bits. But most of her party has no desire to go down the straight-and-narrow, even as a rhetorical feint: the other day I found myself motoring along behind some Vermont feminist whose faded ‘I’m Pro-Choice and I Vote’ bumper sticker was now accompanied by another one demanding grumpily, ‘Instead Of Being Born Again, Why Not Grow Up?’

The Jesusland meme is so discombobulating to the secular elites of the western world that within a week it had become the prism through which they view every event in the great republic — even lousy movies. For as the Independent’s headline put it, ‘Alexander the (Not So) Great Fails To Conquer America’s Homophobes’. I don’t think you have to be a homophobe to find Alexander a stinker; its stinker status does not primarily derive from its mild gayness, so much as from Oliver Stone’s incoherent storytelling and a dull central performance by some Irish bloke whose efforts at characterisation start and end with bellowing every line. But, if the world’s media want to conjure visions of stump-toothed backwoods knuckle-draggers stomping out of the Jesusland multiplex firing off verses from Leviticus as they demand a full refund, why get in the way of their illusions? The Guardian’s Timothy Garton Ash, just back from a tour of America’s blue states, says that they’re crying out for Europe’s help: ‘Hands need to be joined across the sea in an old cause: the defence of the Enlightenment,’ he writes, and adopts as his rallying cry a subtle modification of Le Monde’s famous 12 September headline, ‘We are all blue Americans now’. Europeans need to ally with blue staters and Canadians and so forth and draw a cordon bleu, as John Kerry would say, around George W. Bush’s Jesusland, throttling it in its manger.

Well, good luck with that. I doubt whether a Euro-blue-state alliance is in any position to defend the Enlightenment. Even if one accepts that the modern Euro-Canadian secular state is the rightful heir to the Enlightenment, it would seem obvious that it’s got a lot less enlightened, at least in the sense of ‘freeing from superstition’. The ludicrous over-reaction by the elites to the US election results is at least as superstitious and irrational as anything the Bible Belt believes. And there’s nothing very rational or scientific about refusing to engage with your opponents’ arguments and instead dismissing them as mere ‘phobias’ — homophobia, Islamophobia, Chiracophobia.... Whatever else may be said about the evangelicals, they don’t sneer ‘theophobia’ whenever they’re criticised, even though in that case the lame trope may be almost plausible — when it comes to abnormal psychological fear of the unknown, blue staters’ theophobia is more pervasive than red staters’ homophobia.

continued...