It's 5:30AM, do you know who your new Pres is?

4

45King

New member
Nope, and it's still too close to call. I just peeked at MSNBC, and they're showing Gore with 249 electoral votes to Bush's 246. This at 5:45AM, ET.

It ain't over yet, folks....DAMN!

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
 
Just walked into work, passed the news paper machine. St. Louis Post Dispatch headline says Bush wins, but that's not what I'm hearing on the radio.
 
Good Morning! Welcome to the United States, an unstable "democracy." We've got a disputed presidential succession on our hands, folks, and the allegations of fraud are starting to fly from both sides.

As of 6:56 am est, this is what the Florida Dept. of State site shows:
Bush: 2,909,135
Gore: 2,907,351
----------------------
diff: 1,784

A recount is under way. If it completed quickly, and both campaigns officially accept the results, well and good. If either takes it to the courts, and the election results remain unresolved, the social order could degenerate fast, with each side convinced the other is trying to steal the election. The situation is dangerous.
 
The newspapers are having a hissy fit over this election. Fluid situations require a fluid reporting mechanism. The Internet has that, newspapers do not. I think the overall effect will be for Internet news sources to become even more popular, directly because of this election
 
We'll be relieved when it is finally an official Bush victory.
But for now, it's fun just seeing how much egg can be found on the faces of the exit-polsters and media know-alls.
 
Well, they still have to count the absentee ballots, and these are coming mostly from military servicemen abroad who will mostly vote Republican (guess why, ha?). It looks like Bush will win Florida, but I would expect Gore's people to challenge the recount. All this network news talk of requesting a new vote is BS.
 
It's right down to a few hundred votes in florida.

Who says your vote doesn't count, huh?

Should the country go to a popular vote for the presidency? The only problem i can see with that is the Founders didn't want a few heavily populated areas to be able to get their man in every time....they wanted the new prez to be popular all over the country...
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nightcrawler:
It's right down to a few hundred votes in florida.

Who says your vote doesn't count, huh?[/quote]

I can't wait to get to work and start teaching this one. The mock election was a perfect microcosm of the real one...

Bush -- 12
Gore -- 12
Nader -- 2
Brown -- 2

With one kid refusing to vote. The other teachers said I should yank him in by his ear and make him vote, but I wanted the kids to see how much of a difference one vote can make and how important it is that we all exercise our right to vote. Pretty cool!

------------------
*quack*
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nightcrawler:
Should the country go to a popular vote for the presidency? The only problem i can see with that is the Founders didn't want a few heavily populated areas to be able to get their man in every time....they wanted the new prez to be popular all over the country...[/quote]

Well, one thing about that is that the numbers we have not do NOT reveal a Popular Vote despite what the Media says. It does, in fact, reveal a Popular Vote Under An Electoral College System/Campaign in which the cannidates and the voters accepted the Electoral System prior to voting/campaigning... you can't just change the conditions of a win because another criteria suddenly favors you.

That said, in a more general sense, as much as I'm tempted to say we should do away with the Electoral College so that every vote truly counts... I'd stick with a conservative approach here. The Founding Fathers didn't trust a Democracy as far as they could kick it... but nor did they want a ruling elite... so the Electoral College was the best compromise they could come up with (it did NOT have to do primarily with slow communication as is often the myth). On paper, it sounds good, except for the fact the Electors NEVER vote against their districts.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nralife:
Can someone please tell me what the final vote in Pennsylvania was??? Bush was leading all night long and Ridge kept saying that the rural counties (ie hunters) hadn't been counted yet. I don't think that PA is securely in Gore's column. MSNBC shows all of the state's results but slips over PA completely.
[/quote]
http://web.dos.state.pa.us/elections/elec_results/cgi-bin/statewide1.cgi?choice=USP&eyear=2000&etype=G

73% reporting...
Bush 2,102,241
Gore 2,281,396

I imagine it could swing but not likely, IMO. Wouldn't the media be jumping all over the possibility of a PA swing if it were possible?
 
PA results from washingtonpost.com;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/2000/results/states/pa/president/front.htm

PA Presidential Vote
Candidate Votes %
Al Gore (D) 2,452,252 51
George W. Bush (R) 2,257,009 46
Ralph Nader (Green) 102,248 2
Pat Buchanan (Ref.) 15,920 0
Howard Phillips (CST) 15,438 0
Harry Browne (Lib.) 11,582 0

This is with 99% of the precincts reporting.

I was wondering about the PA vote as well. Some of the commentators put it back in the toss up column, but no one was showing the updated vote count. MSNBC had the states scrolling on the bottom in alphabetical order. For a period of about 2 1/2 hours, every time PA was about to come up, they would cut to commercial or go to full screen, hiding the results. After 3 or 4 cycles of this, I thought (hoped) they were covering up another FL type misstatement.

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top