Clinton wasn't around for them to vote for.

Of course we can thank mid-century Congress for the Amendment that prevented Clinton (or Reagan) from a third term. Roosevelt was just too popular for the Democrat's good.

Had Reagan gotten his third term, the Alzheimers that was already evident as early as 1984-85 would have surfaced in its vicious form, the economy would have taken the same dive it did in 1991-92, we'd still have gotten Clinton, and we'd have him now. So the voters had the choice taken out of their hands (as was the case in 2000...).

fantomas,
i believe you are as iirational as some of the bible thumpers are when dealing with homosexuality. answer this simple question why didn't al gore win his home state? we would have president gore dealing with post 9/11. what did the people of tennessee see in bush that they did't in gore? reply to that fantomas, rationaly.

Dont know if you noticed but Clinton didnt run last time around.

rxbk, no but his vp for 8 years did. look at reagan/bush 1, reagan's coatails got his side kick in. why didn't clinton?

rxbk, no but his vp for 8 years did. look at reagan/bush 1, reagan's coatails got his side kick in. why didn't clinton?

Do not compare me to bible-thumping fanatics, please. You don't know me and you're totally off base. Totally.

Gore didn't win Tennessee because he was running against a more (extremely) conservative candidate, who appealed to the voters in Tennessee, who trended conservative in 2000. Clinton only won a plurality there in 1996 (48%). Do you remember this?

I have never heard anyone discuss this, but I do wonder at times whether the fact that he had an Orthodox Jewish running mate hurt him in that southern state. So I believe that anti-Semitism may have played a part. Lieberman's presence on the ticket did not hurt Gore in the midwest, northeast or west, all of which have elected Jewish Democratic candidates statewide. He did not win ONE Southern state, except potentially Florida, so it is hardly surprising that he lost either his home state, which he had been away from 8 years (over which he became considerably more liberal than when he represented Tennessee, which has two Republicans in the Senate now), or Arkansas, which swung conservative too (though it elected a conservative Democrat this time around).

Now, you give me YOUR analysis. And don't ever call me names on this board again unless you earn them! You hear?

[ March 03, 2003, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Please don't double post. It's unseemly.

Also, George H. W. Bush ran against an extremely liberal northeastern governor. Bush won handily; he didn't need Reagan's coattails. Dukakis only won 10 states plus DC. Or do you not recall the 1988 election?

[ March 03, 2003, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

First of all I think "coatails" are a myth, sort of like "soulmates." I think Gore took Tenn. for granted, which in hindsight was pretty stupid. I also think Gore ran a bad campaign while Dumbya stayed on message and jumped as high as Rove told him too. As far as why Gore lost Arkansas, I got news for you - Arkansas is a very conservative state, believe me, I know. I never anticipated that Gore would win Arkansas. If you need any more analysis, please let me know!

If you're trying to imply that Irvin is a sleaze, on that we agree. I, however, find it reprehensible that "fans" would stand and cheer when a player (ANY player) is injured and carried off on a stretcher - thats where you and I differ.
Now, Ill let you get back to your duct tape.

I"m really not into that duct tape kink, but thanks for the offer.... Are you implying that i was cheering? NO, but i'll admit that i didnt lose any sleep knowing i wouldnt have to watch him do his song and dance during a game...

Fantomas, don't waste your time debating intellectual midgets who can't even bother using the caps function. It's below you.

[ March 04, 2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

hey, i resent that! i never use caps, and was the one to point out cyd's misuse of the word 'wherefore'. his cap aversion is no indication of his intellectual capacity. his arguments are, however!

Jim Allan,

please don't be petty by pointing out grammatical errors in other peoples posts. this is not a journalisim class, it is a discussion board. obviously, you're more concerned about proper grammer that the topic at hand, since you contributed nothing to the topic in your reply. as far as my "intelligance" i don't know, maybe by having my degree in business from UT means nothing to you but it does to me and my employer. my junior and senior english teacher, in high school, who had her phd in english, always said, "you have excellent thoughts but just have a hard time expressing them on paper." so there, tim allen. and another thing, just because someone has a different opionion then your own, it's distasteful, tacky, and crass to start insultin their intelligance.

How Clinton Myopic can one group be? I'm sure monica would sell you her dress....

fantomas,

where was i? ahh, yes the tennessee/gore deal! if al had one his home state, he would be president, conservative or liberal. history has shown that presidents usually carry their home state and that there has never been a president elected who hasn't won his home state. it was historically impossible, basically. by the way, i never said if i voted for bush or gore. also, i wasn't old enough to vote in the'88 election.

I agree it doesn't happen a lot, but Woodrow Wilson didn't carry his home state of New Jersey in 1916 and won reelection against Charles Evans Hughes.

[ March 04, 2003, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

pat125,

interesting! do you know why he didn't carry jersey? just wondering wink

Katherine Harris' grandmother counted the votes.

i'm not a political historian, so someone correct me if i'm wrong, buy my guess is that hughes got more votes.

(quick aside, as a former resident, it is NEW jersey. jersey is an island off the coast of england. would you refer to hampshire? or york? i thought not.)

I'm not sure, but I think that the people of New Jersey knew he wasn't that nice of a person.

That was kind of cute. The margin was about 50,000 out of about 500,000 votes cast. So I guess vote counting wasn't an issue here. By the way, just to beat a dead horse, because I feel like it for some reason, Bush II, like Wilson, won the election fair and square according to the rules set in the Constitution. It's just that the election process sucked, and the Constitution needs some tinkering in this area.

[ March 04, 2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

His last name is spelled "Allen", the correct spelling of "journalisim" is "journalism", sentences start with an upper case letter, there should be a semicolon instead of a comma between "class" and "it", the correct spelling of "grammer" is "grammar",...

[snippety-dippety]

No, Pat, I usually am with you, and I won't beat a dead horse, but the Constitution sets forth specific procedures which, if followed, would have made Bush the president. Those were superseded by the Supreme Court, so the process wasn't fair. Note, I am going to say this again: if the procedures set forth in the Constitution had been followed, the Republican House (it was so in 2000, as it is today), would have voted to give the presidency to Bush. It happened with John Quincy Adams and it could have happened to this second presidential scion, but we as Americans were denied this by the Court's unconstitutional shenanigans.

Woodrow Wilson lost New Jersey to Hughes because during at the time of that race the state swung Republican. In addition, Wilson's campaign hinged on two main elements: the fact that he had kept the U.S. out the war, which the Republican hero T.R. supported, and his progressive tax and labor legislation, which was anathema to many on Wall Street. Hughes, however, would have won the Electoral College if about 2000 or so votes in several states had switched, so the election was very close.

New Jersey, let's not forget, has usually voted Republican in most of the 20th century's presidential elections. Clinton and Gore marked a new shift, as nearly the entire northeast has become Democratic-leaning, whereas this was the center of Republicanism from the 1860 election till mid-century. Reliably Republican states like Connecticut and Vermont--yes, Vermont--are much more likely to vote for Democrats and liberal to very liberal Republicans. New Jersey voted for Bush I, Reagan both times, Ford against Carter, Nixon both times, Kennedy by a hair (49-49) over Nixon, Eisenhower both times, Dewey over Truman, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, etc. New Jersey went for FDR all four times.

More interesting about the 2000 election to me is this: if Nader had not been in the race, a sizable number of his 22,200 votes in New Hampshire might have gone to Gore, who would have won the state and then picked up the 4 electoral votes he needed for the margin of victory. Bush defeated Gore in New Hampshire by only 7,200 votes. Even if half the Naderites had sat out the election, 10,000 of the votes for Gore would have given him the election. New Hampshire did for the decidedly more liberal Clinton in 1996, I believe.

So Gore didn't even need to win Tennessee, or some of the other states that Clinton had won either in 1992 or 1996, like Georgia, Missouri or Arkansas. New Hampshire alone would have done it.

[ March 04, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Hi fantomas. I still disagree with you on this. A legal question concerning the Florida vote was brought to the Supreme Court for them to rule. I don't believe the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court to rule on such matters. In short, a ruling was made (right, wrong, hare-brained, whatever) by the Supreme Court, that ended the recounts. Bush was then certified the winner of Florida. I am not sure what you mean when you say specific procedures were not followed. What was the Court's "unconstitutional" shenanigans?

The Constitution, I believe, gives the states the right to determine how to award the electoral votes (or technically the electors who typically vote for their candidate). Almost always that would go to the winner of the election in that state (but not required in the Constitution). But if there is no certified winner, my recollection is that by Florida law, their legislature decides the winner. Since Florida's legislature had a Republican majority, Bush would have won the state's electoral votes anyway.

Had the election gone to the House of Representatives, as you said it should have, each state's delegation would only get one vote. I imagine that the vote would be determined by the party with the majority in the delegation. I'm not sure if the Republicans have 26 majority delegations, although I imagine they do.

I agree with your analysis on New Jersey elections. It had been a primarily Republican state, at least for Presidential elections up until 1988, with a major shift beginning in 1992.

[ March 04, 2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

A general question to anyone. So where does the Florida Supreme Court come into the matter?

IF the federal Constitution leaves the election up to the state electorate to elect state representatives, and the state elects a governor to execute the law, who appoints judges to the state Court to interpret the law, then hasn't authority been delegated to the state Supreme Court to interpret conflicting laws?

For me all of this avoids the fact that a full recount was not implemented. No authority should be allowed to interfere with the electorate's right and responsibility to elect.

Isn't that what democracy is all about?