60

[Ashmoria]

yay!

coleman conceded

ITS OVER!

[Maurepas]

What are they going to do? Government Healthcare, not bloody likely. Legalize gay marriage? Doubt it. End DADT? No, probably not.

And since thats why we voted them in, at least on domestic issues anyway, I dont know how long they can pull that off...

[Grays Harbor]

I still long for the "good old days" when elections were decided by the voters, not the court system. How naive of me.

[Maurepas]

I still long for the "good old days" when elections were decided by the voters, not the court system. How naive of me.

Those were some great days

[Free Soviets]

I still long for the "good old days" when elections were decided by the voters, not the court system. How naive of me.

the problem comes in when an election is close. when that happens, the rules for counting the votes determine the outcome, and so we wind up needing to resolve disputes about the rules somewhere.

[Grays Harbor]

I still long for the "good old days" when elections were decided by the voters, not the court system. How naive of me.

Those were some great days

umm....nice pic, but that illustrates a screw-up in the media, not with the election itself.

nice try though. a bit off mark, but nice try.

[Milks Empire]

And we all know Gore WON; that's why the case where the SCOTUS rolled over was entitled "Bush V. Gore" and not vice versa.

Bush 271
Gore 266
Abstentions 1

GORE WINS!

Pope Joan is talking about the popular vote.
Gore: 50,999,897
Bush: 50,456,002

[Free Soviets]

And we all know Gore WON; that's why the case where the SCOTUS rolled over was entitled "Bush V. Gore" and not vice versa.

Bush 271
Gore 266
Abstentions 1

GORE WINS!

Pope Joan is talking about the popular vote.
Gore: 50,999,897
Bush: 50,456,002

and, presumably, the actual results from florida or the outcome in congress if florida's results were just excluded outright

[Grays Harbor]

And we all know Gore WON; that's why the case where the SCOTUS rolled over was entitled "Bush V. Gore" and not vice versa.

Bush 271
Gore 266
Abstentions 1

GORE WINS!

Pope Joan is talking about the popular vote.
Gore: 50,999,897
Bush: 50,456,002

which was not the first time that the electoral vote and popular vote have been at odds.

In 1876 Hayes beat Tilden 185-184 in electoral votes, but lost the popular vote 4,033,768 to 4,285,992

In 1888 Harrison beat Cleveland 233-168 in electoral votes, but lost the popular vote 5,440,216 to 5,538,233

[Treznor]

which was not the first time that the electoral vote and popular vote have been at odds.

In 1876 Hayes beat Tilden 185-184 in electoral votes, but lost the popular vote 4,033,768 to 4,285,992

In 1888 Harrison beat Cleveland 233-168 in electoral votes, but lost the popular vote 5,440,216 to 5,538,233

However, it is the first time since most states passed laws requiring their electoral college to vote according to the popular vote.

[Maurepas]

umm....nice pic, but that illustrates a screw-up in the media, not with the election itself.

nice try though. a bit off mark, but nice try.

I was joking, but I guess if you want to debate the niceties of election mistakes, have at it ...

[Gun Manufacturers]

And we all know Gore WON; that's why the case where the SCOTUS rolled over was entitled "Bush V. Gore" and not vice versa.

Bush 271
Gore 266
Abstentions 1

GORE WINS!

Pope Joan is talking about the popular vote.
Gore: 50,999,897
Bush: 50,456,002

Since the President isn't elected by the popular vote, that's irrelevant. Bush won, because he had the electoral votes necessary to win (note: I did not vote for Bush either time he ran).

[Grays Harbor]

which was not the first time that the electoral vote and popular vote have been at odds.

In 1876 Hayes beat Tilden 185-184 in electoral votes, but lost the popular vote 4,033,768 to 4,285,992

In 1888 Harrison beat Cleveland 233-168 in electoral votes, but lost the popular vote 5,440,216 to 5,538,233

However, it is the first time since most states passed laws requiring their electoral college to vote according to the popular vote.

How does that change things? It requires electoral votes to be apportioned by state according to that states popular vote, not by the aggragate national vote.

[Treznor]

which was not the first time that the electoral vote and popular vote have been at odds.

In 1876 Hayes beat Tilden 185-184 in electoral votes, but lost the popular vote 4,033,768 to 4,285,992

In 1888 Harrison beat Cleveland 233-168 in electoral votes, but lost the popular vote 5,440,216 to 5,538,233

However, it is the first time since most states passed laws requiring their electoral college to vote according to the popular vote.

How does that change things? It requires electoral votes to be apportioned by state according to that states popular vote, not by the aggragate national vote.

It was possible to win due to votes in the electoral college when you lost the popular vote because the electoral college was originally set up to be removed from the popular vote. Once states started passing laws changing this, the proportion of electoral college votes and popular votes started to synch up...until Bush v Gore. The states containing more electoral votes also tend to have larger voting populations.

[The South Islands]

They will wait for Franken to take a ride in a small plane, and then shoot it down.

Perhaps with a directed energy weapon?

[Khadgar]

What are they going to do? Government Healthcare, not bloody likely. Legalize gay marriage? Doubt it. End DADT? No, probably not.

And since thats why we voted them in, at least on domestic issues anyway, I dont know how long they can pull that off...

Until 2010 at least, probably 2012.

[Maurepas]

What are they going to do? Government Healthcare, not bloody likely. Legalize gay marriage? Doubt it. End DADT? No, probably not.

And since thats why we voted them in, at least on domestic issues anyway, I dont know how long they can pull that off...

Until 2010 at least, probably 2012.

Unfortunately, their opponents are the ones that fucked those things up in the first place...

You get to a point where there's nowhere to go...

[Intangelon]

Pope Joan is talking about the popular vote.
Gore: 50,999,897
Bush: 50,456,002

Since the President isn't elected by the popular vote, that's irrelevant. Bush won, because he had the electoral votes necessary to win (note: I did not vote for Bush either time he ran).

Sorry, but 57,700 voters were illegally purged from voter rolls by Diebold with the blessing of the Republicans running the Florida election. Why? Because they were felons who'd served their time in other states and had their vote reinstated in those states, but purged in Florida -- which is illegal, by the way. So the electoral vote count is itself suspect.

Greg Palast, FTW.

[Free Soviets]

If only the DINOsaurs were the ONLY problem with capital's other party

yeah, half of the problem is that they are democrats. but for the moment, my tentative tactical support sticks with the guys who at least might not attempt to kill us all.

[Grave_n_idle]

Going to have to give this a resounding "meh". Single party control isn't a good thing.

As a general rule, sure.

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

[Farnhamia]

Going to have to give this a resounding "meh". Single party control isn't a good thing.

As a general rule, sure.

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

Sure, just ask Tom Delay and Karl Rove.

[Milks Empire]

Going to have to give this a resounding "meh". Single party control isn't a good thing.

As a general rule, sure.

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

Sure, just ask Tom Delay and Karl Rove.

It's been said that, had Stalin not had the power to micro-manage everything in the Soviet Union, they would not have lasted through WWII. That said, single-party states tend to be highly oppressive.

[Free Soviets]

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

exactly. the republican control of the process through the permanent filibuster (not to mention the corporate capture of the senate committees) has just led to inaction at the very moment when action is desperately required. if they were honest players, that would be one thing. but they aren't. so they'll just have to be pushed out of the way.

the system is broken - even for attempting to keep things purely business-as-usual, let alone for actual justice. but shit needs doing now, and the revolution ain't on offer, so one party rule it is.

[Grays Harbor]

Going to have to give this a resounding "meh". Single party control isn't a good thing.

As a general rule, sure.

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

so now we are advocating single party rule?

whats next, hnh?

[Maurepas]

Going to have to give this a resounding "meh". Single party control isn't a good thing.

As a general rule, sure.

On the other hand - if there's stuff that needs doing, and the only way to get it done is single party control - then single party control IS good.

so now we are advocating single party rule?

whats next, hnh?

Next, there needs to be a viable option in the opposing party...

Unfortunately, there isnt one...