Paint me wrong come Wednesday but I think it's Bush is a walkaway.

I like the Carville thing wherein (roughly) "a campaign that has to energize its base is a loser". Very roughly w/ apoligies. I think we got 'em by the shorties cause our guy is a REAL person and not a phoney.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 04, 2000

Answers

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Bush is toast. He has demonstrated a severe character flaw, and excercised very poor judgement in his attempt to conceal his true nature.

Rather pitiful an ironic that the timing couldn't be worse, but that is the way karma works. What comes around goes around, often when you least expect it.

-- (poor.little.shrubby@never.grew.up), November 04, 2000.

I think it will be close, at least electorally, but my gut says that Bush will win. Yes, my heart wants him to win but that does not affect my gut.

Question for anyone--what if one candidate wins the pop vote and the other wins the electoral? Somehow, I don't think that would stand, regardless of the constitution. There must be some grounds in the "living document" that would justify the Supreme Court in overruling the electoral college.

-- L,ars (lars@indy.net), November 04, 2000.

You'd think if supporters of each candidate are solidly convinced their guy has a lock, it must be close. However, this situation holds true even in obvious runaways. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Lars, I sincerely hope you're wrong. The electoral college was created to do precisely that -- to prevent the Great Unwashed from voting in a President from the Lower Class. The whole idea was to have upper class people (you know, smart, educated male landholders) standing between the fools and their foolishness.

Now, maybe times have changed. Maybe people are far better educated now, and maybe the nomination process prevents the lower classes from running (money seems a required qualification), maybe the electoral college has by long custom abandoned any exercise of judgment, so maybe it's time to junk it. But this requires a constitutional amendment, not a court deciding the constitution doesn't say what it clearly DOES say.

Indeed, proposed amendments to eliminate the electoral college outnumber all other proposed amendments -- there have been over 700 proposals to do away with it. Maybe if we ever get a clear case where one candidate is obviously preferred by the people, and the other gets in because he squeaks by in a few big states, there will be enough outrage so one of these proposals will get legs. We'll see.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 04, 2000.

>> what if one candidate wins the pop vote and the other wins the electoral? <<

The one that wins the electoral vote wins the election. Simple as that.

>> Somehow, I don't think that would stand, regardless of the constitution. <<

Oh, man! "Regardless of the constitution"...?? You have got to be kidding!

>> There must be some grounds in the "living document" that would justify the Supreme Court in overruling the electoral college. <<

Sorry. They are sworn to uphold the constitution. It is all spelled out very clearly. This is how we must do it until we, as a nation, change the rules by amending the constitution. If what you propose ever happened, it would be an utter disaster for our country - far worse than electing someone who didn't win the popular vote. It would spell the end of consitutional government.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 04, 2000.

what if one candidate wins the pop vote and the other wins the electoral?

It's happened before. . .

LINK

Benjamin HarrisonBs election in 1888 is really the only clear-cut instance in which the Electoral College vote went contrary to the popular vote. This happened because the incumbent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, ran up huge popular majorities in several of the 18 States which supported him while the Republican challenger, Benjamin Harrison, won only slender majorities in some of the larger of the 20 States which supported him (most notably in ClevelandBs home State of New York).

By the way, for those of you who thought that Clinton failing to get the majority vote in his elections was unusual. . .

Far from being unusual, this sort of thing has, in fact, happened 15 times including (in this century) Wilson in both 1912 and 1916, Truman in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, and Clinton in both 1992 and in 1996. The only remarkable thing about those outcomes is that few people noticed and even fewer cared.

The link also has some interesting arguments for why the electoral college exists in the first place.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 04, 2000.

Brian,

Your conclusion about doing away with the Electoral College ending our nation is based on what exactly?

Sounds very similar to the argument which claimed giving women the right to vote would spell the end as well. Course some would agree that has.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), November 04, 2000.

Doc:

Brian said the same thing I did, and you managed to ignore us both. Neat trick. What we said was, *ignoring* the constitution or having the Supreme Court deliberately violate it for no good reason sets a catastrophic precedent. The electoral college may be a bad idea, it may be obsolete, we could probably amend the constitution to dispense with it and never know the difference. But amendment is the *only* way to get rid of it. Otherwise, the constitution means nothing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 04, 2000.

The Great Unwashed elected a President of and from the Lower Class the last two elections...well actually Bill is well below anyone in any Lower Class..

-- just my opinion (and we all know @bout.opinions), November 04, 2000.

For Flint, Lars, Carlos, and other 'Publicans...

Bush's tax break package and his plans for the Social Security program, Gore argued Saturday, put him squarely in league with old- style Republicans who seek to minimize the everyday role of the federal government and would rather see those in need fend for themselves. The Texas governor's gaffe this week that Democrats regarded the Social Security system as "some kind of federal program," Gore said, was proof enough.

"He sent a spokesperson out there to say 'No, he misspoke, that Social Security is a federal program,'" an energized Gore said.

"But it wasn't a slip of the tongue," he continued. "It was an expression of ingrained hostility to our ability as Americans to work together to better ourselves through the instruments of self- government that our founders wrote into our Constitution."

That hostility, Gore said, arose from "a preference on the other side for a dog-eat-dog, 'every-person-to-himself' mentality that works fine for the very wealthy, but does not work very well for those who are struggling to get by."

"We are a part of something larger than ourselves. We are a part of something much larger than we can imagine."

-- Straight from the Horse's Mouth (Gore@decent.man), November 05, 2000.

Horse:

You need to look at things a bit deeper. It sounds wonderful to say "a compassionate society giving those in need a helping hand." It sounds terrible to say "paying people NOT to work, and fining them for the crime of getting a job." Yet those are BOTH accurate descriptions of the exact same policy. And then we wonder why our results are the opposite of our intent? It's because we didn't express our intent honestly.

Saying "punishing polluters with steep fines" is exactly the same as saying "selling expensive licences to pollute." Again, we wouldn't be surprised by our results if we expressed our policies honestly.

So try looking at results, at what we get rather than what we wanted. Loaded phrases don't help, in either direction.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 05, 2000.

Flint, who are you going to vote for?

-- fellow antkicker (are@you.voting?), November 05, 2000.

So Brian, you are a "strict constructionist"? You are a Scalia man, a Thomas man, a Bork man?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 05, 2000.

Horse, it's off to the glue factory for you...

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), November 05, 2000.

NBC had a comedy special on election 2000 tonight. I didn't see much but what I did see cracked me up. It was from old SNL shows and featured parodies of all the presidents and candidates in the last 25 years. I had forgotten how funny was Dana Carvey as George Bush (pere), Phil Hartman as Clinton and Bob Dole and Dan Aykroyd as Carter.

Some big guy did Janet Reno and Carvey did a defeated Mondale being interviewed. The interviewer kept asking "why did you promise to RAISE taxes?" Mondale could not remember.

I did not see the caricatures of Reagan, Ford, Dukakis, Gore, Dubya and Ralph but I'm sure that they were there. No matte who wins on Tuesday, the comics will have material for years.

IMO, as long as we are free and willing to ridicule our leaders, the country is in good shape.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 05, 2000.

Question for anyone--what if one candidate wins the pop vote and the other wins the electoral? Somehow, I don't think that would stand, regardless of the constitution.

Hmmmm got it right. It happened in 1888, a big upset but life went on and we haven't changed the rules yet.

Just came back from a trip back East and was surprised to hear most talking about voting for Bush. Most of these people are extreme Dems but Bush will probably take PA. I'm beginning to think it will not be close at all, Bush will win.

Lars, I saw the SNL special and was amazed how the comedian captured Gore's mannerism. Too funny!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 06, 2000.

Lars, I saw the SNL special and was amazed how the comedian captured Gore's mannerism. Too funny!

What did you think about the portrayal of Bush?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 06, 2000.

They also did an excellent job of portraying Bush exactly like he really is... a mentally defective, babbling, sneaky lying crook!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 06, 2000.

Gore is running scared... BUT...

Tomorrow is the day...

We shall see...

growlin' at the TV...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), November 06, 2000.

Dog, do me a favor, PLEASE???

Find Bush's leg and please relieve yourself there. :-)

Maria, tell us how you really feel. (BTW, I loved your last comment)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), November 06, 2000.

Maria--

Did you make that last comment? I thought you were for Bush. I would also prefer a more articulate spokesperson for my views but Bush still gets my vote. Glibness is not the most essential trait in a President. Besides, he will make a wonderful target for the SNL satirists.

I didn't see the caricature of Bush-the-Younger. I can only imagine it was funny. But no funnier than Gore's. And Carvey's immpressions of Bush-the-elder are side-splitting pants-wetters.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 06, 2000.