Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36
  1.    #1  
    Wow! That about sums it up. It was truly amazing, I didn't expect much more than the usual "I won the popular vote...", and Gore showed himself to be an honest human being. I thought Bush did a pretty poor job with the acceptance speech. He should have focused more on what Gore had said (for his own benefit). He just repeated the same bipartisan stance over and over and over again and threw in his campaign material. He thinks it is going to be so easy to convince the Democrats in Washington to see things his way after dealing with all of those conservative Texas Democrats. I think he is in for a big surprise.
    <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>
  2. #2  
    I thought they both did well. Attitude is everything. If W is met with attitude on the part of the Washington Democrats, then nobody wins. As adults we can make up our minds to capitolize on this FINAL decision and actually get something constructive done or we can whine. It would be so easy to continue on this bi-partisian note but where would we be in four years? ...oh, yeah, some people could say "I told you so". Boy, that's worth putting the whole country on hold for four years...NOT!

    It might be some comfort to look at the powerhouse cabinet and posts that W is putting together...It is probably the strongest non-partisian team in history.
    "Stupid Handspring."
  3. #3  
    I thought they both did a good job too. I liked how they both referenced historical elections during their speeches. I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  4. #4  
    Gore gets an A- Bush a C. I think the GOP call for cooperation and bipartisanship is a bit disengenuous considering their actions and behavior over the last several years. How is Lott's comment re: Hilary being struck by lightening a sign of cooperation.

    Don't get me wrong I'd like to see more cooperation and less gridlock but I'm not going to hold my breath - It will be politics as usual.
  5. #5  
    I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.
    How did you expect him to read his cue cards, then?
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  6. #6  
    Originally posted by JHromadka
    I thought they both did a good job too. I liked how they both referenced historical elections during their speeches. I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.
    Then he'd have been criticized like he was when he was called a "deer in the headlights". I think it's obvious watching the various reactions last night where the real partisanship lies. Bush's team will be a collection of moderates that will likely have trouble with _both_ the extremes in Congress. If there are enough moderates in both parties (which I think likely), then both the extremes will be irrelevant and will only hurt themselves in the long run. Anyone who thinks that the "extra chromosome right-wing" (Al Gore) will have much say in this administration is lying to themselves.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #7  
    I agree with James that Bush should have looked into the camera more. When he bobs his head to one side and then back to another side with only a quick glance at the camera and keeps doing this... he reminds me of those little dogs in car windows.

    Gore gave a wonderful concession speech and he must be so terribly disappointed... not just because he is not president, but because in his heart, he believes he really won and that something in the ballot or counting process has cost him.

    But regardless of who we voted for and how disappointed some of us may be, what a wonderful lesson this has been. What a powerful nation. Even in the midst of great political party turmoil... and a shifting of power... and a race so close... and people everywhere being politically charged and outraged... we still manage to have a peaceful conclusion to this election, no widespread violence like in other countries, etc.
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by JHromadka
    I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.
    Why should he? He was addressing a legislative body, not a TV camera. Gore was merely speaking to television viewers, so naturaly he had his eyes glued to the camera at all times.
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    Why should he? He was addressing a legislative body, not a TV camera. Gore was merely speaking to television viewers, so naturaly he had his eyes glued to the camera at all times.

    EXACTLY! and why in the world does looking into the camera become an important item on the reaction to bush's speech???

    priorities?
    wow, it's been awhile.....things have REALLY changed...why is my Visor Edge still in my hand? Will a Treo fit better?
  10. #10  
    I thought Gore did a good job, but so did Bush. I fail to see how someone could give him a "C."

    While I appreciated Gore's graceful speech, I wish folks would stop acting like he really "won" Florida and that he "won" the popular vote. The only way Gore "won" in Florida is if you count all the "dimpled" chad votes, which no one can prove to me (or anyone else) are real votes for Gore.

    The race was a tie, both in Florida and nationally. Gore's margin of victory on a proportional basis was about as narrow in the national popular vote as Bush's margin was in Flordia. The tie got resolved according to the rules in place before the election. Bush is the president-elect, and folks need to respect that for now. If you don't like the result, vote for someone else in four years.

    Just my two cents.
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by foo fighter
    Originally posted by JHromadka
    I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.
    Why should he? He was addressing a legislative body, not a TV camera. Gore was merely speaking to television viewers, so naturaly he had his eyes glued to the camera at all times.
    There were people in the room with Gore also. I just feel that if you're going to address the American people, look in the camera more. Bush didn't necessarily need to look in the camera the entire time, but a little more would have been better IMHO.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  12.    #12  
    Originally posted by VTL
    While I appreciated Gore's graceful speech, I wish folks would stop acting like he really "won" Florida and that he "won" the popular vote. The only way Gore "won" in Florida is if you count all the "dimpled" chad votes, which no one can prove to me (or anyone else) are real votes for Gore.
    And why on earth would the chad be dimpled in the first place? Because someone didn't want to vote??? Obviously there was the intention to vote, and it isn't like Bush wouldn't have picked up dimples as well.

    Gore's margin of victory on a proportional basis was about as narrow in the national popular vote as Bush's margin was in Flordia.
    Hmmm. So because Bush won by a small margin in one state, opposed to Gore winning by a small margin nationally means that Bush won the entire country? I find this logic flawed.

    Bush is the president-elect, and folks need to respect that for now.
    I respect it, but that doesn't mean I think the decision was right.
    <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>
  13. #13  
    Lennonhead:

    It is NOT "obvious" that a dimpled chad was evidence of an intention to vote. The problem with your argument is that you don't know why a chad is "dimpled" when you are reviewing the ballot days, weeks or (at this point) months later.

    There are several possibiilties. Did the person mean to vote for a candidate, and just failed to push all the way through? Did they toy with voting for a candidate, placed the stylus in the hole, but changed their mind and decided not to vote that race at all? Or is the bump just the result of all of the handling these things have experienced since the election?

    There's simply no way to know the answer. That's why reading "dimpled" or "pregnant" chads is not divining the intent of the voter, it's imposing the counter's interpretation, or wish, on a piece of paper. That's also why Palm Beach, Broward and Miami Dade had generally in the past refrained from counting a dimpled chad - its not sufficiently clear evidence of anything.

    My point on the narrow national vs. Florida margin of victory is this. Gore and his supporters pointed to the fact that he had "won" the national popular vote as legitimizing his attempt to reverse the result in Florida by litigation. It didn't, because statistically it was insiginficant. The margin of victory in Florida and nationally is less than the margin of error imposed by the disparate means of counting the votes.

    The race was essentially a tie, and it was resolved by the methods in place before the election. Bush's win is as legitimate (or illegitimate) as a Gore win would have been, if the situation was reversed.
  14. #15  
    I don't live in America and haven't watched any of the tv or read any of the news regarding this. From what I understand, from what other ignorant Canadians have explained to me, is:

    1. there was an election.
    2. the ballots were designed by an ***** of a graphic designer.
    3. because of the poor design, the technology that was counting the ballots was getting a faulty count.
    4. gore wanted the ballots to be recount by hand. bush did not.
    5. bush "won" by 500 or so votes.

    if this is in fact the case, i must admit that i am completely baffled by:

    a. why anyone in their right mind would say no to a manual count. i mean, it's the next president of the usa... wouldn't it be fairest to simply count the damn things and find out who people really voted for?
    b. why the ballots were not seen as problematic *prior* to the vote. who signed off to the GD on this project?

    just curious.

    mc.

  15.    #16  
    VTL-
    Did the person mean to vote for a candidate, and just failed to push all the way through?
    Very possible.

    Did they toy with voting for a candidate, placed the stylus in the hole, but changed their mind and decided not to vote that race at all?
    I'm not going to comment on this, because it is about the most far fetched thing you could have written.

    Or is the bump just the result of all of the handling these things have experienced since the election?
    It is unlikely that just one chad would be displaced on the ballot if it was handled roughly, therefore you could just throw out the ballots with more than one dimpled chad.


    mensachicken-
    I completely agree with your observations. It is always nice to hear an outside view of things. I think some of us lose sight of what the morally right thing to do is and believe anything that supports our particular political party.
    <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>
  16. #17  
    There have been (and are always going to be given the current election process) presidents who lost the popular vote but were still the president because of the electoral college. Let's take am America composed of two states: California and South Dakota. Let's propose an election between two people: Bore and Gush. Let's say Bore wins in Calif with 51% of popular vote. Let's say Gush wins in SD with 99% of the pop. vote. CA's fifty-some electors vastly outweigh SD's 3 so Bore wins a landslide. Gush would've actually won the national popular vote (unless 2% of CA population is more than 99% of SD's). This is not a true democracy (1 person = 1 vote) because the framers of the Constitution were forced to compromise between each state having equal say and a states clout being determined by its population. During this time people didn't think of themselves as Americans to the degree that they thought of themselves as South Dakotans, Californians, etc.. So, there it is. It's still better than having no say in who leads the country.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  17. #18  
    What I don't understand is why didn't Gore call for a manual recount in all Florida counties? That would have done a better job of conveying that he wanted to make sure the "American people were heard" than calling for a recount in only 3 heavy Democratic counties.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  18. #19  
    Mensachicken- The so called "uncounted" votes were counted twice. There is a certain percentage of ballotts that were unrecognizeable to the non-biased counting machines because voters could not follow clearly posted instructions. The problem arose when certain counties were singled out to be counted AND they were being counted by people with an agenda. The normal percentage of uncountable votes nationwide is somewhere around 2%. Thus there were MANY votes not "counted" nationwide. The press to count hevily Democratic counties in Florida was done to achieve a specific outcome.

    In any case, I am glad that we have finally seen the last of punchcard voting in the USA. I can't imagine it NOT being replaced after this fiasco.
  19.    #20  
    Originally posted by MIKE STH
    The press to count hevily Democratic counties in Florida was done to achieve a specific outcome.
    What about the "press" to throw out some 19,000 disputed ballots that would have been in Gores favor? Or the "press" to count absentee ballots from the Republican majority military? Or the filling in of incomplete Republican ballots?

    Both sides tried to find ways of counting ballots in their favor because the other side was doing the same thing.

    There should have been a full and complete hand recount immediately after the election. That would have solved all of these problems, but for some reason the Bush campaign didn't want that.
    <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions