Can Hillary Win?

[Angie]

I know a lot of you guys (i.e. almost all) don't think so, but I think Obama with Hillary as his running mate could take the election. Even if you don't agree with their politics, a large number of swing voters are women and/or minorities.

Currently, I'm worried that Hillary will take the Dem nomination and that she'll be far too liberal for the swing voters.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Are you one of those that actually think Gore won? I thought we put this all behind us years ago.

Well, brianhos, I thought that right-wing braggadocio (that means empty boasting in geek parlance) over past presidential elections, namely the 2000 election, was behind us years ago. I guess not.

Lets review the 2000 presidential election:
(1) The popular vote was won by Gore-Lieberman by 543,816 votes: Gore-Lieberman - 51,003,926, Bush-Cheney - 50,460,110. The last time a president (Benjamin Harrison)won the electoral college vote without winning the popular vote was in 1888. (2) The electoral vote was won by Bush-Cheney with 271. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush a total of 271 (270 elecctoral votes are needed by either candidate to win). (3) Now than, lets go toBush vs. Gore. It was and is the greatest legal disaster in United States history. By a 5-4 vote, where the majority justices "decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants", stopped the recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand.

In answer to your question. No, I am not one of those who actually thinks Gore won. It was a GWB victory by a landslide of one vote in a Supreme Court squeaker.

Here is how a British news source, The Guardian Unlimited viewed our 2000 presidential election: Can a system which allows the winner to lose go unreformed? | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

 

[alaskaguy]

I know a lot of you guys (i.e. almost all) don't think so, but I think Obama with Hillary as his running mate could take the election. Even if you don't agree with their politics, a large number of swing voters are women and/or minorities.

Currently, I'm worried that Hillary will take the Dem nomination and that she'll be far too liberal for the swing voters.

Both Obama and Edwards are to the left of Hillary. So if Hillary is "too liberal" adding either Obama or Edwards to the ticket should not benefit her with swing voters (assuming swing voters have moderate political beliefs).

 

[herbiedoobie]

Well, brianhos, I thought that right-wing braggadocio (that means empty boasting in geek parlance) over past presidential elections, namely the 2000 election, was behind us years ago. I guess not.

Lets review the 2000 presidential election:
(1) The popular vote was won by Gore-Lieberman by 543,816 votes: Gore-Lieberman - 51,003,926, Bush-Cheney - 50,460,110. The last time a president (Benjamin Harrison)won the electoral college vote without winning the popular vote was in 1888. (2) The electoral vote was won by Bush-Cheney with 271. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush a total of 271 (270 elecctoral votes are needed by either candidate to win). (3) Now than, lets go toBush vs. Gore. It was and is the greatest legal disaster in United States history. By a 5-4 vote, where the majority justices "decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants", stopped the recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand.

In answer to your question. No, I am not one of those who actually thinks Gore won. It was a GWB victory by a landslide of one vote in a Supreme Court squeaker.

Here is how a British news source, The Guardian Unlimited viewed our 2000 presidential election: Can a system which allows the winner to lose go unreformed? | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

How about if we don't care what the Brits think? And if you think the Brit system never produces some noggin' scratchers, you've been smoking something....

Cyclonepride was right. The independent recounts and analyses done "after the fact" show that GWB still won. It sounds like you're still "butt hurt" about that.

What we COULD do to liven up the argument, would be to suggest that Gore's recalcitrance to stop recounting until he could cheat his way to victory indirectly contributed to the poor policy decision chain that led to the 2003 Iraq Invasion, but that would just be me yanking your chain.

For those whose memories are foggy, he gave a speech on May 1, 2003 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln beneath a large "Mission Accomplished" banner.

This one still ticks me off. Every unit that rotated back from Iraq during OIF I got this "Mission Accomplished" banner. GWB had nothing to do with it, and it wasn't meant to insinuate the war was over, and the speech which was intended to signal the "end of major combat action" was just that. The transition to... well, whatever it is we are doing.

It was the nearly direct moral equivalent to Kerry's "Stupid in Iraq" speech.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Johnny, why are you arguing that the Supreme Court decided the 2000 presidential election?

The independent media (Miami Herald and USA Today) conducted a recount and concluded that Bush would have won. In addition, under the recount rules requested by Gore the National Opinion Research Center examined the uncounted ballots and those results also showed that Bush won.

Not everyone agrees with the Miami Herald and USA Today recount.

National Opinion Research Center examined 175,010 ballots that were never counted in Florida. Their results showed that the winning candidate varied based on the method used to include or interpret ballots. For cases where all of the examiners agreed, in nine different recount scenarios resulted in Bush prevailing four times, and Gore prevailing in the other five. Ironically, under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.

Link: http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

There have been other studies and reviews done of the Florida 2000 vote and are also a mixed bag depending on the methodology.

 

[alaskaguy]

Well, brianhos, I thought that right-wing braggadocio (that means empty boasting in geek parlance) over past presidential elections, namely the 2000 election, was behind us years ago. I guess not.

Lets review the 2000 presidential election:
(1) The popular vote was won by Gore-Lieberman by 543,816 votes: Gore-Lieberman - 51,003,926, Bush-Cheney - 50,460,110. The last time a president (Benjamin Harrison)won the electoral college vote without winning the popular vote was in 1888. (2) The electoral vote was won by Bush-Cheney with 271. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush a total of 271 (270 elecctoral votes are needed by either candidate to win). (3) Now than, lets go toBush vs. Gore. It was and is the greatest legal disaster in United States history. By a 5-4 vote, where the majority justices "decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants", stopped the recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand.

In answer to your question. No, I am not one of those who actually thinks Gore won. It was a GWB victory by a landslide of one vote in a Supreme Court squeaker.

Here is how a British news source, The Guardian Unlimited viewed our 2000 presidential election: Can a system which allows the winner to lose go unreformed? | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Your argument that the Supreme Court decided the 2000 presidential election ignores the post recounts of the Florida ballots. Those recounts and the investigations of the uncounted ballots showed that the outcome would not have been changed if Bush v. Gore had gone the other way.

Gore was not seeking a state-wide recount, rather he had only sought to have ballots recounted in four heavily Democratic counties. Had Gore initially pursued a state wide recount rather than to cherry pick counties I suspect that there would have been a state wide recount. Nevertheless, the post recounts by independent media concluded that Bush won Florida.

And Johnny how do you feel about the television networks declaring that Gore had carried the state while the polls were still open in the Florida panhandle? Don't you think that may have had some influence on the Florida vote?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

How about if we don't care what the Brits think? And if you think the Brit system never produces some noggin' scratchers, you've been smoking something....

Cyclonepride was right. The independent recounts and analyses done "after the fact" show that GWB still won. It sounds like you're still "butt hurt" about that.

What we COULD do to liven up the argument, would be to suggest that Gore's recalcitrance to stop recounting until he could cheat his way to victory indirectly contributed to the poor policy decision chain that led to the 2003 Iraq Invasion, but that would just be me yanking your chain.



This one still ticks me off. Every unit that rotated back from Iraq during OIF I got this "Mission Accomplished" banner. GWB had nothing to do with it, and it wasn't meant to insinuate the war was over, and the speech which was intended to signal the "end of major combat action" was just that. The transition to... well, whatever it is we are doing.

It was the nearly direct moral equivalent to Kerry's "Stupid in Iraq" speech.

In a way, herbie, you are right. In fact, hardly anyone, which includes me, really cares today about the Florida recount of 2000. GWB won. No question. (Thank you for that idiom, Kirk).

However, you have to remember how this whole discussion began. It started with brianhos poor mouthing democrats in general by puffing up GWB as a runaway winner in the past two presidential elections. I invited him to review the Supreme Court decision Bush vs. Gore. I invited him to deal with the relatively simple fact that GWB won the 2000 presidential election by a runaway one vote of the Supreme Court.

Will that make brianhos less of a right-wing boor. Not hardly. But, hey, you got to give it shot once in a while.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Your argument that the Supreme Court decided the 2000 presidential election ignores the post recounts of the Florida ballots. Those recounts and the investigations of the uncounted ballots showed that the outcome would not have been changed if Bush v. Gore had gone the other way.

Gore was not seeking a state-wide recount, rather he had only sought to have ballots recounted in four heavily Democratic counties. Had Gore initially pursued a state wide recount rather than to cherry pick counties I suspect that there would have been a state wide recount. Nevertheless, the post recounts by independent media concluded that Bush won Florida.

And Johnny how do you feel about the television networks declaring that Gore had carried the state while the polls were still open in the Florida panhandle? Don't you think that may have had some influence on the Florida vote?

When the 2000 Florida recount was a hot debate, all sides of every issue were debated ad nauseum. I have just about heard it all and I was tired of it all a long time ago. The bottom line: Jeb Bush was the governor of Florida and it is no surprise to me, nor should it be to anyone else, that his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris delivered the vote, that is, certified the election for GWB. As it turns out, it should have not been a surprise to anyone that the election count was flawed.

The election problems that arose in Florida in 2000 were forseeable. Inexplicably, Miss Harris and Governor Bush ultimately escaped responsibility for the fiasco. A nice advantage to have is to have your brother be the President, I guess. Keeps those election regulatory folks off your back.

 

[Incyte]

I think Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided but it's pretty irrelevant in light of the fact that Bush would have won the recount anyway.

I find it funny that we are in the mist of the 2008 elections and some are still in an uproar over the 2000 elections.

 

[iceclone]

I think Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided but it's pretty irrelevant in light of the fact that Bush would have won the recount anyway.

I find it funny that we are in the mist of the 2008 elections and some are still in an uproar over the 2000 elections.

The Supreme Court should never have gotten involved, and Gore should never have challenged the count in the first place. Errors occur in every election. When you are on the loosing end of a suspect election, the right thing to do is to graciously accept defeat and move on for the good of the country.

Furthermore, in my opinion, if Gore would have simply accepted defeat, the Democrats would have won in 2004. Preoccupation with the 2000 election was a major problem within the party in 2003-4, and it still lingers even today.

On the other hand, Brian’s original argument, to which Johnny responded and started this whole discussion, is not valid. As Johnny later pointed out, it is a better counterargument to point to the fact that Gore did win plurality of the popular vote.

 

[iceclone]

I know a lot of you guys (i.e. almost all) don't think so, but I think Obama with Hillary as his running mate could take the election. Even if you don't agree with their politics, a large number of swing voters are women and/or minorities.

Currently, I'm worried that Hillary will take the Dem nomination and that she'll be far too liberal for the swing voters.

Obama-Richardson is my ticket.

Yes, yes, they both have flaws, but I like them.

 

[Stormin]

This one still ticks me off. Every unit that rotated back from Iraq during OIF I got this "Mission Accomplished" banner. GWB had nothing to do with it, and it wasn't meant to insinuate the war was over, and the speech which was intended to signal the "end of major combat action" was just that. The transition to... well, whatever it is we are doing.

You can't be serious. A GWB staffer put up the banner stating "Mission Accomplished". And GWB gave every insinuation that the whole war was over. It was a photo op that has backfired. This ticks me off too. If the freaking Mission is Accomplished it is over. Done. Bring the troops home. The spin "end of major combat action" came out long after the speech.

By the way, whatever happened to the mantra "This war will be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues." Or was GWB misquoted again. From the ever changing reasons for going to war, to the ever changing reasons for our present mission there. This Foreign Policy has been a total disaster. We have been lied to, misled, and manipulated. That is why we have no credibility with the rest of the world. You really need to quit drinking the Kool-Aid HerbieDoobie.

 

[alaskaguy]

You can't be serious. A GWB staffer put up the banner stating "Mission Accomplished". And GWB gave every insinuation that the whole war was over. It was a photo op that has backfired. This ticks me off too. If the freaking Mission is Accomplished it is over. Done. Bring the troops home. The spin "end of major combat action" came out long after the speech.

By the way, whatever happened to the mantra "This war will be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues." Or was GWB misquoted again. From the ever changing reasons for going to war, to the ever changing reasons for our present mission there. This Foreign Policy has been a total disaster. We have been lied to, misled, and manipulated. That is why we have no credibility with the rest of the world. You really need to quit drinking the Kool-Aid HerbieDoobie.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner certainly is a matter that has dogged GWB.

Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun have both said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself.

The Democrats contend otherwise for obvious reasons.

Link:
CNN.com - White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Oct. 29, 2003

There was a debate within the Administration as to the cost of the occupation. General Eric Shinseki predicted a heavy cost while Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz argued otherwise. I recall Wolfowitz asserting that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the cost of reconstruction in Iraq when being interviewed on 60 Minutes.

I can not find support that GWB stated, "the war will be paid by Iraqi oil revenues." Nevertheless, in retrospect it is clear that the Administration grossly underestimated the cost of the occupation.

 

[brianhos]

Well, brianhos, I thought that right-wing braggadocio (that means empty boasting in geek parlance) over past presidential elections, namely the 2000 election, was behind us years ago. I guess not.

Lets review the 2000 presidential election:
(1) The popular vote was won by Gore-Lieberman by 543,816 votes: Gore-Lieberman - 51,003,926, Bush-Cheney - 50,460,110. The last time a president (Benjamin Harrison)won the electoral college vote without winning the popular vote was in 1888. (2) The electoral vote was won by Bush-Cheney with 271. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush a total of 271 (270 elecctoral votes are needed by either candidate to win). (3) Now than, lets go toBush vs. Gore. It was and is the greatest legal disaster in United States history. By a 5-4 vote, where the majority justices "decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants", stopped the recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand.

In answer to your question. No, I am not one of those who actually thinks Gore won. It was a GWB victory by a landslide of one vote in a Supreme Court squeaker.

Here is how a British news source, The Guardian Unlimited viewed our 2000 presidential election: Can a system which allows the winner to lose go unreformed? | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Ok, I am not sure I get your point? You know, I think ISU scored more baskets in their last game, but lost. Because most of their baskets were 2 pointers instead of 3 pointers. Everyone knows the rules going into the election, so there is no use complaining that Gore won the popular vote, because popular vote means nothing. Fact of the matter is, Democrats are republicans best friends, because they keep putting horrible candidates foward, which makes the party a joke.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

The Supreme Court should never have gotten involved, and Gore should never have challenged the count in the first place. Errors occur in every election. When you are on the loosing end of a suspect election, the right thing to do is to graciously accept defeat and move on for the good of the country.

Furthermore, in my opinion, if Gore would have simply accepted defeat, the Democrats would have won in 2004. Preoccupation with the 2000 election was a major problem within the party in 2003-4, and it still lingers even today.

On the other hand, Brian’s original argument, to which Johnny responded and started this whole discussion, is not valid. As Johnny later pointed out, it is a better counterargument to point to the fact that Gore did win plurality of the popular vote.

My last word on the presidential election of 2000. I promise.

I agree completely that the US Supreme Court should not have intervened. (If you are interested, for an in depth account and analysis on the Supreme Court's motives and machinations for their intervention in the 2000 presidential election, read Part II, Chapters 11, 12, and 13 of Jeffrey Toobin's recent book The Nine.)

Lets assume for the moment that it is appropriate to describe Al Gore as ungracious for exercising his legal right to challenge a very close and a disputed (systemic) vote in a state where the election process is under the jurisdiction of his opponent's brother. Given that assumption, what words would you use to describe GWB in the exercise of his legal right to appeal the adverse (to him) decision of the Florida Supreme Court?

Finally, viewing in hindsight the deeds of the GWB administration to date, to say that ceding defeat (to GWB) was(is) "for the good of the country" is the misnomer of the day.

 

[brianhos]

Obama-Richardson is my ticket.

Yes, yes, they both have flaws, but I like them.

After Obamas sock it to the middle class social security tax plan, I could never vote for him.

 

[wonkadog]

Not even if Oprah told you to??? Come on man!!!

 

[alaskaguy]

Let's compare

Obama gets Oprah
Hillary has Barbara Steisand
Huckabee gets Chuck Norris
Romney gets Hulk Hogan
Fred Thompson gets Ted Nugent
Giulinni has Dennis Miller.
Kucinich has Sean Penn
Edwards has Jackson Browne
Ron Paul has John Mayer

Any others?

 

[cmoneyr]

And we all get screwed.

 

[brianhos]

Not even if Oprah told you to??? Come on man!!!

All the more reason to note vote for him... the most racist woman in america supports him.