erikbojerik Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Packers 28 Redskins 14 Somehow, I get the feeling the election will be a bit closer than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlGeeEater Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Well another little myth. When our shcool has the mock elections, there right 98% of the time. This year the freshman chose Kerry, Sophmores Kerry, Juniors Bush and Senoirs Kerry. Overall Kerry had 52% Bush 47% and Nader 5%...i was one of those 5%'s Now if statistics show, Kerry will serve 4 years and Bush will go choke on more pretzles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikbojerik Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Packers 28 Redskins 14 Brett Favre throws 3 picks...and still gets the win. Parallels with the election? I guess we'll see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 something on the lines of 52 entrants for Miss America and 2-1/2 to run the United States Goverment go figure What kills me is the longest runner to vote for is Nader, Ok there's probably a few who vote for him cause the other choices are not in that particular persons best interest. Just so everyone knows I didn't read the whole thread if those two topics have already been covered......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotrock Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 When's results day then guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluespresence Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Hotrock Posted on Nov 1 2004, 06:57 AM When's results day then guys? Voting is tomorrow - Tuesday. The results are usually out by late Tuesday night or Wednesday morning but if it's too close, like the last election, it may be weeks or months once the lawyers get involved....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Headen Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 I have a feeling whichever side loses will sue. No matter what the margin of victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StratDudeDan Posted November 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 the sheer number of lawyers already lining up for voter fraud/miscount errors is staggering...and they're still picking up more people the night before...man... as for results, we get the official count at 1 AM in IL, i dunno about the rest of the country, but our votes start getting counted when the polls close (9 or 10...), then we get nothing but "unofficial" counts until 1. and i have only seen one election where the votes from the unofficial were more than 3 votes away from the official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsera Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I have a feeling whichever side loses will sue. No matter what the margin of victory. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dugz Ink Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Tennessee has "early voting" (as well as voting on the normal day); this year it was October 18-28. Davidson County (which includes Nashville) has 3.5 Million registered voters. As of last Saturday, 1.5 Million people had already voted. One of my co-workers just came in, after voting this morning. The polls opened at 7am, and the line was already over ½ an hour long. That's an incredible turn out, especially since our choices are so bad. Out of ¼ of a Billion citizens, you'd think we could find at least 1 great candidate. D~s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Headen Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Well, I know a lot of people that would do great as president, but how many people do you think want that responsibility? And how would he raise enough campaign money to get his party nomination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StratDudeDan Posted November 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 as of this morning, more people have voted than have in the past 40 years in any given election. if the same numbers come out for the evening, it will break EVERY voting record in american history. which is good and bad. good: people are actually figuring out how much their vote counts. bad: the country is going to stand hardcore divided on this for quite some time now. they're not voting "for" someone, they voting "against" the other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikbojerik Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 the country is going to stand hardcore divided on this for quite some time now Vive le balance "Bring the balance back, bring it back!" - Robert Plant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikbojerik Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 they're not voting "for" someone, they voting "against" the other one I just saw Brian Williams on NBC give some numbers on exactly that point; I'm off a few points, but it broke down something like this: Republicans: vote "for Bush" 83% vote "against Kerry" 17% Democrats: vote "for Kerry" 60% vote "against Bush" 40% What does this say? It says that the Republicans feel better about their guy than the Democrats do about theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannoG Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 It says lots of things. The one you chose is only one. Most questions of this type offer too few answers to really establish anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikbojerik Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Packers 28 Redskins 14 Brett Favre throws 3 picks...and still gets the win. Parallels with the election? I guess we'll see... George Bush screws up the war....and still gets re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dugz Ink Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 George Bush screws up the war....and still gets re-elected. It takes more than one person to "screw up" a war. The military planners got too cocky, thinking they could use their smart-bombs to win the war. They didn't take into account all of the zealots who would strap explosives to their chests and die for Allah. They didn't send enough people in to do a satisfactory job of holding key locations. Asalways, the soldiers gave 100% and the planners didn't. Bush was drunk and AWOL during much of his "military career". I'm not saying that to put him down; it was true of a lot of people during Vietnam. I bring it up to make the point that Bush does NOT have any real military experience, but the advisors and planners (people he was not responsible for hiring or promoting) should have enough experince to forsee these types of problems and make better recommendations to the President. Bush has made some mistakes, but you can't blame him for everything that has gone wrong. Like I said, it takes more than one person... and that also applies to unemployment, the economy, and the federal deficit. D~s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Headen Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 ll just start off saying I'm a hardcore Bush man. I do think the democrats could've taken the election with anyone other than John Kerry. Kerry is the most liberal senator period. When you get called more liberal than Kennedy, you know you're pretty darn liberal. I think in nominating Kerry, the democrats alienated many independant voters, and a few more conservative democrats. It's the equivalent of republicans nominating Falwell, in my opinion. I have to say Kerry has earned some respect from me (I still disagree with just about everything he says) by conceeding. I think there are lesser men that would've made this a long, drawn out nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovekraft Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Don't want to be contentious here, but as Commander-In-Chief, the President is ultimately and absolutely responsible for the strategic actions of our military. Blaming the current situation on military planners is at best disingenuous, and very much like Ashlee Simpson blaming the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikbojerik Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Hey I voted for the man (Bush); I'm just saying he won despite his handling of the war situation (and PR is really where it went wrong). I spent long enough in Boston (5 years) to learn that a Massachusetts Democrat is the last person I want in the White House. My wife and I were musing last night that Howard Dean probably would have taken it...if he'd not been such a spaz for those 60 seconds during the primaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dugz Ink Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Blaming the current situation on military planners is at best disingenuous, and very much like Ashlee Simpson blaming the band. ?????????????????? Contentious isn't the word I would use... but I'll leave it that. D~s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibum5545 Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Well, Kerry will concede in ten minutes. Every state that had a proposal to ban gay marriage passed it. I'm moving to Canada. But on a better note, our city just passed a proposal legalizing medical marijuana! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StratDudeDan Posted November 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 I'm moving to Canada. i'll meet you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Headen Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Don't want to be contentious here, but as Commander-In-Chief, the President is ultimately and absolutely responsible for the strategic actions of our military. Blaming the current situation on military planners is at best disingenuous, and very much like Ashlee Simpson blaming the band. I absolutely agree. He, even IF the failures weren't directly a result from one of his decisions, must take responsiblity for failures as well as victories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovekraft Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Contentious isn't the word I would use... but I'll leave it that. Am I to assume then that you believe that Tommy Franks and the Joint Chiefs recommended that we sideline the hunt for Osama Bin Laden (the guy who actually orchestrated 9/11) so we could invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein? I personally don't believe that, but if it were true, it would certainly diffuse the President's direct responsibility somewhat. However, it still would not excuse his taking action without a clear plan for withdrawal, and the lives lost while they try to find a way out are on his head, just like the lives lost in Mogadishu (what a stupid political expediency!) should weigh heavily on Bill Clinton's shoulders. If anyone can show me a logical, compelling reason for invading Iraq, I'll take it all back, but I haven't seen anything yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts