Okay. I got caught in a little mis-statement. I stated that the Dems were now the minority in both the house and the senate. They were prior to the Tuesday election (51 Rs, 28Ds, 1 indy; however, the Dems lost 4 seats. The point I was making was that the Republicans have 55 seats now. Even if 1 or 2 of the Rs cross party lines on voting of an issue, they will still have a majority.

My apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

A persons record,shows how he really thinks!
When a person campaigns(sp?),he tells you what he wants you to believe
about him,so that you will vote for him.Having lived,both N & S of Mass (Conn
& NH),it was easy to pick the lesser of two evils.Plus bieng a 10% disabled vet
you expect the people whos back you watch,to also watch yours.Many times
your life depends on them! Irish
P.S.I am a registered independant,but no matter what party you're in,that
applies to everyone!

Sugarsprinkles,

While the Democrats did take a serious hit in this election, I don’t see it really as a debacle, they’ll come back. The political process needs it. The American public will demand it. Incumbents are notoriously difficult to unseat, Senator Kerry knew that. Senator Daschle’s defeat was most unusual. The next year will be a time of wound-licking and reflection – and then, inevitably, there will be an opening – there always is.

I too am pleased that President Bush not only won the Electoral College for a second time (which is after all, the vote that counts), but the also the popular vote. This will mute, although I doubt for long, the critics of his policies. They now have received the stamp of popular approval, some three and a half million of them.

Hiya CK! LTNS! *hugs*

I'm taking issue with your comments because I think a lot of folks feel the way you do and I've been dying to say something about it for a while.

The map you refer to that shows "the red states and the blue states" show more red than blue because of the electorate vote. What people fail to remember (or even study) are the numbers in the popular vote. Just because the state is in red or blue doesn't mean that there was a landslide vote for a particular party in that state. In this election, some of the numbers were pretty close. And, let's not forget the votes that were tossed out or not counted due to "sufficient" numbers for the candidate to win that electorate vote! What I think this all boils down to is...if they ask people to come out and vote, and they come out in droves as they did in this election, all votes should be counted and used to decide. I don't care for the electoral system as the final decision. It confuses people and gives them high hope on one side of the coin, or no hope on the other side. I feel like it's a way for the government to patronize us (the voters) and show us the simplified version of a complicated and detailed matter. I think most people I know can handle the big picture without the assistance of a mass vote count.


When I first read this quote from you I thought it said "mormon"...*giggle* Which brings me to another issue...the bible belt. When polled around the country after the election, the most common reply (above and beyond any other concern or issue) to "why" did you vote for Bush was...morality. "I voted for Bush because I stand behind his evangelical principals and I like that he doesn't seperate church and state in the White House"...(one example from a woman I heard interviewed, that stands out in my memory). Not terrorism...Not healthcare...Not the deficit...Not homeland security...etc. God was the answer for the majority of people polled. Of course you all know I am an atheist, but I am NOT off-put by religion or political figures who make known their particular religious affiliate. Some put it forth stronger than others. But, in the face of all that is ahead of us...the fears over the war, the unsettled healthcare issues, the faulty homeland security issues, women's rights, stem cell research, etc...this is the main concern of a large part of our nation? The seperation of church and state is there for a reason and I am saddened that the biggest issue for the majority vote was based on the bible above all other things facing our nation. I have to admit...it scares me to be under the rule of a president that takes the bible so literally. Not to mention...some of the new senators and congress persons!!!

Anyway...there's my thoughts. Nice to see ya still around CK!

Lixy, Mr. Lil and I were discussing the same thing last night. I thought the people who came here on the big boat long long ago came to get away from a government/church situation. * shrugs*

Morals aren't necessarily an exclusively godly thing, although I'm willing to bet that most of the voters indicating moral issues to be the main decider would disagree. I say you and a few select Pixies *cough*me*cough* form the Republic of Lixy :)

We had this same discussion about morality the other day. Interesting, I didn't link it to religion, though I can see how you could. Maybe it's because of my church background and many of the moral issues that surface in the bible, I don't take a literal stand on.

So how do you convince people who are so bible blinded that there are much bigger issues? Or would those people argue that we are in these issues because we don't follow the bible more strictly? Interesting food for thought.

Well, interesting you should say that maddy, because Jerry Falwell was quoted as saying the following in reference to September 11(http://en.wikipedia.org/Jerry_Falwell/):



Falwell later distanced himself from any statement blaming any people other than the terrorists directly responsible, even though Pat Robertson agreed:



I doubt they're alone, though how widely held those opinions are I can't say.

There might soon be a new religious outlook on this.George Soros(sp?) said
that he would spend any amount of money,to keep Bush,from getting re-
elected.He also said that he would enter a monestary,if Bush,got re-elected.
When he enters,maybe we will have a new religious outlook! Irish

Irish,

It may take a while before he gets his affairs in order...

Lixy Lixy,

Always make me smile.
I do know all about the electoral college. And I think there needs to be some compromise between that and the popular vote. Such as dividing the electoral vote according to percentage of actual votes won in that state.

I agree religion shouldn't be a main component of the presidency. Just as I think abortion and gay marriage as well. But both sides play by the same rules and would do anything to win. (Such as trotting Ashton Kuchar out on the day before the election - talk about a bad strategy.)

I could go on forever. Let's agree to disagree and wait for the real battle in 2008: Hillary Clinton vs. Rudolph Guilianni

How much money would be spent in that campaign?

See ya.

LixyChick,

I’m with you – sorta…



I checked the Ohio Secretary of State page for the presidential race,

http://election.sos.state.oh.us/res...ry.aspx?race=PP

and the vote count difference between the two candidates is greater than the total number of provisional ballots issued - at least as of this posting.

http://election.sos.state.oh.us/ProvBallots.htm

With that in mind, it does seem reasonable to declare the winner before all the provisional ballots are counted. Not that the provisional ballots should not be counted, just that even if they were all valid, and none were votes for President Bush, the results would remain unchanged. I suspect that the same is true in states like New York, California, and Pennsylvania, where, no matter how long it takes to count any and all provisional and absentee ballots, the state would still declare for Senator Kerry.

I checked the Iowa Secretary of State page for the presidential race,

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/ele...nvasResults.pdf

and it appears to be provisional, not official.




There are many people who’ll agree with you on that one! As it will take an amendment to the Federal Constitution to change it, that will be a tough nut to crack.

JSeal---You mean that, I shouldn't hold my breath,waiting for Soros to enter
a monestary?
CK---I just heard on Talk Radio,that it might be Hilliary vs C Rice!They said
that,among other things,he is pro-gun control & also Pro-choice,so that they
would probably lose the religious vote.As a (former)hunter,I thought that the
goose hunt looked rediculous.So did the other hunters that I know. Irish

How about Hilliary vs Jeb Bush????
:grin:


Lixy if the Electoral College System were not used the candidates would only have to win in 10(ten) states and the other 40 would not even have to vote. If the candidate could win the top 10 states in population they would not need a single vote in the other 40.

i was pretty disappointed with the outcome myself,

i guess i don't consider myself republican or democratic,

but see my signature for what i think of the lesser of the 2