The Democrats still don't get it... Republicans Control Most States

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the pResident. So the
electorate, minus bogus partisan gerrymandering, are a lot more evenly split
than this article suggests.

Post by HOD
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 11:17 p.m. EST
2004: Republicans Control Most States
The Democrats still don't get it.
The party that has dominated the American landscape from the time FDR
swept to power in 1932 has careened into near oblivion ever since William
Jefferson Clinton took the oath of office in 1992.
The first domino to fall was the Congress, which fell to the
Republicans in 1994.
And since then, state by state, the union is looking more red than
blue, more Reagan Republican than Clinton Democrat.
Recently, State Legislatures Magazine reported that the 2003 elections
brought only a few changes to the color-coded maps showing partisan control
of legislatures and governors' offices.
Democrats scored victories in New Jersey by seizing the Legislature
and in Louisiana by winning the governor's office.
Republicans captured governors' seats in California, Kentucky and
Mississippi, boosting their advantage 28 to 22.
Legislative elections in Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana did not
change party control.
Republicans continue to control more legislatures than Democrats, by a
21-17 margin. Eleven states are split between the two parties. (Nebraska
legislators are chosen in nonpartisan elections.)
In 29 states, government is divided between the two major political
parties. In 12 states, Republicans hold all the cards.
In eight states, the Democrats control both the governor's office and
legislature.

John S. Dyson

2004-01-03 21:34:55 UTC

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

Our system is constitutional, and not purely democratic. Actually,
Bush got more votes for the presidency than Al Gore. All you need
to win is 270... Al Gore lost any moral claim to the presidency
when he attempted a coup against the constitution and federal
law.

Regarding votes -- you MIGHT be talking about the votes for electors,
but IN NO WAY does the total popular vote mean much for the
presidential election. It is a barometer of sorts, but if someone
isn't constitutionally eligible, then it makes no difference.

There is almost NO WAY that Al Gore could pass the laugh test
on the oath of office, considering his cynical coup attempt.

John

False Document

2004-01-03 21:53:44 UTC

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

You are assuming Bush actually won Florida. We don't know that as we were
denied a comprehensive recount and review of all the ballots cast in that
state. And let's not even get into the 97,000 people Bush's campaign
manager illegally disenfranchised.

Post by John S. Dyson
Regarding votes -- you MIGHT be talking about the votes for electors,
but IN NO WAY does the total popular vote mean much for the
presidential election. It is a barometer of sorts, but if someone
isn't constitutionally eligible, then it makes no difference.

One question is whether we need electors anymore. The EC was devised with
several aims in mind. Among these was the population disparity between
the three major urban centers (NYC, Boston and Philadelphia) and the rest
of the country (ie the rural areas). The urban population was, at that
time, a scant minority. In order for their votes not to be drowned out by
the "rural vote" their states were awarded electoral votes such that
those three cities - which represented the majority of the populations of
their three states - could gain significant representation in the EC.
Today, there is very close to 50-50 division of population between urban
and non-urban.

Another reason was to force candidates to campaign in as much of the
country as they could. That is, not just campaign in the North and hope
they got enough votes there to overwhelm the south. This was necessary
because travel was much more difficult then.

Yet another reason was that they didn't have instantaneous
communications. Each precincts votes were tabulated in the state capital
and then whoever "won the state" had their "electors" go to DC.

Thus, the three main reasons for the EC:
1) Protecting Urban voters
2) Forcing a national campaign
3) Ensuring accurate communication from state capital to DC

None of these three are in anyway applicable anymore. Thus, you could
argue that the EC is a dinosaur and should be scrapped. Indeed, the Bush
campaign was planning to argue just this in court had they won the
popular vote while losing the electoral college.

Post by John S. Dyson
There is almost NO WAY that Al Gore could pass the laugh test
on the oath of office, considering his cynical coup attempt.

Suppose a complete recount of Florida had shown Gore actually won the
state? By blocking such a recount, Bush in effect waged a successful
coup. But it's clear that republicans don't care to know who actually won
as long as Bush won the only vote that actually counted: 5-4.
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

Substitute "Hussein" or "WMD" for "OBL" and it still works.

GENOMEMAN

2004-01-03 22:07:15 UTC

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

You are assuming Bush actually won Florida.

He did.

Post by False Document
We don't know that as we were
denied a comprehensive recount and review of all the ballots cast in that
state.

Umm...how many recounts were there?

Post by False Document
And let's not even get into the 97,000 people Bush's campaign
manager illegally disenfranchised.

Neutral source of that for evidence?

One question is whether we need electors anymore.

Yes we do. Your reasons below are sort of bogus. The reason TODAY for the EC
is to keep major mertropoli from deciding elections.

The EC was devised with

Post by False Document
several aims in mind. Among these was the population disparity between
the three major urban centers (NYC, Boston and Philadelphia) and the rest
of the country (ie the rural areas). The urban population was, at that
time, a scant minority. In order for their votes not to be drowned out by
the "rural vote" their states were awarded electoral votes such that
those three cities - which represented the majority of the populations of
their three states - could gain significant representation in the EC.
Today, there is very close to 50-50 division of population between urban
and non-urban.
Another reason was to force candidates to campaign in as much of the
country as they could. That is, not just campaign in the North and hope
they got enough votes there to overwhelm the south. This was necessary
because travel was much more difficult then.
Yet another reason was that they didn't have instantaneous
communications. Each precincts votes were tabulated in the state capital
and then whoever "won the state" had their "electors" go to DC.
1) Protecting Urban voters
2) Forcing a national campaign
3) Ensuring accurate communication from state capital to DC
None of these three are in anyway applicable anymore. Thus, you could
argue that the EC is a dinosaur and should be scrapped. Indeed, the Bush
campaign was planning to argue just this in court had they won the
popular vote while losing the electoral college.

Post by John S. Dyson
There is almost NO WAY that Al Gore could pass the laugh test
on the oath of office, considering his cynical coup attempt.

Suppose a complete recount of Florida had shown Gore actually won the
state?

Something like 4 out of 5 recounts did NOT show this. So, if Gore wins say
ONE recount but Bush wins 5, does that mean Gore won? Oh, and why did Gore
want to disenfranchise our men/women in uniform and only count heavily
democrat counties (whose board of elections were run by Democrats)...geesh,
and you wonder why it was all fucked up.

Post by False Document
By blocking such a recount, Bush in effect waged a successful
coup. But it's clear that republicans don't care to know who actually won
as long as Bush won the only vote that actually counted: 5-4.

The only decision from the Supreme court was that Florida State election law
couldn't be over ridden (state's rights). You are just bitter that the court
wouldn't step in and usurp Florida election law as drawn up by Florida
legislators. The election had to be certified by such and such date, Harris
followed THAT law, and it was done.

The law is the law. I know you libs have a hard time with that, citing the
constitution on one hand and giving it the finger on the other.

You stupid libs are so bent on the LAST election that you will blow figuring
out how to win THIS one. And THIS one (if Dean is the opponent) won't be
close. THEN what will be your "conspiracy de jour?"

Also what is amazing that a preppy privlidged frat boy is your best
candidate. Ironic huh?

False Document

2004-01-03 22:17:19 UTC

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

You are assuming Bush actually won Florida.

He did.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Post by False Document
We don't know that as we were
denied a comprehensive recount and review of all the ballots cast in
that state.

Umm...how many recounts were there?

Complete and comprehensive state-wide recounts? Zero.

Post by False Document
And let's not even get into the 97,000 people Bush's campaign
manager illegally disenfranchised.

Neutral source of that for evidence?

Oh good god. DBTI has admitted that at least 97,000 names on their list
were incorrect.

Post by John S. Dyson
Regarding votes -- you MIGHT be talking about the votes for
electors, but IN NO WAY does the total popular vote mean much for
the presidential election. It is a barometer of sorts, but if
someone isn't constitutionally eligible, then it makes no
difference.

One question is whether we need electors anymore.

Yes we do. Your reasons below are sort of bogus.

Um, no. In fact, they are major reasons why the EC was created. Don't
they teach US history in school anymore?

Post by GENOMEMAN
The reason TODAY for
the EC is to keep major mertropoli from deciding elections.

Except that "major metropoli" are not a clear majority of the population.
Moreover, it's highly doubtful that all urban voters have the same
concerns and biases. In fact, it's much more likely that rural voters
still could form a uniform bloc against all other constituencies.

Post by GENOMEMAN
The EC was devised with

Post by False Document
several aims in mind. Among these was the population disparity
between the three major urban centers (NYC, Boston and Philadelphia)
and the rest of the country (ie the rural areas). The urban
population was, at that time, a scant minority. In order for their
votes not to be drowned out by the "rural vote" their states were
awarded electoral votes such that those three cities - which
represented the majority of the populations of their three states -
could gain significant representation in the EC. Today, there is very
close to 50-50 division of population between urban and non-urban.
Another reason was to force candidates to campaign in as much of the
country as they could. That is, not just campaign in the North and
hope they got enough votes there to overwhelm the south. This was
necessary because travel was much more difficult then.
Yet another reason was that they didn't have instantaneous
communications. Each precincts votes were tabulated in the state
capital and then whoever "won the state" had their "electors" go to
DC.
1) Protecting Urban voters
2) Forcing a national campaign
3) Ensuring accurate communication from state capital to DC
None of these three are in anyway applicable anymore. Thus, you could
argue that the EC is a dinosaur and should be scrapped. Indeed, the
Bush campaign was planning to argue just this in court had they won
the popular vote while losing the electoral college.

Post by John S. Dyson
There is almost NO WAY that Al Gore could pass the laugh test
on the oath of office, considering his cynical coup attempt.

Suppose a complete recount of Florida had shown Gore actually won the
state?

Something like 4 out of 5 recounts did NOT show this. So, if Gore wins

Something like? The most comprehensive recount was NORC;s (and even that
didn't analyze every single ballot) and in their analysis, Gore wins all
but one recount scenario.

Post by GENOMEMAN
say ONE recount but Bush wins 5, does that mean Gore won? Oh, and why
did Gore want to disenfranchise our men/women in uniform and only
count heavily democrat counties (whose board of elections were run by
Democrats)...geesh, and you wonder why it was all fucked up.

So why did Bush want to disenfranchise our men/women in uniform and only
count their ballots when they were in heavily republican states whose
board of elections were run by republicans?

Post by False Document
By blocking such a recount, Bush in effect waged a successful
coup. But it's clear that republicans don't care to know who actually
won as long as Bush won the only vote that actually counted: 5-4.

The only decision from the Supreme court was that Florida State
election law couldn't be over ridden (state's rights). You are just

Yet the SCOTUS actually overrode florida's election law. And at the very
last minute (well, with 2 hours left) recinded their injunction against
conducting recounts.

Post by GENOMEMAN
bitter that the court wouldn't step in and usurp Florida election law
as drawn up by Florida legislators. The election had to be certified
by such and such date, Harris followed THAT law, and it was done.

And thank god the SCOTUS blocked the recounts until that deadline came
and went. I mean, if they hadn't, the ballots might have actually been
counted and then who knows...

Post by GENOMEMAN
The law is the law. I know you libs have a hard time with that, citing
the constitution on one hand and giving it the finger on the other.

The irony is so deep you need a shovel.

Post by GENOMEMAN
You stupid libs

And, as always, a conservative resorts to name calling.

are so bent on the LAST election that you will blow

Post by GENOMEMAN
figuring out how to win THIS one. And THIS one (if Dean is the
opponent) won't be close. THEN what will be your "conspiracy de jour?"
Also what is amazing that a preppy privlidged frat boy is your best
candidate. Ironic huh?

Preppie, privileged frat-boy? You know who just described, don't you?
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

Substitute "Hussein" or "WMD" for "OBL" and it still works.

GENOMEMAN

2004-01-03 22:59:37 UTC

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

You are assuming Bush actually won Florida.

He did.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

No, he did. As required by FL election law.

Post by False Document
We don't know that as we were
denied a comprehensive recount and review of all the ballots cast in
that state.

Umm...how many recounts were there?

Complete and comprehensive state-wide recounts? Zero.

That is b/c your boy was focussing on select county recounts. Nice try.

Post by False Document
And let's not even get into the 97,000 people Bush's campaign
manager illegally disenfranchised.

Neutral source of that for evidence?

Oh good god. DBTI has admitted that at least 97,000 names on their list
were incorrect.

You think they are all democrats?

Post by False Document
And, as always, a conservative resorts to name calling.

No, you libs ARE stupid. It isn't a matter of opinion. It is fact. Surely
you were catching onto this? Shit, even libs are getting sick of libs.

Post by False Document
are so bent on the LAST election that you will blow

Preppie, privileged frat-boy? You know who just described, don't you?

Sure, But he isn't running for a Democrat primary is he? MUWAAHAAAAAA!

False Document

2004-01-05 17:12:37 UTC

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

You are assuming Bush actually won Florida.

He did.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

No, he did. As required by FL election law.

"as required" - interesting choice of words.
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

Substitute "Hussein" or "WMD" for "OBL" and it still works.

HOD

2004-01-03 23:05:53 UTC

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

One question is whether we need electors anymore. The EC was devised with
several aims in mind. Among these was the population disparity between
the three major urban centers (NYC, Boston and Philadelphia) and the rest
of the country (ie the rural areas). The urban population was, at that
time, a scant minority. In order for their votes not to be drowned out by
the "rural vote" their states were awarded electoral votes such that
those three cities - which represented the majority of the populations of
their three states - could gain significant representation in the EC.
Today, there is very close to 50-50 division of population between urban
and non-urban.
Another reason was to force candidates to campaign in as much of the
country as they could. That is, not just campaign in the North and hope
they got enough votes there to overwhelm the south. This was necessary
because travel was much more difficult then.
Yet another reason was that they didn't have instantaneous
communications. Each precincts votes were tabulated in the state capital
and then whoever "won the state" had their "electors" go to DC.
1) Protecting Urban voters
2) Forcing a national campaign
3) Ensuring accurate communication from state capital to DC
None of these three are in anyway applicable anymore. Thus, you could
argue that the EC is a dinosaur and should be scrapped. Indeed, the Bush
campaign was planning to argue just this in court had they won the
popular vote while losing the electoral college.

Post by John S. Dyson
There is almost NO WAY that Al Gore could pass the laugh test
on the oath of office, considering his cynical coup attempt.

Suppose I had won Florida, or suppose Florida just shit itself and didn't
want to play... or suppose Gore didn't lie for fifteen minutes...... suppose
your ass was your mouth! Grow up Butthead!..... it's over, we won and we'll
keep on winning!

Post by False Document
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
George W. Bush, September 13, 2001
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
Substitute "Hussein" or "WMD" for "OBL" and it still works.

Moron, circumstances can change priorities! It happens on a regular
basis..... :-))

General Urko

2004-01-03 22:00:35 UTC

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

Our system is constitutional, and not purely democratic. Actually,
Bush got more votes for the presidency than Al Gore. All you need
to win is 270... Al Gore lost any moral claim to the presidency
when he attempted a coup against the constitution and federal
law.
Regarding votes -- you MIGHT be talking about the votes for electors,
but IN NO WAY does the total popular vote mean much for the
presidential election. It is a barometer of sorts, but if someone
isn't constitutionally eligible, then it makes no difference.
There is almost NO WAY that Al Gore could pass the laugh test
on the oath of office, considering his cynical coup attempt.
John

Damn, another irony meter shot to hell....

While we're on the Constitution, I don't remember a laugh test.

And the fact that he WAS talking about the popular vote does mean much for
the idea that republicans were given a "mandate by the people". How long was
it before Bush was proclaiming that?

One of my favorite republican moments was when a republican strategist was
on Bill Mahers show proclaiming that the recall in California was the
"purest form of democracy". Nobody pointed out that the purest form of
democracy is when the guy with the most votes from the people WINS.

HOD

2004-01-03 23:13:11 UTC

Post by General Urko

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

Our system is constitutional, and not purely democratic. Actually,
Bush got more votes for the presidency than Al Gore. All you need
to win is 270... Al Gore lost any moral claim to the presidency
when he attempted a coup against the constitution and federal
law.
Regarding votes -- you MIGHT be talking about the votes for electors,
but IN NO WAY does the total popular vote mean much for the
presidential election. It is a barometer of sorts, but if someone
isn't constitutionally eligible, then it makes no difference.
There is almost NO WAY that Al Gore could pass the laugh test
on the oath of office, considering his cynical coup attempt.
John

Damn, another irony meter shot to hell....
While we're on the Constitution, I don't remember a laugh test.
And the fact that he WAS talking about the popular vote does mean much for
the idea that republicans were given a "mandate by the people". How long was
it before Bush was proclaiming that?
One of my favorite republican moments was when a republican strategist was
on Bill Mahers show proclaiming that the recall in California was the
"purest form of democracy". Nobody pointed out that the purest form of
democracy is when the guy with the most votes from the people WINS.

You obviously live in a hole somewhere about the size of Saddam's..... Do
you not understand the national election laws that have served this country
for many many years! One of my favorite moments is when air-heads like you
insist that an existing law is void simply because it's lawful results were
not what you wanted them to be! Only an idiot liberal would be so stupid!

GENOMEMAN

2004-01-03 23:23:27 UTC

Post by General Urko

I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the President.

Our system is constitutional, and not purely democratic. Actually,
Bush got more votes for the presidency than Al Gore. All you need
to win is 270... Al Gore lost any moral claim to the presidency
when he attempted a coup against the constitution and federal
law.
Regarding votes -- you MIGHT be talking about the votes for electors,
but IN NO WAY does the total popular vote mean much for the
presidential election. It is a barometer of sorts, but if someone
isn't constitutionally eligible, then it makes no difference.
There is almost NO WAY that Al Gore could pass the laugh test
on the oath of office, considering his cynical coup attempt.
John

was

Post by General Urko
it before Bush was proclaiming that?
One of my favorite republican moments was when a republican strategist was
on Bill Mahers show proclaiming that the recall in California was the
"purest form of democracy". Nobody pointed out that the purest form of
democracy is when the guy with the most votes from the people WINS.

Are you surprised? Come on! It is almost like watching someone do the "river
dance" with tap shoes on ice. You just KNOW what is going to happen next!

HOD

2004-01-03 22:57:41 UTC

Al Gore did not have more qualified lawful votes than Bush.. That is simply
not so. In a presidential election according to the laws of this land, the
same law that elected Clinton, Carter and Johnson, only qualified votes
count. Those same votes were the only ones counted when Clinton was elected
in 1992 with only 43% of the vote. These same rules were used in the 2000
election that saw Bush win with 48% of the vote! So No, you still don't get
it and probably never will!

Read this monkey's post.... textbook liberal dishonesty, present them the
facts and they just refuse to accept them.... denial sets in and then the
lies come forth....... over and over and over! :-))

Post by Dan
I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the pResident. So the
electorate, minus bogus partisan gerrymandering, are a lot more evenly split
than this article suggests.

Post by HOD
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 11:17 p.m. EST
2004: Republicans Control Most States
The Democrats still don't get it.
The party that has dominated the American landscape from the time

FDR

Post by HOD
swept to power in 1932 has careened into near oblivion ever since William
Jefferson Clinton took the oath of office in 1992.
The first domino to fall was the Congress, which fell to the
Republicans in 1994.
And since then, state by state, the union is looking more red than
blue, more Reagan Republican than Clinton Democrat.
Recently, State Legislatures Magazine reported that the 2003

elections

Post by HOD
brought only a few changes to the color-coded maps showing partisan

control

Post by HOD
of legislatures and governors' offices.
Democrats scored victories in New Jersey by seizing the Legislature
and in Louisiana by winning the governor's office.
Republicans captured governors' seats in California, Kentucky and
Mississippi, boosting their advantage 28 to 22.
Legislative elections in Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana did not
change party control.
Republicans continue to control more legislatures than Democrats,

Post by Dan
a

Post by HOD
21-17 margin. Eleven states are split between the two parties. (Nebraska
legislators are chosen in nonpartisan elections.)
In 29 states, government is divided between the two major political
parties. In 12 states, Republicans hold all the cards.
In eight states, the Democrats control both the governor's office

and

Post by HOD
legislature.

Dan

2004-01-04 06:11:06 UTC

Jesus you're a retard.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

I'll help you out: Al Gore received 50,999,897, Dumbya Bush received
50,456,002.

I'll say it again: Jesus you're a fucking (lying) retard.

Post by HOD
Al Gore did not have more qualified lawful votes than Bush.. That is simply
not so. In a presidential election according to the laws of this land, the
same law that elected Clinton, Carter and Johnson, only qualified votes
count. Those same votes were the only ones counted when Clinton was elected
in 1992 with only 43% of the vote. These same rules were used in the 2000
election that saw Bush win with 48% of the vote! So No, you still don't get
it and probably never will!
Read this monkey's post.... textbook liberal dishonesty, present them the
facts and they just refuse to accept them.... denial sets in and then the
lies come forth....... over and over and over! :-))

Post by Dan
I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the pResident. So the
electorate, minus bogus partisan gerrymandering, are a lot more evenly

split

Post by Dan
than this article suggests.

Post by HOD
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 11:17 p.m. EST
2004: Republicans Control Most States
The Democrats still don't get it.
The party that has dominated the American landscape from the time

FDR

Post by HOD
swept to power in 1932 has careened into near oblivion ever since

William

Post by HOD
Jefferson Clinton took the oath of office in 1992.
The first domino to fall was the Congress, which fell to the
Republicans in 1994.
And since then, state by state, the union is looking more red than
blue, more Reagan Republican than Clinton Democrat.
Recently, State Legislatures Magazine reported that the 2003

elections

Post by HOD
brought only a few changes to the color-coded maps showing partisan

control

Post by HOD
of legislatures and governors' offices.
Democrats scored victories in New Jersey by seizing the

Legislature

Post by HOD
and in Louisiana by winning the governor's office.
Republicans captured governors' seats in California, Kentucky and
Mississippi, boosting their advantage 28 to 22.
Legislative elections in Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana did

not

Post by HOD
change party control.
Republicans continue to control more legislatures than Democrats,

Post by Dan
a

Post by HOD
21-17 margin. Eleven states are split between the two parties. (Nebraska
legislators are chosen in nonpartisan elections.)
In 29 states, government is divided between the two major

political

Post by HOD
parties. In 12 states, Republicans hold all the cards.
In eight states, the Democrats control both the governor's office

and

Post by HOD
legislature.

E.E.Bud Keith

2004-01-04 08:23:42 UTC

Post by Dan
Jesus you're a retard.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
I'll help you out: Al Gore received 50,999,897, Dumbya Bush received
50,456,002.
I'll say it again: Jesus you're a fucking (lying) retard.

Anyone that makes the stupid statements that you do should not run aeound
calling others retards,retard.

Post by HOD
Al Gore did not have more qualified lawful votes than Bush.. That is

simply

Post by HOD
not so. In a presidential election according to the laws of this land, the
same law that elected Clinton, Carter and Johnson, only qualified votes
count. Those same votes were the only ones counted when Clinton was

elected

Post by HOD
in 1992 with only 43% of the vote. These same rules were used in the 2000
election that saw Bush win with 48% of the vote! So No, you still don't

get

Post by HOD
it and probably never will!
Read this monkey's post.... textbook liberal dishonesty, present them the
facts and they just refuse to accept them.... denial sets in and then the
lies come forth....... over and over and over! :-))

Post by Dan
I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the pResident. So the
electorate, minus bogus partisan gerrymandering, are a lot more evenly

split

Post by Dan
than this article suggests.

Post by HOD
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 11:17 p.m. EST
2004: Republicans Control Most States
The Democrats still don't get it.
The party that has dominated the American landscape from the

time

Post by Dan
FDR

Post by HOD
swept to power in 1932 has careened into near oblivion ever since

William

than

Post by HOD
blue, more Reagan Republican than Clinton Democrat.
Recently, State Legislatures Magazine reported that the 2003

elections

Post by HOD
brought only a few changes to the color-coded maps showing partisan

control

Post by HOD
of legislatures and governors' offices.
Democrats scored victories in New Jersey by seizing the

Legislature

Post by HOD
and in Louisiana by winning the governor's office.
Republicans captured governors' seats in California, Kentucky

and

Post by HOD
Mississippi, boosting their advantage 28 to 22.
Legislative elections in Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana did

not

Post by HOD
change party control.
Republicans continue to control more legislatures than

Democrats,

Post by HOD
by

Post by Dan
a

Post by HOD
21-17 margin. Eleven states are split between the two parties.

(Nebraska

Post by HOD
legislators are chosen in nonpartisan elections.)
In 29 states, government is divided between the two major

political

Post by HOD
parties. In 12 states, Republicans hold all the cards.
In eight states, the Democrats control both the governor's

office

Post by Dan
and

Post by HOD
legislature.

HOD

2004-01-04 12:56:10 UTC

I'll say it again, Al Gore did not receive more qualified lawful votes in
the presidential process. You remain confused and simply do not understand
the election laws that have been in place for many many years. You are
simply ignorant to the law..... the votes of which you reference are not
acceptable, they don't count... if they did you'd know it! Maybe some day
they will, but today they are not legal votes counted toward the election
process!... now, retard..... learn to live with it cause you're not going to
change it...... :-))

Post by HOD
Al Gore did not have more qualified lawful votes than Bush.. That is

simply

elected

Post by HOD
in 1992 with only 43% of the vote. These same rules were used in the 2000
election that saw Bush win with 48% of the vote! So No, you still don't

get

Post by Dan
I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the pResident. So the
electorate, minus bogus partisan gerrymandering, are a lot more evenly

split

Post by Dan
than this article suggests.

Post by HOD
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 11:17 p.m. EST
2004: Republicans Control Most States
The Democrats still don't get it.
The party that has dominated the American landscape from the

time

Post by Dan
FDR

Post by HOD
swept to power in 1932 has careened into near oblivion ever since

William

than

Post by HOD
blue, more Reagan Republican than Clinton Democrat.
Recently, State Legislatures Magazine reported that the 2003

elections

Post by HOD
brought only a few changes to the color-coded maps showing partisan

control

Post by HOD
of legislatures and governors' offices.
Democrats scored victories in New Jersey by seizing the

Legislature

Post by HOD
and in Louisiana by winning the governor's office.
Republicans captured governors' seats in California, Kentucky

and

Post by HOD
Mississippi, boosting their advantage 28 to 22.
Legislative elections in Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana did

not

Post by HOD
change party control.
Republicans continue to control more legislatures than

Democrats,

Post by HOD
by

Post by Dan
a

Post by HOD
21-17 margin. Eleven states are split between the two parties.

(Nebraska

Post by HOD
legislators are chosen in nonpartisan elections.)
In 29 states, government is divided between the two major

political

Post by HOD
parties. In 12 states, Republicans hold all the cards.
In eight states, the Democrats control both the governor's

office

Post by Dan
and

Post by HOD
legislature.

E.E.Bud Keith

2004-01-03 21:37:23 UTC

Post by Dan
I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the pResident. So the
electorate, minus bogus partisan gerrymandering, are a lot more evenly split
than this article suggests.

Do you find it difficult to see by the numbers that you are right on a
national level but wrong on a state by state level.

Post by HOD
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 2003 11:17 p.m. EST
2004: Republicans Control Most States
The Democrats still don't get it.
The party that has dominated the American landscape from the time

FDR

elections

Post by HOD
brought only a few changes to the color-coded maps showing partisan

control

Post by Dan
a

and

Post by HOD
legislature.

r***@whiner.com

2004-01-03 21:21:47 UTC

Post by Dan
I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the pResident. So the
electorate, minus bogus partisan gerrymandering, are a lot more evenly split
than this article suggests.

and, not only that, but poor HodgePodgeloon won't tally up the number of years
"liberals" held power from 1900--2000, how many national programs were begun under
liberal presidents, how many wars were sucessfully prosecuted by liberal presidents, how
many civil rights we gained under liberal presidents/congresses.

-------------------------------------------------

"The Afghan Mujahadeens are the moral equivalent
of the Founding Fathers of America."

-Ronald Reagan

HOD

2004-01-04 12:50:21 UTC

Post by r***@whiner.com

Post by Dan
I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the pResident. So the
electorate, minus bogus partisan gerrymandering, are a lot more evenly split
than this article suggests.

and, not only that, but poor HodgePodgeloon won't tally up the number of years
"liberals" held power from 1900--2000,

The main reason for many if not most of our problems!

Post by r***@whiner.com
how many national programs were begun under
liberal presidents,

All of the 'give-a-way' programs, all of the "punish the successful"
programs, to name a couple!

Post by r***@whiner.com
how many wars were sucessfully prosecuted by liberal presidents, how
many civil rights we gained under liberal presidents/congresses.

I would be very interested in reviewing your list of "liberal" presidents
that successfully prosecuted wars!
Care to share?

GENOMEMAN

2004-01-04 15:41:57 UTC

Post by r***@whiner.com

Post by Dan
I get that in 2000 Gore had more votes than the pResident. So the
electorate, minus bogus partisan gerrymandering, are a lot more evenly

split

Post by r***@whiner.com

Post by Dan
than this article suggests.

and, not only that, but poor HodgePodgeloon won't tally up the number of

years

Post by r***@whiner.com
"liberals" held power from 1900--2000,

The main reason for many if not most of our problems!

Post by r***@whiner.com
how many national programs were begun under
liberal presidents,

All of the 'give-a-way' programs, all of the "punish the successful"
programs, to name a couple!

Post by r***@whiner.com
how many wars were sucessfully prosecuted by liberal presidents, how
many civil rights we gained under liberal presidents/congresses.

I would be very interested in reviewing your list of "liberal" presidents
that successfully prosecuted wars!
Care to share?

Kennedy?
Johnson?

Ooooook.

Ashland Henderson

2004-01-03 23:50:21 UTC