I’m Trying To Remember…
By Mitch Berg
…by how many points “the polls” gave Kerry the ’04 election in January of ’04. Or for that matter Algore in ’00.
I seem to remember them looking pretty bad for the President in both cases.
Just saying.
18 Responses to “I’m Trying To Remember…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:33 am
You’re right, Mitch, you can’t trust polls. Do you remember that election-day poll of voters nationwide in 2000 that predicted Al Gore winning? When it turned out that Our President really won by a 5-4 margin!
January 14th, 2008 at 8:00 am
I love it when lawyers spend years going “look at the letter of the law, blessings be upon it”, on every conceivable question – as long as it benefits them (remember our mutual friend in Miami as re US v. Miller?) who then get the vapors when the letter of the law, aka the Constitution and the Electoral College, deals them a minor setback.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Angryclown – not a lawyer, but a humble angry busker – would have been more than happy if the 2000 election had followed the letter of the law. Or the spirit of the law. Or some basic notion that elections in a democrac country shouldn’t be stolen outright. Any one of those three woulda worked just fine for Angryclown.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:33 am
AC-
Bill Clinton was constitutionally unable to remain president after Jan 21, 2001. Since there was no time to do a statewide recount between Dec 12 and Jan 21, what was the SC supposed to do? Allow the Florida supreme court to mandate recounts only in those districts that were likely to find more votes for Gore? Ever hear of equal protection?
I must’ve read a hundred articles and opinion pieces in the last seven years by Dem’s condemning the Supreme Court for annointing Bush President — yet none of these article’s author’s seemed to have ever considered that the alternative was to let the supreme court of Florida annoint Gore president.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I have heard of Equal Protection, Terry. Though you might want to be careful about asking for too much of it. Requiring equal protection in recounts is pretty close to requiring it up front – stuff like working voting machines in black neighborhoods, closer scrutiny of who gets purged from registration lists. And you wingnuts are all hopped up over using voter identification laws to keep Democrats from voting, with very little concern over Equal Protetion.
Of course the five Republican judges who put Bush in office tried their best to avoid the inconvenient possibility that someone might actually apply the Equal Protection clause to require equal access to voting. The majority claimed the case can’t be used as precedent.
“The Constitution requires X. Just this one time.”
Wingnuts are about power, not principle. So drop the pretensions. They only make Angryclown laugh.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:32 am
let me fix something for you.
“you wingnuts are all hopped up over using voter identification laws to keep Democrats from voting more than once“.
There, much better.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Yeah, cause that’s happening all the time, eh Master of Bation?
Equal Protection: not just for wingnuts anymore!
January 14th, 2008 at 10:43 am
It happens so much, that the opponents of Voter ID law couldn’t find one example of a Democrat that hadn’t tried.
http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/today/evening_star/doc478441f2313a5420740819.txt
January 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Voting twice and being registered in two locations aren’t the same thing, are they Master of Bation. And voting twice is a crime. Seems to me you should enforce the laws on the books, rather than coming up with new, unneccessary ones. You know, like you wingnuts constantly argue for when the topic turns to guns. Also you tend to whine a lot about too much government regulation, dontcha?
Oh wait, this post only makes sense if you were either logical or principled.
I got nothing.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am
“Voting twice and being registered in two locations aren’t the same thing, are they Master of Bation. ”
No they are not. Good thing she got caught. It was a fine example of how well the new law works.
Chuckles sez: “I got nothing.” status quo.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Nine months is a very long time in politics… Hell, two weeks is a long time in politics!
(Exit polls count, damn it! Exit polls count!!!)
January 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
AC: I just so love it when people agree with Al Gore (former VP and 2000 Loser of the Year) when he was quoted in Time a few years back as saying the same thing, that he was robbed by a 5-4 decision.
GWB did not win by a 5-4 margin. It was 7-2. The Supremes found for GWB 7-2. It was 5-4 on the resolution/remedy phase of the case.
“Seven justices of this Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court,” according to a 7-2 “per curiam,” or unsigned, opinion in Bush v. Gore. “The only disagreement is as to the remedy.” (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/13/scotus.election.05/ ).
Glad to be small part of your ongoing education AC.
Oh, and BTW, Al Gore filed all the lawsuits in the shameful display, save one. And that was the one he lost.
And HAGD!.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Idiot. The remedy kinda matters here. Read the dissents. Not just the majority’s characterization of the dissents. Breyer (asserted by the court to have been part of that seven-justice “majority” – gee, wonder why he dissented) wanted to send the case back to the Florida Supreme Court with instructions that would have permitted a statewide recount using a uniform standard for counting the votes.
Breyer: “By halting the manual recount, and thus ensuring that the uncounted legal votes will not be counted under any standard, this Court crafts a remedy out of proportion to the asserted harm. And that remedy harms the very fairness interests the Court is attempting to protect.”
Stick to stuff you know about, Amendment X. Not sure what that would be, of course…
January 14th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
AC,
Two questions for you:
1) Do dissents usually carry the force of law?
2) What year is it now?
January 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Mr. D(umb),
Two answers for you:
1) You need to ask Amendment X about dissents. He thinks two of the Bush v. Gore dissents were actually concurrences.
2) 2008 for normal people; 1859 (and holding) for wingnuts.
January 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Actually, D, AC and his ilk believe it is actually 1969.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Woohoo! Mets win the Series!
January 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
AC,
Way to avoid question #1. That’s because you know the answer and it isn’t congenial to you. If I want to know what Amendment X thinks, I’ll be sure to ask him/her/it/whatever.
Also thanks for the ad hominem response. You stay classy!