Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/25/2004 12:44:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2004 12:46:09 PM EST by Cincinnatus]
...and it IS a possibility.

Here's how...

Battleground States-

Same numbers as 2000, but:


NM Bush
NH Kerry
MO Bush
OH Bush
FL Kerry
WI Bush
MN Kerry
HI Kerry

IA Bush
PA Kerry


If that happened, it would be a tie.
The House would vote on who becomes the president.
But the Senate would decide who's the Veep.

Imagine if they tried to filibuster....

Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:47:34 PM EST
The House and Senate will not have any part in deciding the election.

This election WILL be decided in the courts, and only half of the country will agree with it either way.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:48:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
The House and Senate will not have any part in deciding the election.

This election WILL be decided in the courts, and only half of the country will agree with it either way.


True.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:53:46 PM EST
I agree, but disagree.

There will no doubt be many cases, but just like in 2000, the courts will not "decide" who wins.
They will decide which case has merit. This may affect which EVs go to which candidate (depending on the nature of the many cases).

At the end of the day, however, there will still be EVs to count, anbd there COULD be a tie.


The courts do not, and cannot "award" an election.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:54:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2004 1:02:31 PM EST by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
I agree, but disagree.

There will no doubt be many cases, but just like in 2000, the courts will not "decide" who wins.
They will decide which case has merit. This may affect which EVs go to which candidate (depending on the nature of the many cases).

At the end of the day, however, there will still be EVs to count, anbd there COULD be a tie.


The courts do not, and cannot "award" an election.



You know what I meant.

I still don't think that it will end up in a tie. To be honest with you, if this election is not resolved completely after the court fights, then any vote in congress will be viewed as partisans stealing the election. If the courts come to a resolution that puts one cantidate ahead, then it would give SOME credibility to the election. But if a newly elected Republican held house and Republican held Senate "select" Bush, then the election will have no "credibility" either way.

I say this merely from a perspective of perception, but unfortunately perception is everything these days.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:55:43 PM EST
What a mess that would be!
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:56:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:56:41 PM EST
There could still be a tie.

If the states I listed, ended up as I listed them, in 2000....
THAT would have been the result, had Gore won FLA.
A tie.

Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:58:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Isn't Bush slightly ahead in Michigan now? That tosses 17 votes in the ring to battle over.


No.
Most polls have it as a lock for Kerry.
Zogby has Kerry +10 in Michigan.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:00:29 PM EST
I thought the tie always went to the runner? I.E. incumbant.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:01:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Isn't Bush slightly ahead in Michigan now? That tosses 17 votes in the ring to battle over.


No.
Most polls have it as a lock for Kerry.
Zogby has Kerry +10 in Michigan.



The Detroit News (semi-conservative paper) has Bush up by 4%.

The Detroit Free Press (left wing paper) has Kerry up by 1%
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:01:46 PM EST
Nope.

A vote in the House.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:02:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2004 1:03:51 PM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Isn't Bush slightly ahead in Michigan now? That tosses 17 votes in the ring to battle over.


No.
Most polls have it as a lock for Kerry.
Zogby has Kerry +10 in Michigan.



The Detroit News (semi-conservative paper) has Bush up by 4%.

That poll is 4 days old.
Zogby is from Sunday.



The Detroit Free Press (left wing paper) has Kerry up by 1%


As of when?
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:03:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2004 1:05:02 PM EST by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Isn't Bush slightly ahead in Michigan now? That tosses 17 votes in the ring to battle over.


No.
Most polls have it as a lock for Kerry.
Zogby has Kerry +10 in Michigan.



The Detroit News (semi-conservative paper) has Bush up by 4%.

The Detroit Free Press (left wing paper) has Kerry up by 1%


As of when?



Yesterday.

Kerry is actually being forced to come back here this evening to try and shore up support, and Bush will be here on Wednesday. I live 3 blocks from where Kerry will be tonight. He should be screwing up my drive home in about 10 minutes.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:04:14 PM EST
How about that.
Even better.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:06:46 PM EST
No way it will be a tie, even if it is, it means 4 MORE YEARS!
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:06:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:07:00 PM EST
It was just announced that Chief Justice Rehnquist was hospitalized with some form of cancer. So it is unknown if he will be capable of preforming his duties this may get very interesting to say the least.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:07:38 PM EST
What election are you guys talking about?





Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:19:27 PM EST
1. If it's thrown to the House, it won't be a matter of "partisans stealing the election," it will be a matter of partisans having an election, exactly as provided for by the Constitution. An Electoral College tie doesn't go to a panel of Unitarian Universalist ministers: it goes to the House, which is by design the most partisan, least decorous, and most raucous organ of government.

2. There are no filibusters in the House.

Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:25:30 PM EST
There are for the the selection of the Veep, in the Senate.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:27:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
1. If it's thrown to the House, it won't be a matter of "partisans stealing the election," it will be a matter of partisans having an election, exactly as provided for by the Constitution. An Electoral College tie doesn't go to a panel of Unitarian Universalist ministers: it goes to the House, which is by design the most partisan, least decorous, and most raucous organ of government.




True, but the rhetoric and accusations over the next 4 years will be unbearable. I would rather see the election settled in the courts (actually, I would rather see the loser graciously concede, but that ain't happenin') than settled in the congress.

Is it wrong to want to see the least devisive resolution?
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:28:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:31:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
There are for the the selection of the Veep, in the Senate.



Sorry. I misread the original post. You are exactly correct.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:34:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
What has me boggled, is the extreme hatred the leftists have for our President. I could understand them having a dislike for his platform, but many actually despise / hate the guy.




I cannot understand it either. The thing that gets me is the fact that George Bush has done so many things that liberals SHOULD love!

- Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
- $15 Billion for AIDS in Africa
- Increased the Medicare prescription drug benefit

and that's just for starters! I don't know where the hate comes from, but it is wearing me out! We need to either unite or divide, but this endless war of words is more than I can stand.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:34:31 PM EST
There is a scenario where we could have a Republican president and a dem VP.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:34:46 PM EST
Is there a chance in hell that NH would go with Kerry? I always thought it was a bastion of freedom in a cold part of the country????
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:43:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
There is a scenario where we could have a Republican president and a dem VP.


No, only if the the senate changes.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 2:04:57 PM EST
Right.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 2:29:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2004 2:30:27 PM EST by shaggy]

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
What has me boggled, is the extreme hatred the leftists have for our President. I could understand them having a dislike for his platform, but many actually despise / hate the guy.

And here I thought ignorance was bliss. Apparently the left's ignorance of a logical choice is fury.





Bush is to the dems what klinton was to us. And on top of it, they're still pissed about the 2000 election and Gore's loss, which they perceive as being 'stolen' from them.


Part of the reason I want to see Bush win so bad is to twist the knife a little more on the dems so they can really 'feel our pain' for having to live under klinton for eight long years.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 2:37:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2004 2:38:05 PM EST by 1911lover]

Originally Posted By Shooter505:
It was just announced that Chief Justice Rehnquist was hospitalized with some form of cancer. So it is unknown if he will be capable of preforming his duties this may get very interesting to say the least.



He can...even from his hosp. bed if necessary. There is precedence for it.
Top Top