Passions

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Before the election it was fashionable to dismiss both candidates with a sneering "Tweedledum or Tweedledee". True-believer Liberals were not enthused about Gore; true-believer Conservatives were not enthused about Bush and Libertarians and Greens were too haughty for either one.

Now, it is suddenly very important who wins. What happened? Was the early disinterest just a pose or has the nation actually become more serious about political issues as a result of this strangest of elections?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 27, 2000

Answers

Frenzy generated by impatience and an unwillingness to turn off the damn television (just a guess). Adrenaline is quite addictive.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 27, 2000.

...or has the nation actually become more serious about political issues as a result of this strangest of elections?

I don't know, Lars. Do you get the impression folks are researching election history more now than prior to this debacle? I have enjoyed reading about the Hayes/Tilden affair. Looking back it is easy to see the political parties continue to place winning elective office ahead of proper ethical conduct.

I heard on Imus in the Morning today that folks who voted with machines that created dimples in some chads had their hands on the ballots and were supposed to check them for accuracy. Is this true? Anyone else hear the show this morning or use one of these machines?

Rich

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), November 27, 2000.


>> Greens were too haughty for either one. <<

[Sights squarely down his nose at Lars...] Harrumph! Well, I never! Of all the... Haughty? Me? Puh-leeeze! Don't let the powdered wig and pince-nez fool you. I'm just plain folks. Really.

A

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 27, 2000.


I think those who know me can vouch for me when I say I have always been passionate about this election, and about politics in general. I listen to talk radio a lot more than I watch television, btw. Maybe that's the difference between our collective brainwashing? :-)

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), November 27, 2000.

Well, somewhat to my surprise, this election has rekindled some personal fires that had been banked (I'm talking politics here). I don't think there will be TEOTWAWKI if my candidate loses but the closeness of the election has shaken some of my complacency. And I'm sure that is true of many.

At the least, I hope that reforms in voting procedures will result from this dead-lock.

-- Lars (lars@indy.ne), November 27, 2000.



Question for Brian--

I can't find the Green Party vote results for Florida. Do you know it? Did the Greens lose it for Gore?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 27, 2000.


Bingo, you are correct. The voters who used the punch ballot in Florida had written instuctions for checking the accuracy of their ballot before handing it in.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 27, 2000.

>> I can't find the Green Party vote results for Florida. <<

Nader got about 95,000 votes in Florida.

>> Did the Greens lose it for Gore? <<

No. Bush took a lot more votes away from Al than Ralph did.

I still find it hard that Gore supporters can't grasp that Nader voters didn't want to vote for Gore. They wanted to vote for Nader. Not Gore. Nader. Simple concept. A vote for Nader was a vote for Nader! Believe me, Gore shook the tree so hard he dislodged pretty much every Nader vote that was not solidly, impeturbably, irrevocably for Nader.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 27, 2000.


Brian--

That is very interesting. No, I didn't mean that the Greens didn't want to vote for Nader as compared to Gore. But had Nader not been in the race, I bet enough of these 95000 would have gone to Gore to enable him to beat Bush soundly in FL.

Anyway, save the manatees.

PS-where are these numbers published? I can't find them.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 27, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ