I'm just worried that with Bush in a second term, he's going to be even more unrestrained than he is now because he won't be running for re-election. Also, we're going to lose at least 1, and most probably 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices this term. With the judges Bush has appointed to other positions, he's shown that he'll go for more right-wing than middle of the road people. The only consolation I give myself is that some justices have, in the past, been more middle of the road than the President who appointed them believed them to be.

As for Ohio, MSNBC has called it for Bush. Bush is going to claim victory in the late morning/early afternoon, last I heard. But Kerry isn't going to concede until all votes are counted, even though the number of ballots are about equal to Bush's lead (meaning all ballots would need to be for Kerry).

The only 'un-called' states that are going to go for Kerry are Wisconsin and NH, it seems. I guess I was off by only 1 electoral vote - I thought Kerry was going to have a total of 253, with Wisconsin and NH he'd have 252.

The reason that many of us are saddened today is that this place does have an international outlook, or at least many of us have tried to attain that over the years I've been here and, though you may say 'far cry' from mainstream America, perhaps you're right in that. I believe that many of the Americans who come here have a more open mind on the future. So perhaps it is skewed towards a candidate who was more open to the world. I do not find this place however to be the den of liberalism etc that you might think if you oppose that.

I certainly think that most of the Americans here considered their decision seriously, and that because this is an international board, those who preferred to not switch horses in midstream or whatever you're calling it now, felt that.
Though some people rather resent 'foreign' intrusion in the American political scene, they probably don't realize that this presidency had a large impact on the world and for many, many, people, negative impact. The negative impact outweighs the positive impact for many people, including about half of the States.

So perhaps the reason there were more people against Bush here is that, they were a bit more open to the world as this is international, not isolated politically as I feel so many Americans are.

Where else would they meet people from other countries and see what their opinions were?
Unfortunately, for some, that doesn't make a difference.

Oh well, I guess the good ole American way of life, two super pickup trucks with big wheels, 10 mpg, will continue to flourish as long as there is gas in the pump.

According to the front page of msnbc.com, Andrew Card (Bush's chief of staff) has declared victory for Bush.

Quote:

---

According to the front page of msnbc.com, Andrew Card (Bush's chief of staff) has declared victory for Bush.

---

Grrr...This is so devastating!



--------
Agnes (JTJ)

Well, to answer the question about why we use the electoral college. If it were direct popular vote, then the candidates would only have to focus on urban areas. You could campaign in the top 20 cities in the country and win. Forget about the rest of the country. That's not right. I really thought it would be closer for kerry, and i had hoped he would win, but voters in the south and heartland didnt "connect" w/ a new england liberal. Personally, I've met a lot of kerry supporters. My friends, family, and a lot of ppl on my campus. I'm willing to give bush another chance. I heard he's going to change his cabinet, which I hope to god he does. Get Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell out of there and I think bush would do a much better job. (Let's remember that Powell was a general, his CAREER has been to make war.) Bush listens to them for advice, and why not. Number one rule of leadership is to surround yourself w/ ppl who know more than you. They've been around. But I'm afraid those three, plus chaney, have a different agenda (taking care of business they didn't get done when they were in his dad's cabinet.) As for ashcroft..well..he lost a senate race to a dead guy, then bush gave him an office. With Iraq, bush screwed up. But he was going on what the CIA and his advisors were telling him. Frankly, in his first four years, i think he was in over his head and was just a tool. He deserves a fresh chance. I'm willing to give him one. Let's see if he can learn from his last four years and clean up his mess.

I rather like Nebraska's system, where the electoral votes are split by congressional districts and theoretically could be split between candidates. I think they should all work that way. But that is beside the point.

I do take a bit of issue with the idea that once a president is elected, in a "true democracy" we will support whomever that may be regardless how we voted. I think that is false, or at least misleading. It is our jobs as citizens to involve ourselves in our democracy not just on election day, but all throughout the year and throughout the term, and to hold our presidents and other elected officials to our highest standards if we can. I will never sit by and support President Bush in his war-mongering, not ever, and especially not for the ultimately shallow reason that he is president. We can, and should, and DO have a voice whenever policy is being made with which we disapprove.

I'm not happy that Bush will likely be president for 4 more years. I'm also not surprised. I said it weeks ago: I vote for Kerry, but I think Bush will win. But I'm not sad today. And the reason: This is it. I take comfort in that.

Quote:

---

Oh well, I guess the good ole American way of life, two super pickup trucks with big wheels, 10 mpg, will continue to flourish as long as there is gas in the pump.

---

I know what you mean, Bruyere, Sen. Kerry needs his own pump. LOL

From the Boston Herald

I've just seen a news flash saying John Kerry has conceeded the election.

It will be nice if everyone involved handles their defeat/victory in a gracious manner. It seems that the media, with segments everyday showing people criticizing Bush and praising Kerry, were a little confused.

I always liked Powell from the moment he said that the people who avoided going to Vietnam made him really angry but feel that he sold everyone out when he joined the Bush administration.He was in the Bush camp solely for his likeability and that people liked him which was more than could have been said for the rest of the bunch

Powell's foreign policy ideas I really do like. (And, to some extent, I like Rice.) Powell was basically chosen as Sec. of State because Bush was coming in without a mandate (having lost the popular vote) in a contested election and Powell was someone that the majority of voters actually liked. It gave Bush's administration a bit of credibility and a nod that although he was very Republican, he'd also be considering viewpoints other than his own (as i don't believe Powell is as far to the right as Bush is). But then you get the fact that Bush has never really listened to Powell, called for a key vote in deciding to go to war (with Iraq I believe, but it could have been Afghanistan, I forget which) after Powell went on vacation and ignored Powell's subordinate who was sent to keep him (Powell) up to date and to give the State Dept.'s view on the matter.

Now the big question is going to be whether Powell is staying or going. He's been quoted as saying he won't stay and it's only been the past two or three months that I've seen any sort of indication that he'd even consider staying.

I think if Bush wants to do better on the foreign policy (which, I believe, is what a lot of Americans who didn't vote for Bush dislike), he needs to listen to the people who *do* foreign policy like Powell and to some extent Rice instead of listening to people like Rumsfeld and Ashcroft who really aren't that involved or knowledgable on the subject. The State Dept. specialises in foreign policy - so Bush needs to learn to listen and trust them instead of people who he happens to like.

archernar. The rural voice would not be heard. Judging from the results, the rural (mostly republican)voice is louder than the urban (mostly democrat.

But the fact is, a democracy is about the will of all the people in a country. If indeed one could win solely on the cities, then so be it, that's the way the country's laid out. In a way, rural areas are just another minority, only one on grounds of locality, not race. A democracy to some degree entails the loss of the minority, and I don't really think a special system (That is, an electoral college) is required.

The electoral college was designed so that if the people got caught up in some sort of madness and voted a 'bad' person, the electors could be the check to stop that person from coming to power. (Sort of like if a HItler riled up the people, the electors could vote for someone else to prevent that Hitler-like person from becoming president.)

Democracy doesn't mean mob rule. The Founding Fathers worried about the dangers in rule by the majority when this country was established, and the same problems exist today: a ruling by the majority could severly trample on the rights of the minority. Of course, the people that we elect need to represent our beliefs and political ideals, so it is hard to find the middle ground.

Anyways, bush won the popular vote as well.

we live in a republic, not a democracy.
"the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government..."- United States Constitution: Article 4, Section 4

Quote:

---

I don't care if he's President of the United States or my next door neighbor, I don't hold speech patterns against a person.

---

With respect, I do believe that there is a world of difference between the president and a next door neighbour. I once had an undecipherable "speech pattern"too. I knew I was going to be a role model in my career , so I worked very hard to make myself understood by the children I would teach, as they would be looking up to me and emulating me in many cases. I still think a President should do the same.Tony Blair, for all he is a yes man and a sheep, at least bleats in English.

I hold speech patterns against a person if they are contrived to garner favor with a certain element. I believe that is the case with the President. Neither his parents nor his brother speak in that manner, and his upbringing belies it. If a woman speaks like she's stupid so that men aren't intimidated by her, I DO hold it against her. The same holds true for President Bush.

I hope the President proves me wrong this term. I hope he is a better leader than I believe he has shown himself to be these last four years. I hope that by the time my daughter starts school, which will be shortly before his term is up, the school system in my state hasn't been pared down to practically nothing due to lack of funding. I hope "tax relief" (which is really no kind of relief at all if it means important programs must be cut because of a lack of tax revenues, and whoever coined the term tax relief was an evil genius to be able to convince the American people it was true) doesn't put us even further into debt than we already are. I hope the budget can be balanced without loosing every important government funded program except our military. I hope my worst fears do not come true. But you know, I have hope. I guess I must.

Just wanted to commend Kerry on his graceful concession to the nation and his gentlemanly manners. Instead of making us go through more stress than we need now, he conceded once it was almost certain that the provisional ballots would not amount to enough to put Bush's win in jeopardy.
I think we're going to miss out on someone who has a lot of class.

I also thought his speech was good, though, it's not going to help the many people who are saddened and yet hard to express this as one knows that half of the people you're seeing in your day voted for Bush.

Today I was waiting for service on my car, went in to see the dealer and we said something about a customer who'd just come from Aghanistan after a year there in the service.
And being African American and a former military, he said, 'that guy must have seen a lot...'
We looked at each other, and I said,'Sorry, but the person I chose did not win...'
'Me neither'
And we shook hands.

November 3, 2004: a sad day in America. How in the he[ck] is it possible for bush (I refuse to capitalise his name!) to have been reelected?

Going back 4 years ago, bush left the state of Florida on Election Day, and low and behold, that state became the battleground state. Flash forward to this Election Day, bush left Ohio at 2 PM and now that state is the battleground state. Seems awful fishy to me!

I keep hearing all this talk about how bush won the "popular vote" and that that now counts, even if Kerry somehow won Ohio. Um, excuse me? Since when did the popular vote come into play? It surely didn't come into play in 2000, did it? No! If we take what the bush administration is spewing, then Gore should have been elected President, not bush!

Because of bush, we only have England and Australia as allies, when we used to have much more. Because of bush, we were thrown out of the UN. When is the insanity going to stop?

bush for another 4 years? The thought just turns my stomach.