jackie hayes

If California goes for Bush, I never listen to a pundit for the rest of my life.

W/o anything from the biggest city (Miami), I can't guess whether or not that's meaningful at all.

I keep hearing these snippets about how the Republicans are optimistic about Florida. W/ the demographics I've seen, I find that hard to believe.

I REALLY wish I had CNN. I hate all these damn commercials (NBC).

Even better is the NYT site, http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections2004/2004President.html. They have % reporting, which is something that I totally don't need to know, doesn't tell me anything (not enough detail there), but I really really want to know it anyway. What can I say, I'm not so bright.

Thanks. How is everyone calling WV when they report no returns in?

Is there anywhere online that has a table like this that updates regularly? Alabama [bush vote]% [Kerry vote]% [Percent in]% Alaska ... Arkansas ... etc. I can find the numbers for each state, but I wish I could see these all on one page.

Not in so many words, but you made it clear enough that you assumed Brian knew who you supported, so I don't think it's accurate to say you've kept it under wraps. But if only explicit mentions are taboo, would you drop your objections to this piece if the first and last paragraphs were dropped? (Those are the only 2 paragraphs that mention his choice explicitly.)

I think you're right, so yes, I exaggerated on that point.

What I don't understand is that you upbraid the writer for promoting a candidate in an online forum, while you've clearly promoted a candidate yourself, in this online forum (soxtalk). Seeing as you're both unidentified (according to what I've read in this thread), what's the difference? I mean this as a serious question, not as a flame.

Let me say that I understand the frustration, but I think you made the right choice. Four years ago I wrote-in a candidate who wasn't on the ballot, who was just about my ideal candidate. And I felt okay about it at the time. But now my feeling about that election is that I just wasn't willing to make a hard choice, and I regret that. Realistically, America only has 2 choices, neither one very good. I think it's more honest to make that tough decision with the rest of America than to make a statement w/ your vote that the process is too flawed for you to participate. Now I know, I really do, that many people feel very strongly o/w. And I have a lot of sympathy with that group. I would much, much prefer a multiparty system. But a vote like this will go nowhere towards realizing that goal (protest votes are by and large ignored, reported as "Other", on a par with votes for Mickey Mouse). That's something to work on over the next few years; for today it's best to choose the lesser of 2 evils. (Or bads, to not be overly dramatic.)

No, Section 3 begins "If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President." The part you quoted qualifies that by directing that, if the VP elect is not qualified to be president (citizen, over 35, born in the United States), Congressional law (kind of redundant, yeah, I just mean to contrast it to the Constitution as law) will determine the placeholder president who will serve until the VP elect (say) reaches his 35th year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like the most natural interpretation. For anyone curious, here's the text.

I don't think that's what "qualify" means, and anyways ss2k4 was asking specifically about what happens if Kerry gets elected, so that is just assumed. So I'm pretty sure Edwards becomes the president in that case. Hypertechnically, it may be possible that Kerry is elected Prez, but someone other than Edwards is elected VP (tons of weirdly rogue/drunk electors) -- I'm not sure. But that's just not going to happen, even if it is possible.

Why not? Edwards seems to qualify, he's over 35 and a native American. What am I missing?

Edwards becomes the president (20th Amendment).

Okay, if I wasn't clear, I meant a cost to the US government. But that's something that you and I should take very seriously.

B/c it costs the govt revenue. I think you're saying that it's a decrease in revenue, while only an increase in expenditure is a "cost" -- but they both affect the government's net position in the same way, so the terminology is not very important, and anyway it is a common expression.

I disagree. The popular vote is representative of the people. The electoral college may be representative of the geography, but I don't see why that should be important. There's more red space, sure, but there are fewer people there. Why is (relatively) empty space due more votes? Okay, I don't want to be repetitive, and I think I've said my piece. I'm retiring from this debate.

So he'll probably take that, right? Anything to indicate that he'll decline it? No reason to chance it for $1 mil, max. Oops, question's already answered. Sorry, a little slow on the buzzer today.

Don't dare plagiarise Rotoworld w/ qwerty around... Seriously, do you have a special Rotoworld wire machine in your home? Do you read their copy? Don't get me wrong, it's a great site, but man you know that stuff chapter and verse.

No, even Foulke didn't get that much. I don't know much about salaries, but I'd guess somewhere around $4 mil, depending on health. I like the idea though.

Just wanted to toss in my 2 cents, I'll try not to be this serious ever again : Kerry. After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush started off with a speech on the WTC ruins that was in its way more sublime than anything else I've heard from a president in my lifetime. Take away that one moment, however, and I find nothing to give me any confidence in the Bush administration. From the sunset clause in the tax bill used to make the costs appear smaller, to a massive expansion in spending (much of it discretionary nondefense spending) while promising fiscal responsibility, to the empty action on education, to the nonaction on free trade and immigration issues (on both of which I largely agree w/ the President's views), to the bravado shown in justifying the Iraq war when there were so many reasonable experts claiming the facts were wrong, to the insincerity of claiming that the President was actively supporting the assault weapons ban; I just don't trust the President. Kerry is not my ideal candidate, in fact I more or less dislike him. He obviously has problems. But in a comparison, I can't in good conscience stick with the Republicans. For example, Kerry's health plan will be more expensive than he acknowledges, but less expensive than Bush's private savings accounts. And at least Kerry is willing to provide a guess at costs, and enough detail to check the accuracy of that guess. I respect his candor on Social Security. Neither Bush nor Kerry has any real plan to fix SS, at least Kerry will say as much. The environment is at least under discussion in a Kerry presidency, even if largely in the wrong way (ethanol, eg). Bush's record has been awful and his administration has been intentionally misleading. He has said precious little on any concrete issue. I can't vote that type of administration a second term.

I don't watch at all now, I watch MadTV or a movie. It's amazing how far that show's fallen (again), in only a couple years. Even the first show this season was wretched -- they had the WHOLE rerun season to work on that one show, and squat. Forte's okay, but I still miss Will Ferrell. "So guess what? You're on the axis of evil. How'd ya like them apples, France?"

Thanks, I hadn't noticed this. It's about 10x better than the dead air they're broadcasting on Saturday nights lately.

I still don't see the logic in focusing on small state issues as an a priori good -- they are important to fewer people than large state issues, after all. I'm not saying the argument is obviously wrong, maybe there is some justification -- I just haven't heard it. 2000 is a concern. I mean, the outcome was absolutely right under the rules of the electoral college, it was the correct outcome. But I still prefer a simple general election, one person, one vote. No doubt, the situation's rare. But that's no reason (if it is wrong) to not switch to a system where that never happens. So to me, it is still crucial to justify giving disproportionate influence to smaller states.