John Adams

The thrid rail. Bush might tackle it. If he's got any balls, he'll keep his promise to older peeps, and then get out of the business of trying to save for people who can't save. Back to reality. All he'll do is reaise the age of retirement to 68 or something, putting a band aid on the problem. Privatization is a farce. First, it's not "privitization," although that's the term Republicans who have forgotten what private property use. Losers. What it is, is taking government stolen funds allocated for SS (the ones that haven't already been borrowed against - right George, you theiving pinhead), and investing those gov't funds in the market. This leads to a HUGE problem: how the hell do you let the government take on this invenstment? Do they buy Merck? Halliburton? What happens if they do it wrong? Would you trust the Fed to do it right? And even if you let people invest some amount of SS on their own, what if they do something stupid- guess who catches them when they fall? Uncle Sam. And you're back to square one of paying for people who can't save.

My wife has a friend who was driving back to her home state after cavassing for Kerry over the last few days. She was listening to NPR for about 4 hours during her drive, and was feeling great about the election results, which seemed to be going Kerry's way. Then her sister called her to commiserate about the loss. The NPR bubble woman was distraught to find out that basically everyone was giving the election to Bush when NPR had been leading her to believe that it was close and looked like Kerry would win. I like some shows on NPR and credit them for trying to bring the average level of radio discourse up from the talk show dregs of Rush, Hannity, and if there was a Liberal national name, I'd insert him here too, but you can't think they are an unbiased source of news.

Bush wouldn't let unemployment drop too low; he added 800,00 government jobs on his watch. You "Conservatives" make me laugh and laugh (and cry and cry). Is there anyone left who believes in smaller government, and is willing to put their vote where their convictions are? Bueller?

Classy.

Is there any poll that accurately called this state by state?

Kerry to concede publicly at 1pm; already called Bush.

Actually, he launched cruise missles at Osama.

So... why the hullabaloo then? Do you think the Right wing crowd is ready to approve same sex unions with benefits? If so, pass the pipe brother. The Right has made this into a moral compass issue, and deems it the government role to define the moral compass on this.

He wants an apology from me. That's all this thread is about. Sorry Scott: you are really quite the man.

You mean getting benefits and being able to pass on property?

I preferred Dole over Clinton; I wouldn't vote for George Bush Jr. if you and Scott were running against him. Clinton was not the divider Bush is; I can't imagine Clinton losing the undecideds to Bush.

The Dems didn't go down- the Right pushed these bills. Most gay people wanted no part of this balloting- they know the majority of America isn't ready to endorse gay marriage. I can't understand why America cares what adults do in their bedrooms, but I guess most people think it's their business who people love, who they will their property to, and who they spend their committed lives with. Further intrusiveness of big government.

There's no denying that Bill loved Bill, but there's also no denying that the current admin grew the size of govt more than Bill. Even if you don't count homeland security. That's pretty shocking- so call Clinton a liberal all you want, but the true big government guy just got reelected.

Yeah- it's a funny thing about Clinton that he wasn't that liberal on many issues. He signed into law welfare reform. He was fiscally pretty conservative, and didn't push to spend the surpluses the economoy of the 90s gave him. Clinton would have killed Bush.

We could easily both be jumping the gun on that prediction. Kerry was a crappy candidate- Dean would have had a better chance at winning. And in 1988, who could have predicted that the governer of Arkansas would be the next president? Maybe 2008 is the year of Obama.

Funny. Every network that rips them used them.

Good job to Bush and the Republicans and all that. I'm now 0-4 in presidential elections, having at least twice voted for major party candidates. How does this really strong Republican alliance between the less intrusive gov't and more intrusive gov't continue to exist? I'm really curious. It seems like the big tent has two factions: the Bush/Ashcroft people whose vision of American government is that it needs to provide a moral compass vs. the Guiliani/Schwarzenaeger crowd whose focus is on getting government out of our lives. I like the later bunch, but they are not in control, which is really obvious from this election, in which the Christian Republicans showed up in droves to help Bush win a solid victory. In 1992, Perot showed that schism when he ran- drawing the small gov't people out of the ranks and dividing Bush I's base. Will the Republicans ever schism between the big government moral compass types and the small government people? (BTW, I think the Democrats are really rudderless now- this was their Take back America election and they got whupped. They don't have, at the moment, one candidate they could say is the future of the party.)

The only differences in electoral counting is population shift (+12 for the Red states so far). CNN 2004 vs 2000 scorecard

What Pennsylvanians really want to know is what the turnout was for Crippen.

Seems to me like OH will go to Bush. And I'm no political hack.

Cuyahoga will not make up the difference at this point. I think OH goes to Bush. EDIT: I take this back...kind of. At CNN, it says 67% *precincts* reporting in... that is not voters. Still, doesn't seem like Cleveland can make up the 130K difference.

I'll drink to that.

See my first post. In PA, Bush is losing by between 8-10 % right now. In 2000, he lost by 4%. Guess you wouldn't need to report that he's further behind this time around. Keep spreading your side of the story though.

Seems like Cinci is not a Demo stronghold though, and if anything it goes a little right, no? That seemed to be the implication of what I read earlier. Agreed that the people jumping the gun on Cleveland are insane. There's something like 400,000 more votes to come from that county alone (the current ratio in Cuyahoga is about 2:1 Kerry, which, if it keeps up, will wipe out Bush's lead). Will probably be tight either way.

From the actual county by county results in OH, cuyahoga county (where Cleveland is), has only reported 50% of its votes.