![]() | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Another Record Month | Main | Osama: Full Text » November 1, 2004My Prediction
Posted in Campaign Season
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
If you are correct, I will make my first contribution to the tip jar. Oh, what the heck, even if you are wrong, I will contribute. Why not give it to you instead of letting kerry tax it. Posted by: JDG at November 1, 2004 12:45 PMThose maps are fun to play with. Although I think you might be reaching a bit predicting a Bush victory in Michigan. And look out for Florida -- I feel a huge tidal wave of Kerry support to take the state for the Democrats. Should be interesting to see what happens regardless. Posted by: TomJ at November 1, 2004 12:58 PMI think you may need to flip Ohio and Florida...I think the GOP is much better on the ground in Ohio than Florida. Also, look for Bush to take Hawaii... As for Minnesota and Michigan, I like your optimism...wish I shared it right now. Posted by: DP at November 1, 2004 01:33 PMI pray that you are right. I am getting so nervous by this ever changing polls that I will vote early tomorrow morning and not turn on the news tomorrow until 11:00 pm EDT. Posted by: Joel at November 1, 2004 01:37 PMBill, good luck with that map scenario. morton Sorry, it doesn't compute. If Bush loses OH & PA (as you say; I disagree), he'll also lose Iowa & MN & probably WV & Colorado. TomCom Posted by: TomCom at November 1, 2004 03:24 PMCould some conservative (the kind who regularly whines about liberal activist judges) explain to me how you can rationalize the Supreme Court's intervention into the 2000 presidential election, which represented one of the boldest, most activist examples of a federal court preempting a state's right to define what its law means? Or is it that your "conservative principles" don't apply when they might help a Democrat become president? Posted by: TomJ at November 1, 2004 04:12 PMEasy,Tom. The Florida Supreme Court was violating the equal protection clause by allowing recounts in only three counties under vote-counting standards not used in the rest of Florida. And the Florida court was violating Florida's election laws to do so. It was tyranny by a court, and the US Supreme Court rightly stepped in an reaffirmed the equal protection clause. You're mistake, TomJ, is thinking that the Florida COURT had a right to make Florida election law. It didn't. That law was made by the Florida legislature, and the Florida court was trying to alter it or ignore it. Posted by: Bill at November 1, 2004 04:41 PMBill you need to re-read the Supreme Court's decision: "For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition" But I guess it was a good thing the Supreme Court was so "non-activist" and decided to selectively apply the federal equal protection clause to get involved in a state law matter. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would be proud! Posted by: TomJ at November 1, 2004 05:01 PMYou need to stop cherry-picking sections that only support your argument, TomJ. It was NOT necessary to determine if the FSC had the authority to deviate from legislation, the FSC was in clear violation of the 14th Amendment and was called on it. Anything after that is no longer important, because whether or not they had authority to overturn legislature at that time had no bearing on the fact that they were violating a Constitutional Amendment. If the violation of the Constitution had turned out to be nothing (or proven to NOT be a violation), THEN the determination of the FSC's authority over legislation would come into play, but since that scenario never happened, the SCOTUS never bothered with that line of thinking. The Florida Supreme Court was caught violating a Constitutional Amendment. They were told to stop. Gore lost, get over it. Thanks for playing, though. Try again later. Posted by: Raging Dave at November 1, 2004 05:31 PMFunny how conservatives bemoan federal application of the equal protection clause to cases interpreting state law in virtually every other case, but LO AND BEHOLD, in the case that helps to prevent a Democrat from becoming president, application would prevent some gross injustice. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO THE RESCUE. Posted by: TomJ at November 1, 2004 05:52 PMI'll agree with whoever said a Bush win in MI is unlikely. And I strongly disagree with Bill on OH...Bush WILL WIN Ohio...it is a moral imperative. Posted by: Matt Hurley at November 1, 2004 06:14 PMI am in Cincinnati this Buckeye says Ohio will not go to Kerry Posted by: Paul at November 2, 2004 12:13 AMI expect the Republicans to take Florida again through use of dirty tricks. You know the kind: putting policemen at the polling stations to scare away voters, counting all the legitimate votes instead of just the Democratic votes, turning the firehose on voters, etc. Posted by: Michael Chaney at November 2, 2004 09:01 AMI guess Bush wins it with 276 electoral votes. 3 percent in the popular vote. A promise is a promise, payment sent via Amazon. Posted by: JDG at November 3, 2004 01:06 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||