The Official US President Election Thread

[Insidious Rex]

ok Im just gonna start it myself then. ive actually been waiting for one of the big shots here to start this thread for months now but now one has. so here we can discuss our thoughts on the possibilities for and the ramifications of the 2004 american presidential election.

for those unfamiliar with how it works, since there is currently a first term republican in the white house, the republican party has no need to find a candidate. Bush is their candidate by default. the democrats however need to find someone to run against him in November so theres a gaggle of them running about the country stumping and hand shaking and saying vote for me cause im special.

So who do you think is gonna be president come January 2005? Who do you think is going to be the democratic nominee? Dean? Someone else? Personally I would love to see a Clark/McCain ticket. But Im probably the only one. I still cant see how Dean could beat Bush. Maybe if he brings in Edwards or someone southern for VP but even then I just don’t see it. Unless of course things go down hill economy wise or war wise or some X factor rears its head before then that pops Bush’s balloon and opens this thing wide open. Ok have at it. And be nice its just opinion about possibilities not a soap box for preaching your particular brand of politics to the masses and arguing with all the heathens that disagree with you.

[Nurvingiel]

How exactly does voting work in the United States? How do you get votes in the Electoral College? Do you vote for the Vice President and the President at the same time?

[Human#3.141592653]

Suddenly it has become very important the Iraq get an autonomous government before the elections.

[jerseydevil]

McCain can't be on Clarks ticket unless McCain actually switches parties.

The way each state votes is up to the states. We aren't necessarily guaranteed direct voting of the President. One state may vote for president through the state legislature and another may have popular vote. It is the states that elect the president through the electors. Right now all states vote for the electors by popular vote. This was to protect the small states representation - since we are a country of states with unique state rights.

Section 1 Article II

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Amendment XII made some slight changes to this.

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The electoral college is made up of the same number of Congressman that state is entitled to. Some states will have winner takes all, others will have where the electoral votes are split up among the different candidates. Again all this is determined by the state.

Hope this helps Nurvingiel. I can respond in a little greater detail later. There are numerous places on Entmoot where I discuss how the US elects the president.

[Lótiel]

I hope you/we will get rid of Bush, and I hope the american people will be smart enough to do it(and to bother to vote), even though he recently caught Saddam.

The real question is of course who´s going to represent the democrats. I haven´t really had time or the possibility to gain enough info about the different candidates to have a clear opinion, but so far I think that either Clark or Dean is going to get it.

Dennis J. Kucinich - is probably to leftwing, don´t think he stands a chance.

John Kerry - seems reasonable, but I don´t think he stands a chance against Bush, he seems to academic.

John Edwards - I find him one of the most worthy, he seems constructive. But I don´t believe he stands a chance against Bush

Al Sharpton - not a chance in hell against Bush, and I don´t really like preachers either.

Richard A. Gephardt - seems reasonable, but I think he´s been in the Washington to long, seems as though that´s negative for the nominees.

Wesley K. Clark - I think he absolutely stands a chance after his critic against the Iraq-war. If he improves his political knowledge in internal affairs, I think he can be a good president.

Joseph I. Lieberman - seems like a reasonable guy, but I don´t think he seems like the contrast to Bush people wants and he was pro Iraq.

Howard Dean - can stand a chance against Bush, he´s been very aggresive against the war and Bush´s negative budgets. But what does he want? I haven´t really got that, sometimes it seems as though the only thing he is is con Bush.

This is just my subjective opinions based on the few facts I´ve been able to gain so far.

It´s interesting to see that Carol Moseley Braun didn´t go through with it. Not that I think she had a chance in hell, but still. Anyone who knows the reason why she stepped back?

(Sorry about any bad english in this reply, but it´s written in the middle of the night after a long day of speaking norwegian, german, english and portugeese.)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lótiel
I hope you/we will get rid of Bush, and I hope the american people will be smart enough to do it(and to bother to vote), even though he recently caught Saddam.

I for one hope that Bush will be the next president. Bush has 65% approval; rating. So the majority of Americans do support him. But the elections over half a year away. Bush is far better than any of the democrats in my opinion - especially Dean, Kucinich, Edwards, Sharpton, Kerry.

I like Lieberman - but that would be a disaster for foreign policy - we;d never get anything done in the Middle East because he's jewish (sad to say). I'm not sure what Clarks deal is. He just seems like an oppurtunist. I liked Clark for a while, but I don't trust him really.

Are you American though? I thought you weren't. If you aren't - can you tell me how "you" are going to get rid of Bush or have a say in our next president as indicated in this statement "I hope you/we will get rid of Bush"? I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, but it just annoys me when foreigners think they have a say in our elections - when it is the choice of the AMERICAN people.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lótiel
It´s interesting to see that Carol Moseley Braun didn´t go through with it. Not that I think she had a chance in hell, but still. Anyone who knows the reason why she stepped back?

She dropped out because she ran out of money. in fact she was very much in debt. now she can concentrate on having influence with Dean who needs her in the south among the black population. and doing speaking engagements.

unfortunately its money that is the bain of the american political system. its why its really corrupt at the core because the presidency is bought and sold by people with money. they have tried to reform soft money and all that but bush still clears millions of dollars from big business reps who want to influence him if he wins. so when he does win he is unlikely to go against those companies and individuals who gave him tons of money. thats how our system works unfortunately. so the little guy cant last and the big guy follows the people with the most cash.

[Baby-K]

John Edwards - I find him one of the most worthy, he seems constructive. But I don´t believe he stands a chance against Bush

Guess he'd be relying on all those votes from those who have crossed over?

[Lótiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I for one hope that Bush will be the next president. Bush has 65% approval; rating. So the majority of Americans do support him. But the elections over half a year away. Bush is far better than any of the democrats in my opinion - especially Dean, Kucinich, Edwards, Sharpton, Kerry.

Are you American though? I thought you weren't. If you aren't - can you tell me how "you" are going to get rid of Bush or have a say in our next president as indicated in this statement "I hope you/we will get rid of Bush"? I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, but it just annoys me when foreigners think they have a say in our elections - when it is the choice of the AMERICAN people.

I can never approve of Bush as president, Í don´t think he seems smart enough to run the most powerful country in the world. The things he make himself say is incredible, for example: I seldom read the newspapers, but I have advicors who inform me every day.(not a direct quote) Not like he is getting objective input(not that many american newspapers are objective anyway, everyone´s in the pocket of someone) , is it? People around him can control him as they like, or so it seems. And did he become president to finish his daddy´s cruisades? And is it advicable to put a man who had barely set his feet outside USA control international matters? I think not. And did he really win the election? Or did someone trick a bit here and there. The whole thing was very fishy.

I´m not american, and what I meant by you/we is that I hope the whole world is relieved of the pressure of having an ignorant US president. I did not mean that I, personally, could do anything to get rid of Bush.

That the majority of americans support Bush may be very incorect, I gues that the approval rating is based on polls, and polls will always be inacurate. Besides, USA have a big problam in low electionparticipation. Way to few use their right and responsibility to vote. I think that if people thought there would be a point in voting, that if the democrats and republics appaered as opposites, or if even a third party came, they would use their vote. After the tricking with counting of votes in the last election I guess you will have an even lower participation, people don´t bother. Besides, with your media no one can really know what´s going on in your own country or the world.

I know that what I write may seem very offencive to many americans, but this is how much of the world feels.

EDT: Btw, did Bush ever accomplish anything before he became president? I mean, his daddy put him to work here and there, but he didn´t do very well did he? Hopeless that a person without abilities should have such a job. But I must acknowledge him for being smart in a foxlike way, he knows his ways around.

[Dúnedain]

I'm not even getting involved in this thread, I already see it going in the direction of the Iraq thread. I will say this though. I am registered Independant and have always voted Democratic. However, I will be voting for Bush come election time. I dislike the way the Democrats are handling themselves. I think they are all a joke, with the exception of Edwards and Lieberman. I think Edwards is the only one of the bunch who seems sincere and isn't an asshole, lol. Plus I like the fact that he declared that he was running for the Presidency on the "Daily Show with Jon Stewart"

Either way, I like the things Bush has done, especially the way he handled 9/11. Growing up and living in New York the majority of my life, certainly has helped the cause. I know a lot of my New York friends and family feel the same way, regardless of their political affiliation. It's weird and hard to explain if you don't live in the NY/NJ area, but there is a bond to that area that and when someone stands up and does as much as they can, especially in a tragic instance as that was, it only makes your native heart grow closer in that respect. I think the fact that being from that area, you are drawn more close to it and relate to it more than someone from California, who only feels the sympathy of their fellow countryman. I'm sure others from that area will understand what I am saying more, lol...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lótiel
I can never approve of Bush as president, Í don´t think he seems smart enough to run the most powerful country in the world. The things he make himself say is incredible, for example: I seldom read the newspapers, but I have advicors who inform me every day.(not a direct quote)

As Laura Bush said - why should he read the papers concerning politics - he knows the inside stuff. Very few presidents really listen to or read the papers directly. Why have it filtered through the newspapers who don't know all the facts.

Not like he is getting objective input(not that many american newspapers are objective anyway, everyone´s in the pocket of someone) , is it?

And that is true for papers all around the world.

People around him can control him as they like, or so it seems.

And you base this on what?

And did he become president to finish his daddy´s cruisades?

What crusades? You mean getting tired of the UN giving resolution after resolution to Iraq and them ignoring them? Millions dying at the hands of Hussein? What crusade did George Bush have (the first George Bush)?

And is it advicable to put a man who had barely set his feet outside USA control international matters? I think not.

A president doesn't have to have been outside the US to be president. Isn't in the constitution. There are plenty of advisors - Rice and Powell are two of the most knowledgeable foreign policy.

A person can't be all over the world and the US is. Therefore they have advisors.

And did he really win the election? Or did someone trick a bit here and there. The whole thing was very fishy.

Even once the recount was finished - it was determined that no matter whihc ways the ballots were counted - even the way Gore wanted them counted - he won Florida. He won the election - it was almost four years ago - get over it.

I´m not american, and what I meant by you/we is that I hope the whole world is relieved of the pressure of having an ignorant US president. I did not mean that I, personally, could do anything to get rid of Bush.

How is he ignorant? Because he states how he feels? Because he doesn't take any crap? He seems to have handled a lot of disasters very well - most of which got started under Clinton and didn't blow up until afterward - liek 9/11, the company scandals, and so forth. At least he didn't back down like Clinton repeatedly did.

That the majority of americans support Bush may be very incorect, I gues that the approval rating is based on polls, and polls will always be inacurate.

Scientific polls are not that inaccurate. You might want to study how they are done before righting them off.

Besides, USA have a big problam in low electionparticipation. Way to few use their right and responsibility to vote. I think that if people thought there would be a point in voting, that if the democrats and republics appaered as opposites, or if even a third party came, they would use their vote.

There is a big difference between republicans and Democrats - but in the US you must appeal to the majority - which is the middle. That's why people outside the US always think of them as the same. You don't see the internal politics - you get it filtered through your media.

After the tricking with counting of votes in the last election I guess you will have an even lower participation, people don´t bother. Besides, with your media no one can really know what´s going on in your own country or the world.

Oh - so some more of this crap. I see - our media is all terrible and controlled and all this idiotic nonsense. So how many times have you been to our wonderful great country where you know so much?

There wasn't any tricking of the votes. You might want to read the Constitution. Gore too the counting to the courts, Bush appealed. The Constitution states that the Supreme court will rule under such circumstances when it's state vs state or person from one state against a person of another state. I've posted the Constitution tons of times here but here is the quote...

Article III Section 2

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

I know that what I write may seem very offencive to many americans, but this is how much of the world feels.

I know how much of the world feels. But it's not up to the world. I'm also tired of the erroneous and ignorant statements concerning our media and stuff. By the way - i'm wondering how much we're actually supposed to care. the presidents job is first to answer to the AMERICAN people - that is all. Not to the world. Sorry if you or the world finds this offensive - but it's the truth. We look after our self-interests - just like your country and all countries do around the world.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I'm not even getting involved in this thread, I already see it going in the direction of the Iraq thread. I will say this though. I am registered Independant and have always voted Democratic.

You - the person who watches Fox News and seems far more right wing than me (I'm not even right wing - I'm actually moderate) - has never voted Republican and always voted Democratic? I'm in shock.

[jerseydevil]

IR - I had thought about starting this thread. But I had a feeling it would turn into a Bush bashing thread with people from around the world saying that the US has controlled media and all this crap. Usually what's amazing is it's from people who have never been to the US - or only experienced it for a short time - yet they seem to know oh so much about us. Must be because of their superior and unbiased news media - yeah right.

Anyway - I had started the Democratioc Debates thread up a while ago to discuss the election - at least from the stantpoint of the debates.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I know that what I write may seem very offencive to many americans, but this is how much of the world feels.

You seem to be quite the spokesman. I agree with JD here, and frankly, your view is typical and not surprising. I am proud to be an American, and it's a shame that you can't experience that feeling.

You should think about doing some in depth research before making such know it all claims.

Now, excuse me while I ban myself. I forsee this thread being closed.

[jerseydevil]

After looking at the Democratic Debate thread - I see this thread going down the very same road as Dunedain said. It ended up with Graymouser arguing about Iraq and Bush.

I also agree with SGH - hence the reason I chose not to start this thread. It was just going to be more of the usual American bashing from the rest of the world.

[Insidious Rex]

so then you all are saying its impossible to discuss election potentials without having a coronary? Thats pretty sad. I think its very possible. its all opinion about whos better then who and who you think will win. Im interested in the horse race and what will come out of it. So i hardly get upset when someone says Im againt Bush or Im against Dean or whatever. thats fine. who cares? its just opinion. Lets not get so hypersensative that we water down everything.

Now, what issues do you think the election will hinge on? In other words what could sway people away from Bush and toward a democratic candidate in the next 10 months or so. Would it have to be a big disaster or could it be done in little chops?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You - the person who watches Fox News and seems far more right wing than me (I'm not even right wing - I'm actually moderate) - has never voted Republican and always voted Democratic? I'm in shock.

lol, 'tis the truth

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
so then you all are saying its impossible to discuss election potentials without having a coronary? Thats pretty sad. I think its very possible. its all opinion about whos better then who and who you think will win. Im interested in the horse race and what will come out of it. So i hardly get upset when someone says Im againt Bush or Im against Dean or whatever. thats fine. who cares? its just opinion. Lets not get so hypersensative that we water down everything.

I don't consider it being hypersensitive - just something many of us are tired of coming from people who don't even live here. We already know what they think - the world is superior to the US.

Now, what issues do you think the election will hinge on? In other words what could sway people away from Bush and toward a democratic candidate in the next 10 months or so. Would it have to be a big disaster or could it be done in little chops?

I think it would have to be a huge disaster. They tried doing the "Bush hasn't even been able to capture Hussein" - he did. Then it was "The economy is crap and going no where" - it is now. Every issue they have basically tried to run on - has been falling away. There is 10 months left and anything can change - but it would have to be something major. Most Americans don't care about the WMD - because Bush didn't really use that to convince the American people to go to war. So the democratic candidates speak about that - and no one really cares about that being an issue. The democratic candidates have one thing to run on - and that is the far left hatred of Bush right now. But there aren't enough far left people to win an election.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Now, what issues do you think the election will hinge on? In other words what could sway people away from Bush and toward a democratic candidate in the next 10 months or so. Would it have to be a big disaster or could it be done in little chops?

I don't know, I just don't see any of the current Dems beating Bush. If another big things happens in the War on Terror, such as Usama being captured or WMD's being found, I think it will probably be a lost cause for the Dems., lol. Even if those things don't happen before the election, I am still not sure if the Dems can seriously challenge him. It seems there just isn't that "flashy" candidate emerging on the Democratic ticket. Dean seemed that way for the first few weeks, but then I think a lot of people started to see through him. I really think though, the only one who could have a shot against Bush is Edwards. I say this, only because he just gives me the vibe of truthfulness, whereas the other candidates seem rather false and fake. Edwards also has the "young guy" thing going for him. As we all know, that usually goes over well in politics in this country, for the most part anyway. He kinda reminds me of JFK in a way for some reason.

Other than that though, I am just not sure at this point. Things have been pretty ugly in the Dem. race so far and I think people are getting sick of the constant bashing and smear campaigns...

[Dúnedain]

Hmmm, Edwards is 49, lol, I thought he was younger than that, lol. There goes my theory!