MyFox
 

ThoughtManifest's Blog

by ThoughtManifest from Belleville

Last Post 11 days, 5 hours Ago


 

This Leaked Simpson Episode was Funny except for the Hair Raising Feeling that this could Actually happen.

16 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 16
Page 1 of 1
DetroitLover9550 read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 11:15 AM

It may not happen quite like that, but it could happen. Hell, it happened to Al Gore.

Not that I agree, necessarily, but Chris Rock's "kill the messenger" joked that the rules can change and that they would look at Obama and tell him "congratulations you took the majority vote, sorry you lost" It is just comedy, but made me laugh anyway.

shockhazard read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 11:54 AM

Actualy , since Ross Perot pulled out about 18% of the popular vote , our republicans and democrats changed the rules about counting votes .
Before Ross , third parties had the right to have votes counted in their presence , as well as the two major parties .
Now , they need a certain percentage to qualify for that challenge .
No , how much sense does that make ? [ That means the other 2 parties get to tell them if they have enough votes to qualify to count them ]
Many states have adopted similar rules to keep any 3rd party from challenging votes , or , even being allowed to debate front running candidates .
Examples , : When was the last time a 3rd party presidential candidate was allowed in on any debate ?
When was the last time any 3rd party candidate was allowed in on any governatorial or senatorial debate in Michigan ?

jax276 read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 12:48 PM

Shock-I've always been an independent but this is why I've felt that a vote for a third party is actually one less vote for the lesser of two evils. I know I absolutely don't want Obama as president yet McCain is not an ideal choice. Since a third party is not given a fair shake all a third party vote would be is one less for McCain. Unless you are a socialist/communist which I know you're not.

shockhazard read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 1:33 PM

Actualy Jax , a 3rd party vote , can give a 3rd party a chance .
Once they break the new set standards for exceptance , that puts a stone in both parties shoes . Now , they both have to spend money against a 3rd runner , as well as take a hit in how much they can collect in cash , because now donations for 3rd parties will also go up .
The only wasted vote , is one that is never cast .

shockhazard read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 1:35 PM

I personaly think a 3rd party vote this year takes more away from Obama than McCain .
I see a lot more decent among Dems than I do Pubs .
And , for good reasons .

DetroitLover9550 read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 3:42 PM

I hate to say it shock, but I agree with what you say. The only problem is that no matter what, the third party votes will never be enough to be greater than 5-6% of the total votes.
"In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes. In fact, all seven of the other third-party candidates on the ballot in Florida each received more than 537 votes." (wiki, not great source, but in this instance it is accurate with comparison to political science statistics)

DetroitLover9550 read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 3:43 PM

"The claim is that this was Nader's "greatest impact" on the election. Nader himself, both in his book Crashing the Party, and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[20] When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore's loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the "quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida."

DetroitLover9550 read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 3:44 PM

"A study in 2002 by the Progressive Review found no correlation between votes for Nader and votes for Gore (i.e., more votes for Nader did not correlate to fewer votes for Gore and vice versa).[23] An analysis conducted by Harvard Professor B.C. Burden in 2005 showed Nader did affect Gore's chances, but that-

DetroitLover9550 read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 3:44 PM

"Contrary to Democrats’ complaints, Nader was not intentionally trying to throw the election. A spoiler strategy would have caused him to focus disproportionately on the most competitive states and markets with the hopes of being a keyplayer in the outcome. There is no evidence that his appearances responded to closeness. He did, apparently, pursue voter support, however, in a quest to receive 5% of the popular vote."

DetroitLover9550 read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 3:45 PM

"When asked by MSNBC's Tim Russert about the possibility of preventing a Democratic victory in 2008, Nader responded, "Not a chance. If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form."

DetroitLover9550 read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 3:47 PM

So, I agree it is not necessarily an interference with the other party votes, on any significant level anyway, but would not agree that it gives the third party any real chance. It just isn't going to happen. Like I said before, I will play by the rules for the best game I have to play.

shockhazard read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 4:31 PM

I have to disagree on one thing you said DetroitLover , that a 3rd party doesn't have a chance .
Back in 92 , when Ross Perot ran , he got about 17 - 18 % of the vote , even after dropping out of the race , then re-entering late .
If he would have stayed in the whole time , many think that he would have won the presidential election flat out .
I personaly know more people that voted for him , than either Clinton or Bush sr. .

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Oct 4, 2008 | 10:55 PM

well again more lies posted.

all the votes were counted in fla in 2000 by cnn and the la times

they were counted the way gore wanted to be counted and he still lost.

you democraps still cannot get over it can ya!

DetroitLover9550 read my blog view my photos
Oct 5, 2008 | 9:20 AM

Relax colt, my remarks were comedic, in every instance.

Shock- Perot would have never gotten it.

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Oct 5, 2008 | 11:56 PM

Shock ya know what else Ross was right one everything including that giant sucking sound of jobs leaving.

Do you remember him and Al Gore debating it on Larry King?

shockhazard read my blog view my photos
Oct 6, 2008 | 8:19 AM

Yes , it's too bad he didn't get in . I voted for him .
I loved his lines on Clinton , the one where he said ballancing the Arkansas budget for the year was like him ballancing his check book .
Or the one where he compared Clintons qualifications to putting a gas station attendant in charge of Wal-Mart .
Classics .

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




ThoughtManifest

If you want to know about me. Asking is the first step. If you replied to my comments on your post and i havent replied back. I Apologize. I forget sometimes who's post i replied to. Other times i just Hate the system of scrolling down page by page and checking old post Everytime i log on. Takes too Long. Should only be Post Titles.

Member Since: 5/8/2008