Of inconvenience to the about.com article cited earlier is the fact that the Republican Party was founded in 1854, some 42 years following Governor/Vice President Gerry's funeral. The Republican Party formed from a coalition of Whigs, disaffected Northern Democratic Republicans (the party of Jefferson), and independents, all united in opposition to slavery. The first Republican convention, in 1856, nominated John c. Fremont, who lost to James Buchanan. This was followed by Lincoln's election in 1860.
Gerrymandering is exclusive to no party, though the recent tendency of Democrats to toss the issue to the courts as opposed to participating in the matter through established legislative practice is a new development, and, IMO one indicative of the desperation common to factions faced with clear and evident decline of their own general electoral mandate.
Which of course is something exclusive to Democrats, like getting their favorite candidate into the Oval Office via the Supreme Court? Or was it that the Democrats had the popular vote? Confusing, isn't it.
Tart, One thing I always think about in relation to that. People always talk about how great the nineties were, economy and such, but if it was, why was the vote so close? Looks like Gore would have won by a marked margin given he was such a part of the 'good times'. Since then the Dems have been losing ground, and not always in the courts, something else is the matter.
There is no confusion; the Supremes didn't sing the Dems' song ... what part of "No Constitutional Basis" don't you get?
Brand X,
Don't forget Nadar........but yes the vote was close, closer than it would have been had not the "house managers" not spent oodles of the tax payer's dollars on a witch hunt intended purely for the purpose of overturning the vote of the people.
Something is the matter.....we have an ideologue for a president.........a religious fanatic and another for attorney general, and we're engaged in an unnecessary war which is causing untold damage to the reputation of the USA........not to mention unemployment, and a blindness to the needs of any voters other than those with big bucks. Or at least that's my partisan perspective........and it's different from the partisan perspective on the other side.
I think the reason the popular vote wasn't even greater for the Dems, Brand, is what we've seen for over a decade -- tremendous Republican grassroots organization and calculation, a narrow political agenda (at least, as expressed), megabucks -- including ability to manipulate via the media. The Dems are much less centralized (and I hope they remain that way). We forget that often elections are won by the opposing party, simply because it appears to oppose "Washington"!!
Lola -- why reiterate "partisan"? No problem here, but one would take it as read that we're all "partisan," one way or another!
Tartarin wrote: ... one would take it as read that we're all "partisan," one way or another!
Ya think? Just maybe? Seems reasonable to me.
yes, I was emphasizing "perspective" which is dependent on lots of motivators.......
Ya know, Lola, I always sorta looked for the girls mom warned me about. I found, over time, they were less common than she had led me to believe.
You're a rare treasure
Scrat, I still stick to this election depending on how poorly Bush's performance is perceived and that would give who ever is nominated a running start at the time of the elections, especially if there is no third party "vote-for-this-candidate-instead-of-the-two-party-evils" candidate who really can garner many votes. The last election was won by a hair, the next one will likely be also very close and almost anything can tip it one way or another.
That's how Clinton definitely won his second term and possibly his first term. Here we go again with the Bush redux.
Timber wrote:
Quote:Ya know, Lola, I always sorta looked for the girls mom warned me about. I found, over time, they were less common than she had led me to believe.
You're a rare treasure
Why thank you Landko, a girl needs a compliment now and again to improve her outlook on life. I consider you to be a real rare sweetie yourself.
But there is one meaning of the word "common," which I don't associate with frequency or numbers. This form of commoness is an art form. And it's a truly noble goal.
There's an interesting thread on electronic voting about which many doubts have been expressed and today (judging from local talk show) the issue is moving to the center. I'd like to see the Democratic candidates pick up on this issue and champion honest, reliable and transparent vote counts.
Tartarin wrote:There's an interesting thread on electronic voting about which many doubts have been expressed and today (judging from local talk show) the issue is moving to the center. I'd like to see the Democratic candidates pick up on this issue and champion honest, reliable and transparent vote counts.
And what exactly makes a vote count "honest, reliable and transparent" in your view?
You don't think we can find a way, Scrat?
Tartarin wrote:You don't think we can find a way, Scrat?
On the contrary, I was wondering what would satisfy your specific concerns.
timberlandko wrote:Scrat wrote:And what exactly makes a vote count "honest, reliable and transparent" in your view?
Anything not involving Republicans, I would imagine.
Possibly, though I'm still interested in her answer. :wink:
Loved that photo, by the way!
Holy crap! Dean looks scary!
Aw, just having a bad teeth day.
