Will you accept it if the other guy wins on Tuesday?

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:19 pm

For Dems and Reps alike - how will you feel if you wake up Wednesday morning next week to the other side's victory? Will you be able to reconcile yourself to their administration?

Note - this assumes that it's a clear victory and not a repeat of 2000.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:21 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:For Dems and Reps alike - how will you feel if you wake up Wednesday morning next week to the other side's victory? Will you be able to reconcile yourself to their administration?

Note - this assumes that it's a clear victory and not a repeat of 2000.

I certainly don't plan on armed insurection, if that's what you're asking.

Though, I've always thought that Vancouver would be a nice place to live...

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:23 pm

I'll be in the wilds of Southern Utah, so it's likely I won't even know the results.

But this is a democracy - of course I'll accept the winner, and I'll heap scorn upon the lawyers of the loser as they try to weasel a win out of the courts.

And I think we all know that the loser is going to take this to court...

Kadoth Nodens · Post by **Kadoth Nodens** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:23 pm

I'm gonna build a pillow-fort and seceed from the Union.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:27 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote:For Dems and Reps alike - how will you feel if you wake up Wednesday morning next week to the other side's victory? Will you be able to reconcile yourself to their administration?

Note - this assumes that it's a clear victory and not a repeat of 2000.
I certainly don't plan on armed insurection, if that's what you're asking.

Though, I've always thought that Vancouver would be a nice place to live...

It is a nice place to live - but I wasn't really thinking in terms of taking to the hills or other extreme measures. I meant simply accepting that Bush/Kerry is your president and moving on, or indulging in the crazed polemics that fill so many blogs until the next election rolls around.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:28 pm

For me, both are "the other guy" so I'll bitch and moan like a jackass like I always do.

At least I know that I won't be pleased with the results well ahead of time.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:31 pm

I'll accept neither guy. I consider it my patriotic duty to always criticize the man in office.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:36 pm

If Bush wins a second term, I certainly won't be happy, and I will loudly make my displeasure known, but I wouldn't consider the election invalid or scream about moving to Europe or anything.

In fact, if Kerry is behind on election night and there's no major accusations of voter fraud/intimidation, then I want him to concede. Please, WHOEVER APPEARS TO LOSE, concede!

Gore's tantrums in 2000 left festering wounds on the body politic. Did more voters probably go to the polls in 2000 in Florida to vote for Al Gore? Undoubtedly. I was a Bush worker in 2000, and I said as much at the time. But every poll, even an election poll, has a margin of error, and sometimes you lose because of it. You don't drag the nation through hell trying to retroactively deal with problems in the electoral system.

There is a growing divide between Red and Blue Americas (both of which are 100% genuine, real Americans, I'll thank David Brooks and his pals to note). Right now, we're at a point where the two sides vehemently disagree with each other.

I think another month long election night could take us to a place where the two sides vehemently dislike each other. I don't know if democracy can survive if we have two equally huge chunks of the electorate basically stop communicating.

So please, Bush, Kerry -- if you appear to have lost -- CONCEDE!

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:41 pm

I agree Fireball

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:44 pm

I agree too.

Too bad that's not going to happen.

Not to be a patrisan hack, but is anyone interested in a Kerry victory just to see Bush's concession speech? The only one I remember is in New Hampshire, and that one was pissy as all hell.

Imagine what this one will be.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:56 pm

What Dirt said. I am not going to be happy with either outcome. I'll resign myself to the winner, more than reconciling myself.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:23 pm

If it is 4 more years of Bush, my american wife and I will start making serious plans to move to Australia. Don't know whether it will be economically feasible since the economy sucks, but we'll do our damndest

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:23 pm

I can't really lose. I'm not excited by another Bush term, and the most likely outcome of a Kerry term is gridlock. I guess I can't really win either.

But I think we all know we won't have an oppurtunity to feel anything on the morning after the election. Unless, of course, it's even more dislike for lawyers.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:24 pm

aussie77 wrote:If it is 4 more years of Bush, my american wife and I will start making serious plans to move to Australia. Don't know whether it will be economically feasible since the economy sucks, but we'll do our damndest

You must mean the economy sucks in Aussie because it's just fine here in America.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:25 pm

is_dead · Post by **is_dead** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:29 pm

Yeah I might be angry for awhile, but that will probably just descend into sadness. I might have tears, knowing that the US is digging itself into a pit of world-wide hatred for it, that the country with the most potential in the world just wants to chase ghosts and get-rich-quick schemes, and that so many people in the US just don't get it.

However, my hopes are up right now, and I'm planning an election party

It's going to be a big night...

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:30 pm

Poleaxe wrote:Unless, of course, it's even more dislike for lawyers.

A lawyer is only a tool. It should be treated with respect, handled by trained, responsible adults, and kept away from children.

Next you'll be telling us guns kill people.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:31 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
aussie77 wrote:If it is 4 more years of Bush, my american wife and I will start making serious plans to move to Australia. Don't know whether it will be economically feasible since the economy sucks, but we'll do our damndest
You must mean the economy sucks in Aussie because it's just fine here in America.

It's just fine so long as you're not looking for a job

Way to toe the party line though Poleaxe. Bush would be proud of your dedication.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:34 pm

Tareeq wrote:A lawyer is only a tool. It should be treated with respect, handled by trained, responsible adults, and kept away from children.

Next you'll be telling us guns kill people.

Talk about sig-worthy!

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:35 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:For me, both are "the other guy" so I'll bitch and moan like a jackass like I always do.

At least I know that I won't be pleased with the results well ahead of time.

Same here.
But I have no guy.
And I haven't accepted anybody as my president since Clinton won in '92. When I was 12.

Gizah · Post by **Gizah** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:35 pm

A lawyer is only a tool.

Enough with the lawyer bashing Tareeq!!!

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:49 pm

Tareeq wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:Unless, of course, it's even more dislike for lawyers.
A lawyer is only a tool. It should be treated with respect, handled by trained, responsible adults, and kept away from children.

Next you'll be telling us guns kill people.

If lawyers were guns, I would be for gun control.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:06 pm

Tareeq wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:Unless, of course, it's even more dislike for lawyers.
A lawyer is only a tool. It should be treated with respect, handled by trained, responsible adults, and kept away from children.

Next you'll be telling us guns kill people.

Edmond · Post by **Edmond** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:18 pm

"Trial lawyers" are only evil as long as you don't need them. When you need them, all of a sudden you want to hire the best lawyer you can afford.

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:22 pm

Tareeq wrote:A lawyer is only a tool. It should be treated with respect, handled by trained, responsible adults, and kept away from children.

Surely you're not suggesting that Gloria Allred and her ilk be treated with anything other than scorn and revulsion!?

Although I would tend to agree that plenty of lawyers are tools though.

PS. Gotta say I love the dalek avatar. I'm half-tempted to find a cyberman avatar now.

Cam · Post by **Cam** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:41 pm

Edmond wrote:"Trial lawyers" are only evil as long as you don't need them. When you need them, all of a sudden you want to fire the best lawyer you can afford.

I know I'm relatively new here and shouldn't do such things like this to derail a thread, but...

Would this be considered a Freudian or a Jungian slip?

Please, please I hope someone catches where that is from.

Meghan · Post by **Meghan** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:43 pm

I think Big John's going to win it running away and I'm happy about that - but I agree with Dirt. It's our job criticize the guy. Maybe even moreso if we like him.

SuperHiro - I've wondered about that too. I suspect he blame the Liberal Media - cause you know, it couldn't possibly be his fault ...

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:45 pm

If I wake up to a Frenchman as President-elect, I'll get over it.

Meghan:

I think Big John's going to win it running away

Are you crazy girlfriend. The Democrats have OWNED New Jersey. And right now, according to the poll released today, it's Bush - 46, Kerry - 46, with 6% undecided.

That's not what you want to see if you're expecting horse head to run away with it. Not in NJ.

I know people like to say that undecideds usually break for the challenger, but I don't know that I buy that during "war time" with the challenger being a feckless worm (I need to get it out of my system now so that I don't have to be angry next week if he wins

).

What I do know is that NJ being 46-46 now is HELLIFIED good news for Bush.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:13 pm

I pretty much win either way, at least as far as this forum is concerned.

If Bush wins, I get to watch the left squirm in agony another 4 years, just like I had to do under Clinton.

If Kerry wins, I can finally stop listening to the "Bush has ruined America" clap-trap and play offense for awhile.

Of course I'll accept the winner. I probably loathed Clinton to the furthest extent one human being can dislike another, but I never once entertained the notion that he "wasn't my President" or that I should move to another country.

Meghan · Post by **Meghan** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:35 pm

Are you crazy girlfriend. The Democrats have OWNED New Jersey. And right now, according to the poll released today, it's Bush - 46, Kerry - 46, with 6% undecided.

actually, it is. Bush's numbers being under 50 means he's pretty much toast, if you take the historical veiw that presidents with poll numbers under 50 are doomed. On top of that, another historical fact is that ties and undecided voters go to the challenger, not the incumbent.

Then when you start considering things such as the fact that minority voters have been grossly under-represented in the polls and yet are already turning out in record numbers in early voting returns, I think the writing's on the wall. See here (pdf warning) for Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio who concludes that the only way Bush can win is if fewer minorities vote this time than last time. That ain't gonna happen.

The big news from this election cycle is that old fashioned phone polls are not getting the job done. Their methodology is a mess and Gallup expecially needs to stop polling so many wealthy white people.

That's my take on it anyway. That's why we have horse races.

Edmond · Post by **Edmond** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:20 am

Cam wrote:
Edmond wrote:"Trial lawyers" are only evil as long as you don't need them. When you need them, all of a sudden you want to fire the best lawyer you can afford.
I know I'm relatively new here and shouldn't do such things like this to derail a thread, but...

Would this be considered a Freudian or a Jungian slip?

Please, please I hope someone catches where that is from.

You got me

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:09 am

Meghan wrote:actually, it is. Bush's numbers being under 50 means he's pretty much toast, if you take the historical veiw that presidents with poll numbers under 50 are doomed. On top of that, another historical fact is that ties and undecided voters go to the challenger, not the incumbent.

Did you just ignore my post?

Normally undecideds go to the challenger. In times of crisis they do not.

And regardless of that fact, I hardly think you can project John Kerry going from a double-digit lead in NJ to a tie as evidence that he is on the verge of running away with anything.

If I was forced to guess, I would say that all signs are actually pointing to trouble for John Kerry.

At least that's usually what it means when your lead completely evaporates.

(I am only talking NJ for now - but this state was a Dem stronghold, and that has to mean something).

Meghan · Post by **Meghan** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:08 am

Sorry, no I wasn't ignoring you - I just edited myself poorly.

I guess we'll disagree about whether undecideds are likely to break for the challenger or the incumbent. I'm going to stick with the conventional wisdom on that one. And my points about minority voters and lousy polling methods still stands.

Of course, I also disagree with you on the nature of the current crisis - ie, I don't think we have a crisis that couldn't be solved by sending the retarded chimp ( as you say,

) back to the ranch. Absent any immediate terrorist attack (God forbid) I think the war is not currently a winning card for Bush. It's the quagmire thing.

I can see why not everyone will find my hadicapping persuasive but that's ok. I get better odds this way.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:11 am

In what poll is NJ tied 46 to 46? Rasmussen was briefly, but it's now a 53 to 44 Kerry lead. In fact, both the most recent polls, from different organizations, at electoral-vote.com have Kerry at over 50% in New Jersey. It looks like New Jersey got tight in the polls in late September but opened back up for Kerry in mid-October (after the debates?), unless there's a new poll that's come out?

Papageno · Post by **Papageno** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:24 am

If bumbling Prince George MUST have another term, then I hope he wins it by enough of a margin that it's at least uncontroversial, with no frat boy goon squads like the ones we had last time shouting in chorus and banging on the doors at election officials trying to do their jobs.

But I think the Supremes are going to stick their noses in it again and save Bush's bacon just like the last time.

That would really piss me off. At least Ohio has predefined a "swinging door chad or greater" standard statewide for the punch card ballots-- I just hope other states have done the same. And how these e-voting machines with 1) no paper trail and 2) proprietary OS's ever passed the smell test I'll never know, but I guess we just have to suck it up and deal, and hope that that travesty is fixed by the next time around.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:43 am

Meghan wrote:Sorry, no I wasn't ignoring you - I just edited myself poorly.

I guess we'll disagree about whether undecideds are likely to break for the challenger or the incumbent. I'm going to stick with the conventional wisdom on that one. And my points about minority voters and lousy polling methods still stands.

Of course, I also disagree with you on the nature of the current crisis - ie, I don't think we have a crisis that couldn't be solved by sending the retarded chimp ( as you say, ) back to the ranch. Absent any immediate terrorist attack (God forbid) I think the war is not currently a winning card for Bush. It's the quagmire thing.

I can see why not everyone will find my hadicapping persuasive but that's ok. I get better odds this way.

Normally, I would say you had this thing nailed, but....

No one likes Kerry. If the undecideds hated Bush, would they really be undecided at this point? If someone is undecided at this point they probably see it as a race between an idiot and a weasel. I'm not sure who wins in that case, but it could be "don't change horses mid-stream" as much as anything.

Bush is polling very well for a republican among black voters.

I don't think Iraq is going to decide this election. War or not, quagmire or not, american casualties are relatively low. What other countries think of us is pretty low on the American priority list.

It will be about the economy, I'm guessing. Of course the problem for republicans is that if someone is undecided then they probably don't think the economy is doing particularly well. The problem with Kerry is that all we know is that he will raise taxes on the rich. Unfortunately, he's made so many promises of new programs that one has to wonder how long it will be until the middle class is "rich" also.

Anyway, I think this one is going to the lawyers. If anyone pulls away, I'll be surprised.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:56 am

Fireball1244 wrote:In what poll is NJ tied 46 to 46? Rasmussen was briefly, but it's now a 53 to 44 Kerry lead. In fact, both the most recent polls, from different organizations, at electoral-vote.com have Kerry at over 50% in New Jersey. It looks like New Jersey got tight in the polls in late September but opened back up for Kerry in mid-October (after the debates?), unless there's a new poll that's come out?

They released the latest Quinnipiac poll here last night. Locally, that's the one they use almost exclusively, although I don't know it's track record. I just know that it's the only poll the local media uses when talking about NJ. As far as I know, it's never shown Bush closer than 4 points until yesterday.

What I do know about it though is that it's *NOT* a poll conducted by one of the media organizations, which means I automatically trust it more.

They've known for a while that NJ was in play, and we've received some recent visits from the Prezodent. Maybe they worked?

And I'm not sure what you are referring to on electoral-vote.com - I just went there, and according to the map on their main page, It's Kerry 45 - Bush 44. That's a one point lead in a state that Gore carried by 16 points.

Even if we still assume that Kerry will take the state - I'm still not prepared to conclude that the evidence suggests that Kerry is in any danger of running away with anything.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:17 am

And I'm not sure what you are referring to on electoral-vote.com - I just went there, and according to the map on their main page, It's Kerry 45 - Bush 44. That's a one point lead in a state that Gore carried by 16 points.

NJ isn't the only state with dramatic changes towards Bush. HI is running an 18 point reversal right now. It's unusual happenings like this that convince me that we don't know jack, and won't until the election.

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:48 am

Quinnipac has consistently given GWB the highest poll #'s in a lot of states, especially in NJ. If another poll comes out to confirm this I'd buy it, but right now all the other recent polls show Kerry +4-6 over bBush.

Also RM9 GWB should have walked away with this election if things were so hunky-dorey. I bet the Repubs are sweating more than the Dems because an incumbent should never poll as low as GWB is polling.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:18 am

Also RM9 GWB should have walked away with this election if things were so hunky-dorey. I bet the Repubs are sweating more than the Dems because an incumbent should never poll as low as GWB is polling.

And Kerry should have walked away with this election if Bush's presidency was as "disastrous" as the left makes it out to be.

I'm not sweating at all. The election will be decided on two things - the economy and terrorism. The economy (despite the fearmongering thrown about by the left) is doing fine. And as far as terrorism goes, whether you agree with Bush's policies or not, we haven't had another attack on American soil since 9/11. This country's going to be afraid to change horses midstream, especially with an ongoing war.

I'm really having trouble figuring out how Kerry has the "momentum" when he can't even pull decisively ahead in states Gore won handily. When he can't pull the women, youth, and minority votes that Gore did. Flashback to 2000 - Gore lost. Kerry can't afford to do WORSE.

Also I've been reading a conspiracy book, and I'm quite certain the Masonic Temple will ensure a Bush re-election. The War on Terror is prepping the American people for a genocidal bid by the US to wipe out the Muslim population. This will set into motion plans to bring about the end of the world and the establishment of a New World Order. These plans have been in place since ancient times, and involve alien greys who are using humans as soul containers. The aliens are in league with the CIA (who are in league with the Nazis) to bring about this outcome. A Kerry win would delay Armageddon another four years, a highly undesirable event since the 3 prophesies were finally fulfilled with the assassination of John F. Kennedy by Cuban/Mafia agents funded by the CIA.

Octopus Overlords

Will you accept it if the other guy wins on Tuesday?

Will you accept it if the other guy wins on Tuesday?

Re: Will you accept it if the other guy wins on Tuesday?

Re: Will you accept it if the other guy wins on Tuesday?