T Nation

Obama Won Like Bush in 2000

"Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College – or, for short, “the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents” – anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the “popular vote” has any relevance whatsoever.

It’s the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary’s more of a man than Gore ever was)."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26842

And your doing what exactly, just now?

Lolirony.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College – or, for short, “the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents” – anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the “popular vote” has any relevance whatsoever.

It’s the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary’s more of a man than Gore ever was)."


[/quote]

Hillary doesn’t count the votes of 14 states to get her numbers.
Count the votes of every election and he wins.

I’m not too sure on 100meters comment, but I do know Hillary was claiming two states that were disqualified by the democratic party in her popular vote count.

It seems unfair to do this.

HH, I disagree with your comparison.

The 2000 election noise was about a recount of Florida.

"Hillary’s argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn’t exist. That’s a station that depends entirely on “superviewers.”)

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was “selected, not elected,” this is a shocking about-face."

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Hillary’s argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn’t exist. That’s a station that depends entirely on “superviewers.”)

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was “selected, not elected,” this is a shocking about-face."[/quote]

It still isn’t an about face.

2000 as Lixy said wasn’t about popular vote. It was about doing a recount in Florida.

Secondly, Hillary didn’t win the popular vote. Hence, the snears.

Other than your 2 premises being wrong, good post!

I don’t know exactly what is meant by “2000 wasn’t about popular vote,” but I sure have heard a lot of people say shit like “hell, why even vote, my vote doesn’t even count Gore beat Bush yet Bush is the president.”

It may not be the BIG issue, but it most def was an issue.

[quote]dk44 wrote:
I don’t know exactly what is meant by “2000 wasn’t about popular vote,” but I sure have heard a lot of people say shit like “hell, why even vote, my vote doesn’t even count Gore beat Bush yet Bush is the president.”

It may not be the BIG issue, but it most def was an issue. [/quote]

But not the contention for gore winning. The recount was. And lying republicans will of course change the issue of 2000 while lying about Hillary winning the popular vote, all to smear democrats

In reality the only parallel between recounting the votes in Florida and counting ALL of Obama’s votes is “every vote should count”. The exact opposite of Headhunter’s dishonest post.

So… in both cases, the appropriate rules were followed, the rule of law was respected, and a candidate was selected without civil war.

I agree. Obama and Bush’s win are very similar.

[quote]Otep wrote:
So… in both cases, the appropriate rules were followed, the rule of law was respected, and a candidate was selected without civil war.

I agree. Obama and Bush’s win are very similar.[/quote]

In that way, yes they are.

But where was Obama’s win decided by a court ruling not to do a recount to make clear the will of the people? Obama’s win had something to do with the national government? I could have sworn primaries are controlled by the party…

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Otep wrote:
So… in both cases, the appropriate rules were followed, the rule of law was respected, and a candidate was selected without civil war.

I agree. Obama and Bush’s win are very similar.

In that way, yes they are.

But where was Obama’s win decided by a court ruling not to do a recount to make clear the will of the people? Obama’s win had something to do with the national government? I could have sworn primaries are controlled by the party… [/quote]

We don’t vote for candidates. We vote for someone who is supposed to vote for our candidate, in the electoral college. Bush lost the popular vote but won because of how the electoral college is set up.

Hillary had more votes than Obama, but Obama won because of how delegate assignment was set up.

Libs/Dems rip on the first one, then are happy with the second one. Hypocrisy?

“In the Democrats’ “1984” world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging on crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.”
— Ann Coulter

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“In the Democrats’ “1984” world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging on crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.”
— Ann Coulter

[/quote]

You are the guy that wants to liberate Persians by carpet bombing their cities.

You criticize “libs” for hypocrisy, yet are oblivious to your own.

Then you post Ann Coulter quotes…

Dustin

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
“In the Democrats’ “1984” world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging on crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.”
— Ann Coulter

You are the guy that wants to liberate Persians by carpet bombing their cities.

You criticize “libs” for hypocrisy, yet are oblivious to your own.

Then you post Ann Coulter quotes…

Dustin[/quote]

Why don’t you explain it to me, since I’m oblivious.

Is your avatar the poster boy for NAMBLA?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Why don’t you explain it to me, since I’m oblivious.

Is your avatar the poster boy for NAMBLA?

[/quote]

You are a walking hypocrisy. Your time spent in this message board provides plenty of evidence.

Go read your posts in the thread I mentioned about “freeing” Iranians.

What does my avatar (Dewey Cox in the movie Walk Hard) have to do with NAMBLA? Are you a spokesman for them?

Dustin

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Otep wrote:
So… in both cases, the appropriate rules were followed, the rule of law was respected, and a candidate was selected without civil war.

I agree. Obama and Bush’s win are very similar.

In that way, yes they are.

But where was Obama’s win decided by a court ruling not to do a recount to make clear the will of the people? Obama’s win had something to do with the national government? I could have sworn primaries are controlled by the party…

We don’t vote for candidates. We vote for someone who is supposed to vote for our candidate, in the electoral college. Bush lost the popular vote but won because of how the electoral college is set up.

Hillary had more votes than Obama, but Obama won because of how delegate assignment was set up.

Libs/Dems rip on the first one, then are happy with the second one. Hypocrisy?

[/quote]

Hillary still doesn’t have more votes than Obama.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Why don’t you explain it to me, since I’m oblivious.

Is your avatar the poster boy for NAMBLA?

[/quote]

Ad hominem attacks are always a classy touch.

  1. The issue in 2000 was not the electoral college. The issue was that many people felt like the Republicans cheated. Right or wrong, that was the issue. Of course, some people did ask themselves at that time if the electoral college was antiquated, but they did not question that the electoral college was the system in play at the time.

  2. My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) was that Florida and Michigan delegates were not counted, as punishment for having set their primaries at a time at odds with the DNC. All candidates understood this beforehand, which is why Obama did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan.

Clinton wanted to change the rules only towards the end when she thought it might help her out.

Now, the only similarity that I can see between the two is that some floridians in the 2000 election claimed that they were not allowed to vote or that their vote was not counted. Likewise, we can say that people from Michigan and Florida did not have their votes counted in the Democratic primaries this year, 2008.

I will admit that I don’t understand the DNC’s reasons for punishing Florida and Michigan voters this way. However, it was done BEFORE the primary season and therefore was not directed to hurt either Obama, Clinton or any of the other candidates that were, at one time or another, presenting themselves for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

[quote]entheogens wrote:

I will admit that I don’t understand the DNC’s reasons for punishing Florida and Michigan voters this way. However, it was done BEFORE the primary season and therefore was not directed to hurt either Obama, Clinton or any of the other candidates that were, at one time or another, presenting themselves for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
[/quote]

My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) was that Florida and Michigan delegates were not counted, as punishment for having set their primaries at a time at odds with the DNC. All candidates understood this beforehand, which is why Obama did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan.

Hope that helps.