Skeezix Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 It's Webb in Virginia. Cheney is neutered in Senate. The rebuke is almost complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Richard Pombo lost in California! I can barely contain the glee at sending that dipshit back to Tracy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducknut Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Richard Pombo lost in California! I can barely contain the glee at sending that dipshit back to Tracy! Â That assclown got his ass wiped. Too bad Doolittle didn't. The list of incumbent Republicans who lost is pretty amazing. It seems like every R that had any name recognition in their districts went down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythosgrl Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yes, as President Bush said today about the GOP, they got "a thumpin." Who says that?!? All i can say is that i'm excited to see what the Daily Show says about that one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillA Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 That's a mandate from the American people motherfuckers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberdinka Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Pombo was a fat, loathsome, greasy shitbag for sure. I almost can't believe how much good news keeps piling up from all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Let's all go get a lap dance. Part-aaaaayyyyyy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 That's a mandate from the American people motherfuckers. Â I mandate, you mandate, we all mandate; this talk belongs here, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yeah this is all great and shit but what's really depressing is the millions of people who still found a way to vote republican Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yeah this is all great and shit but what's really depressing is the millions of people who still found a way to vote republican  More evidence that lefties are Marxists in (a thinly-veiled) disguise. There should only be only party on the ballot, and one party member in office at every level of government, ne pravda li tovarish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flush_Amazing Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yeah this is all great and shit but what's really depressing is the millions of people who still found a way to vote republican  More evidence that lefties are Marxists in (a thinly-veiled) disguise. There should only be only party on the ballot, and one party member in office at every level of government, ne pravda li tovarish?   Actually, I think we should have multiple parties with a runoff system so that non-Dem, non-Rep parties (like the Green, Independent, Socialist, Communist, Libertarian, whatever) parties actually have a chance and a vote for one of them actually means something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Actually, I think we should have multiple parties with a runoff system so that non-Dem, non-Rep parties (like the Green, Independent, Socialist, Communist, Libertarian, whatever) parties actually have a chance and a vote for one of them actually means something. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Actually, I think we should have multiple parties with a runoff system so that non-Dem, non-Rep parties (like the Green, Independent, Socialist, Communist, Libertarian, whatever) parties actually have a chance and a vote for one of them actually means something. Â I think proportional representation rather than runoffs would be better, but otherwise I agree. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 too bad Regula got reelected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 One way to have fairer, more representative elections is to give voters 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. choices of candidates on the ballot. If the 1st choice loses, the vote goes to the 2nd choice. Â With this system, candidates favored to win have an incentive to include at least part of their politically similar competitors' agendas if they want to capture those votes. Â In addition, the Nader/Gore syndrome is avoided. Voters could send a message without casting a de facto vote for the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Â In addition, the Nader/Gore syndrome is avoided. Voters could send a message without casting a de facto vote for the other side. Â Before which was the Bush41/Perot "syndrome" in '92. Â You'd have prefered a second term for Bush41 instead of the other guy elected? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 You'd have prefered a second term for Bush41 instead of the other guy elected? Â In all conceivable permutations, I say let the voters decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 If the 1st choice loses  Sorry, I am not comprehending this... if your vote went for the first choice and that person lost, how can your vote change? Are you talking primaries or Nov.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Â You'd have prefered a second term for Bush41 instead of the other guy elected? Â Â Â In all conceivable permutations, I say let the voters decide. Â Â Fourteen years later, it's easy to be this magnanimous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 There are multiple rounds of counting.  1) 1st place choices are counted. 2) If your candidate loses and your 2nd choice candidate comes in 2nd in the first round of counting, your 2nd choice vote is added to the 2nd place tally.  Ex: You vote this way: 1st choice: Nader 2nd choice: Gore  Bush comes in 1st, Gore 2nd. Naders votes are added to Gore's total.  Of course, if your 2nd choice is Bush, then your vote for Nader goes to Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 You changed your post, I noticed. The 1st was a bit more...revealing, shall we say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 and all votes for Hanging Chad go to...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 and all votes for Hanging Chad go to...? Â It's ironic how when the R's win, the left screams that there is widespread voting fraud, disenfranchisement, not to mention a stupid electorate. But when the D's win, nothing of the kind. Â And note the class shown by R's in close races: they concede rather than drag in lawyers and recounts. Something the D's should take and example from (fat chance). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I was thinking that same thing, KK. Maybe it's because only Republicans perpetrate fraud and Democrats are only looking for a fair shake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 It will be discovered that there are genetic predispositions to conservatism and liberalism. Further, that it is a genetic mutation that allows for the "liberal" predisposition enabling and accepting change in an otherwise static "conservative" environment. Â This genetic discovery will be viewed as supporting both the theory of continued human evolution and the evolutionary theory of Hopeful Monsters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.