2004: Bush loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral college. AGAIN

[ShaneGR]

I am not predicting this. I actually believe Bush will carry all but four of his red states, losing the electoral college to whoever the Dem nominee is.

BUT, the thought crosses my mind. What if he wins, but he loses the popular vote again? He would be the biggest joke of a two-term president in the history of the country. Panic might take hold. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but wouldn't a complete meltdown occur?

[alcuno]

1. I think those Green voters in FL (70,000) may have second thoughts

about their votes. THANKS A LOT, DAD!

[caledesi]

3. Agree...the Greens I have talked w/ want * out, period.

[otohara]

4. 60,000 Florida Muslims Won't Be Voting For Jr. 91%

As estimated in a telephone survey of 350 Muslim Floridians, 91% have voted for Gov. Bush, 8% for Ralph Nader, and 1% for Vice President Al Gore.

http://www.amaweb.org/election2000/muslim_voters_florida.htm

[ShaneGR]

5. How many muslims are in Florida???

That number will swing DRAMATICALLY.

[otohara]

19. 600,000 In NYC - 300,000 in Michigan

all voted for Jr. in 2000, thinking that he would not support Israel as much as the democrat Al Gore. Florida was by far the largest percentage win, but still in Michigan Bush was favored by 40% to 28$

Here's a quote I grabbed from one of the many links you can find on the "Historic Muslim Vote of 2000"

If we had voted like we did in previous elections, guess who would be president right now? Al Gore."

72% of the US Muslim population supported GDubya in 2004. I doubt they will be voting for him in 04, unless he scraps The Patriot Act 1&II

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/muslim1_20030901.htm

[_Jumper_]

30. He also did more to appeal to them

It wasn't just because of Israel. He met with them more and in the debates he specifically denounced the use of secret evidence against Arabs.

Muslims are an affluent and socially conservative group. They are naturally Republican in the first place. This likely will change because they now realize they are minorities that need to support the party of tolerence, but we shouldn't be sure they'll vote Democratic. What has the Democratic party done for them? Remember, it was Bush who went in front of the cameras and denounced intolerance against Muslims, not Tom Daschle.

[JackRiddler]

35. I spent election night

partly at a bar getting served by a Lebanese man, in Germany. He tried not to show how pleased he was at the Florida switch to Bush. He honestly thought this would mean less support for Israel, as did many other Arabs. Oops.

[trotsky]

2. Probably not.

After Selection 2000 the wingnuts took to the airwaves to defend our wise Founders and their system of the Electoral College which ensures that large populous states cannot force their choice for president over the rest.

(Of course, the night before the election they had all prepared scripts ready to condemn the E.C. and call for its destruction, had THEIR boy won the popular vote yet lost the E.C.)

[Lakhim]

6. Hypocrisy

You don't think that we had the same thing ready to roll that night, it is called politics.

[villager]

9. actually, there's no evidence "we" had anything like that

...prepared. In an interview, Rove was asked about winning the popular vote, but losing the electoral college. "We don't roll over," he said. The plans for a reich-wing riot of cornfed "protesters" was already on the GOP books...

[MinnFats]

25. I'm sure you could find the story.....

but as the election 2000 approached, the Bush outfit had a fleet of lawyers preparing for the possibility that Bush would win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College. They were ready to make the case that Bush should be installed instead of Gore...if Gore had won the E.C. There were comments to the effect that this would be absolutely unacceptable and not be tolerated...

[DivinBreuvage]

26. Got news for you...

The Democrats DIDN'T have the "same thing" in place. 'Cuz it happened to them. And they rolled over.

Françoise

[Zero Gravitas]

31. speaking for myself

my fear was, as was widely discussed prior to the election, was that Gore would win, but lose the popular vote, and not only because the wingnuts would flock down to the Ryder truck rental and fertilizer stores, but because losing the popular vote would render Gore illegitmate. Given how they had mercilessly attacked the legitimately elected Clinton just imagine how they would attack Gore when they actually had a real reason to oppose his Presidency? My only regret is that the congressional Dems were so gutless as not to challenge Jr.'s lack of a legitmate claim to be President.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi Lakhim!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LouKYDem]

7. I'd like to see...

I'd love to see Bush get a notable victory in the popular vote and lose the electoral vote.... ahh that would be cruel, but they deserve it!

[kyrasdad]

8. 2004 is going to be close...

but not THAT close...

[Eric J in MN]

10. would not be a big deal

The 2000 election included thousands of legal voters in Florida being told they couldn't vote because they were "suspected felons."

If we can accept that no one was ever indicted for election fraud for 2000, then if Bush legally wins in 2004 by getting the electoral majority but not popular plurality without vote fraud, it would be less of a big deal.

[ShaneGR]

16. Is today Freeper joins a DU day?

Seriously, like 3 guys in this thread. All at once.

Question to poster, you are (In a weird freeper way) saying that Bush not winning the popular vote wouldn't be a big deal?

Huh?

[Eric J in MN]

20. in 2000, Bush not only didn't win

In 2000, Bush not only didn't win the popular vote, but there was also election fraud. Yet there weren't anti-election fraud marches.

If Bush legitimately won the electoral college without winning the popular vote, that probably wouldn't inspire marches, either.

[rbnyc]

22. I think you misunderstood.

(Which is one of the reasons it's against the rules to accuse people of being freepers,)

The poster is saying that if the population didn't rise up and reject what happened in 2000, why would the scenerio described above be any more provocative. The poster is saying that people are apathetic.

[Eric J in MN]

23. thanks, that's right. I was referring to apathy

In terms of the future of America, any scenario in which Bush wins in 2004 is a big deal.

I meant that the response to a Bush victory in 2004 would be apathetic, even if he loses the popular vote.

[rbnyc]

24. Welcome to DU.

I knew that was what you meant. I wonder what it would take to get people to realize we're in the midst of a serious crisis of democracy.

[MO_Dem]

11. If there is any justice in this world,

he will win the popular vote, but lose the electoral vote this time. Wouldn't you just love to see that happen?

[Walt Starr]

12. Worse possibility than that, he loses both popular vote and...

the electoral college, but wins any way.

Here's the scenario:

1) Loses the popular vote.

2) Loses the number of elecctoral votes according to the results in the states.

3) A state that he loses in has a Republican legislature and governor who, prior to the certification of the election, pass a law to allow them to choose the electors for the electoral college and nullify the results of the statewide election.

4) Supreme Court rules they cannot interfere in a matter of "State's rights" 5-4, and the law passed by that state's legislature and signed by that state's governor stands.

5) Bush wins.

[liberalmuse]

13. There would be an out and out revolt...

if that were to happen. I'm talking Civil War.

[Walt Starr]

14. I don't think the Republicans would care

They've already proven they do not care, winning is all that matters to them.

[Upfront]

15. Yep

[JailBush]

18. I'd volunteer, but I really don't think Americans are capable of

revolting. How many do you think would actually take up arms when half don't even vote? We'd probably be lucky to muster an army of 13,000 (including three individuals from Washington State), and the Oil Nazis would quickly eliminate us.

[Yupster]

27. But it would be legal

The Constitution gives the authority of choosing electors "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, ..."

The Constitution doesn't even assume, and may not have even thought likely that there would even be a popular vote for president.

South Carolina was the last state to have its first popular vote for president. It was in 1868. SC was one of the original 13 colonies.

[Walt Starr]

33. Yep, this is what I believe is the BFEE backup plan for the election

It would be 100% legal.

Of course, we need to remember, everything the Nazis did was 100% legal under German law.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Do You Really Think That Hypertechical Argument

would work in the real world?


Bush's legitimacy was undermined by losing the popular vote and winning the electoral vote. How much more would it be undermined if he lost the popular vote, lost the electoral vote but won the election because electors in some states refused to follow the popular vote in their states...

[Walt Starr]

39. You're damn straight it would work in the real world!

The stage for it was set in 2000. The Florida legislature was set to declare Bush for all electoral votes from Florida if the recount ever went through!

I seriously believe Bush will lose both the popular vote and the electoral college but come away the winner anyway and there will be no civil war, no major protests, and the BFEE will continue to get what it wants.

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. Thank God California's legislature has a Dem majority!

Because Ah-nold would just love to give his string pullers those 54 electoral votes. And it's either this, or Diebold, because it ain't happening honestly.

[0007]

17. If junior is elected in 04...

he'll never ever finish his second term. I predict junior will hit the road like Richard Milhouse Nixon. And perhaps Richard Cheney will have the same fate as Spiro Agnew.

[Silverhair]

21. Interesting. Hmmmm. Cheney resigns first...

W taps Condi, then goes, First Black Woman president is a Rep. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Sometimes I have a wicked sense of humor. Sort of like passing gas in an elevator.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Yeah but we could have four years of fun if we control congress...

A president who lost the popular vote serving with a dem congress. Can you say major popularity boost for the Democrats. Plus we can have the senate oversight committees so far up Aschcroft and Rumsfeld's asses that they won't dare try anymore threats to our civil liberties or anymore illegal wars.

[Silverhair]

36. Not a chance of controlling congress.

We have had several senators retire leaving open seat contests - in the south. Very solid red states.
The reapportionments & redistricting have created a bunch of new safe Rep districts.

Barring a major cataclysmic event, their hold on congress is safe for he next election.

For that matter, Bush starts with 212 safe electoral votes in very solid red states, and has 67 pink states. He has a damn strong advantage. Our guy will have to move mountains to get elected this time.

[JackRiddler]

37. Brilliant

this exact combo worked so well after Sept. 11 - remember?

Ha ha.

[Noordam]

34. It could be Florida again

Jeb and the Repug leg. here could be the ones that went against the popular vote.