• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican wins Democratic New York House seat

I'm hearing crickets.:roll:


Not entirely true ..

The founders of the*Federal*Constitution had attempted to anticipate contested or very close presidential election results and thus had made provisions to*deal*with such an eventuality. There is a strict timetable between the presidential election and the swearing in of the*successful*candidate as president. There is a constitutional provision that the*House*of Representatives can elect the president should any presidential election result in a tied vote or no candidate securing the required majority in the electoral*college. On the other hand, if there are disputed presidential election results in any of the states that determine the destination of electoral*college*votes then it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to make a fair and fast judgements to resolve the issue.
 
Gore got more of the popular vote than Bush. Yeah, that was some ass-kicking. :roll:


You're right there ... where the ass kicking took place was in TN. where Al Gore couldn't even carry his home state .. I'm going to have to look up and see when that last time a presidential candidate didn't carry his home state.... cause that can't happen very often
 
You're right there ... where the ass kicking took place was in TN. where Al Gore couldn't even carry his home state .. I'm going to have to look up and see when that last time a presidential candidate didn't carry his home state.... cause that can't happen very often

I believe it was goldwater, running against Johnson, in 64 wasn't it? Much like Gore had nader taking votes, goldwater had wallace .Of course Johnson did manage to carry 44 states to goldwaters 6.:2wave:
 
Now seeing as you care so much for the law, then it appears as if the law was followed to the letter. Apparently you didn't agree with the results, and you have that right. But you have no right to question if the law was followed. Because it was followed.


Actually, that is the central problem and you say nothing about it at all other than making the claim without examining the merits of the claim.

There were two good books written on the decision by the following learned legal experts

Alan M. Dershowitz is Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the author of Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000. He recently represented a group of Palm Beach voters who opposed George W. Bush's efforts to stop the recount in that county. Richard A. Posner is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is the author of Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts.


Slate Magazine ran exchanges between the two men discussing the content oftheir books and their arguments on the issue. This is from Alan Dershowitz and speaks directly to your claim

The issue between us is thus squarely met. We both believe that the decision cannot be justified on the grounds set forth in the majority opinion. We both believe that it is proper, indeed necessary, to examine the motives of the justices. We both believe these motives are secret and hidden. We both believe that the five justices may have been unconsciously motivated by a desire to select Bush as president. We both believe that such a desire, if conscious, would be lawless. You believe that the majority justices did not deliberately try to swing the election to Bush. I conclude, after reading hundreds of opinions, articles, and testimonies by these justices, that they did deliberately try to swing the election to Bush.

The five justices who selected Bush did so NOT because the law was clear cut and pointed to that inevitable conclusion but rather they simply decided the case based on their own political preference as if they were voting in a normal voting booth as a citizen and not as a sitting justice of the court.

And the tragedy is that in doing this, it issued what Professor Dershowitz has said "it may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history."
 
Last edited:
He cannot explain it nor than any Obama supporter. Not sure what it is about liberalism that creates such loyalty but any Democrat that runs on the Obama record is going to lose. There are 23 Democrat Senators on the ballot in 2012 and they are scared to death of losing their jobs. Both candidates in NY 9 and Nevada ran on the Obama policies and openly stated that they supported those policies. Nevada was a landslide for the Republicans and the Democrat candidate was a good one, attractive and a local record. She lost big.

Not only that but the challenger in NY connected the Republican candidate to the "evil" Tea Party and the guy still won going away.

 
You're right there ... where the ass kicking took place was in TN. where Al Gore couldn't even carry his home state .. I'm going to have to look up and see when that last time a presidential candidate didn't carry his home state.... cause that can't happen very often

those who knew him best voted against him though in all fairness the closest thing Al Bore had to a home "state" was Washington DC
 
Actually, that is the central problem and you say nothing about it at all other than making the claim without examining the merits of the claim.

There were two good books written on the decision by the following learned legal experts

Alan M. Dershowitz is Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the author of Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000. He recently represented a group of Palm Beach voters who opposed George W. Bush's efforts to stop the recount in that county. Richard A. Posner is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is the author of Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts.


Slate Magazine ran exchanges between the two men discussing the content oftheir books and their arguments on the issue. This is from Alan Dershowitz and speaks directly to your claim



The five justices who selected Bush did so NOT because the law was clear cut and pointed to that inevitable conclusion but rather they simply decided the case based on their own political preference as if they were voting in a normal voting booth as a citizen and not as a sitting justice of the court.

And the tragedy is that in doing this, it issued what Professor Dershowitz has said "it may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history."

AD is a far left liberal hack and paid whore of a law professor whines about the decision yet Douchewitz didn't complain about the 7 dem judges of the SCOFLA(w) overruling FINDINGS OF FACT by several dem trial judges who ALL RULED FOR BUSH
 
You're right there ... where the ass kicking took place was in TN. where Al Gore couldn't even carry his home state .. I'm going to have to look up and see when that last time a presidential candidate didn't carry his home state.... cause that can't happen very often

Well, if Bachmann is the GOP candidate you'll see it again. She's barely managed majorities in her district, and I don't think she could even get a third in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or the Iron Range.
 
AD is a far left liberal hack and paid whore of a law professor whines about the decision yet Douchewitz didn't complain about the 7 dem judges of the SCOFLA(w) overruling FINDINGS OF FACT by several dem trial judges who ALL RULED FOR BUSH

That is an ad hominem attack on Professor Dershowitz which indicates you hate him because of his politics. It says nothing about his arguments which remain intact.
 
those who knew him best voted against him though in all fairness the closest thing Al Bore had to a home "state" was Washington DC

There are no shortage of major party candidates who ran for president and lost their birth state or resident state.

List of major-party United States presidential candidates who lost their home state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no law - written or unwritten -that you have to win your home state and not doing so dooms you. Obviously Turtle you do have a point in that if he had won his own state then the whole matter of Florida would not matter one iota. That is undeniable. However, it is also irrelevant as to who really had the most peoples votes in Florida and the actions of the US Supreme Court in the matter.
 
Gore got more of the popular vote than Bush. Yeah, that was some ass-kicking. :roll:
What was the final tally...31 states to 19? And its shocking that the major welfare states with huge populations went for Gore?

Its comical that this even comes up.
 
What was the final tally...31 states to 19? And its shocking that the major welfare states with huge populations went for Gore?

Its comical that this even comes up.
What's a "major welfare state" and which states are they?
 
Enjoy, tell me how many of these states voted Republican?

News Headlines
Have you found the link to those exit poll yet that you were talking about, Con?

I'm still waiting for you to post a link to them . . .

What's taking you so long, Con?
 
Have you found the link to those exit poll yet that you were talking about, Con?

I'm still waiting for you to post a link to them . . .

What's taking you so long, Con?

How are you coming on counting the number of states from that CNBC link that voted Republican? There was no official exit polls from NY 9 but there were media reports and media coverage as to why Democrats lost this seat for the first time in almost 90 years. Guess you missed those too?
 
How are you coming on counting the number of states from that CNBC link that voted Republican? There was no official exit polls from NY 9 but there were media reports and media coverage as to why Democrats lost this seat for the first time in almost 90 years. Guess you missed those too?
You claimed you that exit polls indicated the reason was because of Obama...

I say you're lying and that there are no exit polls.

Let's see 'em ... ?
 
You claimed you that exit polls indicated the reason was because of Obama...

I say you're lying and that there are no exit polls.

Let's see 'em ... ?

My use of exit polls as a term was wrong when I meant media analysis. You are focused on the term lying, that is immature and a personal attack. I made a mistake, that doesn't make it a lie. Grow up.
 
Liberals won't disappear but instead will do what they always do when losing elections, protest and get violent.

Take out the "get violent" part and it sounds exactly like those liberals in the Tea Party. Welcome to living in a democracy.
 
My use of exit polls as a term was wrong when I meant media analysis. You are focused on the term lying, that is immature and a personal attack. I made a mistake, that doesn't make it a lie. Grow up.
No, I am not focused on the term, "lying." I may be werong, but I don't recall calling anyone else on this forum a liar. I call 'em as I see 'em. Why is it my fault you don't know the difference between exit polls and media analysis? When someone states they are going by what the exit polls indicate, why would I suspect they actually have no idea of what they're talking about and that they actually mean "media analysis?" Do you even realize the difference? Exit polling reflects the opinions of those who actually voted; whereas "media analysis" reflects the opinion of the journalists reporting it. So basically, all you are saying is that you found a journalist who blames it on Obama.
 
Last edited:
No, I am not focused on the term, "lying." I may be werong, but I don't recall calling anyone else on this forum a liar. I call 'em as I see 'em. Why is it my fault you don't know the difference between exit polls and media analysis? When someone states they are going by what the exit polls indicate, why would I suspect they actually have no idea of what they're talking about and that they actually mean "media analysis?" Do you even realize the difference? Exit polling reflects the opinions of those who actually voted; whereas "media analysis" reflects the opinion of the journalists reporting it. So basically, all you are saying is that you found a journalist who blames it on Obama.

I found election results that should be blamed on Obama. First time in almost 90 years that a Republican won this District, a Republican who ran against a candidate running in support of the Obama record. It was the Obama record that led to the defeat in this District whether you like it or not. It is the Obama record that has a 39% approval rating and a 33% approval rating on handling of the economy. Your support for Obama says a lot about you, you have a job so the hell with the 25 plus million that are unemployed and underemployed. NY 9 says enough is enough.
 
I found election results that should be blamed on Obama. First time in almost 90 years that a Republican won this District, a Republican who ran against a candidate running in support of the Obama record. It was the Obama record that led to the defeat in this District whether you like it or not. It is the Obama record that has a 39% approval rating and a 33% approval rating on handling of the economy. Your support for Obama says a lot about you, you have a job so the hell with the 25 plus million that are unemployed and underemployed. NY 9 says enough is enough.
In a district where the last Democrat had to resign in shame. It's not a shocker that Democrats didn't come out in big enough numbers to elect another Democrat. Same exact thing happened in NY-26 after a Republican seat fell to Democrats following the prior Republican resigning in shame.
 
I found election results that should be blamed on Obama. First time in almost 90 years that a Republican won this District, a Republican who ran against a candidate running in support of the Obama record. It was the Obama record that led to the defeat in this District whether you like it or not. It is the Obama record that has a 39% approval rating and a 33% approval rating on handling of the economy. Your support for Obama says a lot about you, you have a job so the hell with the 25 plus million that are unemployed and underemployed. NY 9 says enough is enough.
You yourself pointed a poll that showed the liberals in that district were upset Weiner resigned, Weiner supported Obama , so your analsys is a steaming pile of BS. For the most part the liberals in the district stayed home, but the conservatives didn't.
 
I found election results that should be blamed on Obama. First time in almost 90 years that a Republican won this District, a Republican who ran against a candidate running in support of the Obama record. It was the Obama record that led to the defeat in this District whether you like it or not. It is the Obama record that has a 39% approval rating and a 33% approval rating on handling of the economy. Your support for Obama says a lot about you, you have a job so the hell with the 25 plus million that are unemployed and underemployed. NY 9 says enough is enough.
Hey, Con, what happened to your boy from Texas? The U3 unemployment rate for the country remains flat at 9.1% but it's up in Texas. At the rate it's going, Texas will soon have an unemployment rate higher than the national average.

Since Bush's Great Recession began, the unemployment rate for the nation has dropped from 9.5% to 9.1% -- but in Texas, it's gone up from 7.7% to 8.5% ... and it's still rising.

Perry/Palin 2012!!

:lamo :lamo
 
You yourself pointed a poll that showed the liberals in that district were upset Weiner resigned, Weiner supported Obama , so your analsys is a steaming pile of BS. For the most part the liberals in the district stayed home, but the conservatives didn't.

Let's see, 39% JAR, 33% on the economy, a Republican took a Democrat seat for thefirst time in almost 90 years? You still cannot figure it out, not surprising. See you in Nov. 2012, then what will be your excuse?
 
No, I am not focused on the term, "lying." I may be werong, but I don't recall calling anyone else on this forum a liar. I call 'em as I see 'em. Why is it my fault you don't know the difference between exit polls and media analysis? When someone states they are going by what the exit polls indicate, why would I suspect they actually have no idea of what they're talking about and that they actually mean "media analysis?" Do you even realize the difference? Exit polling reflects the opinions of those who actually voted; whereas "media analysis" reflects the opinion of the journalists reporting it. So basically, all you are saying is that you found a journalist who blames it on Obama.

Still waiting for a response to the top 15 welfare states since you wanted to see them and I gave them to you. Looks to me like the Democrat base is made up from these states and that is also the strategy for Obama in 2012, keep everyone so dependent on govt. that he buys their votes. A lot of Obama supporters here seem to adopt that attitude as well thus make up the 39% that support Obama today. I know what group you are in

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310/The_Biggest_US_Welfare_States?slide=16
 
Back
Top Bottom