Re: Here comes the EGO-MANiac again - Ralph's

["David Metcalfe" <stonepony>]

Whilst I appreciate the fascination of this debate, could you not carry this 
on offlist because it has now frankly become tedious. No-one on either side 
of this hypothetical debate is going to give in to the other and it is 
therefore completely pointless.

This is a Patti Smith forum.

The only certainty is that come January 2009 Bush will be history. We can 
only hope his fellow Republicans are similarly cast into the political 
wilderness. We will then just have their god forsaken mess to try and clear 
up for the goodness of the rest of the world.

Dave

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carol Green" <carolgreen>
To: "Gart, Mitchell" <Mitchell.Gart>; <koffeedonutz>; 
"Anthony J. Rzepela" <spamtony>
Cc: <babel-list>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Here comes the EGO-MANiac again - Ralph's


>I think it is possible that a fair number of people that would otherwise 
>have voted for Nader decided to vote tactically and chose Gore in the 
>knowledge that it was going to be a close call. The other 97,000 clearly 
>didn't find Gore attractive enough to make him their first choice and 
>exercised their democratic right to vote for who they wanted.
>
> Question for you - were you satisfied that the recount was accurate and 
> therefore really believe 500 votes would have made a difference?
>
> - carol
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Gart, Mitchell" <Mitchell.Gart>
> To: "Carol Green" <carolgreen>; 
> <koffeedonutz>; "Anthony J. Rzepela" <spamtony>
> Cc: <babel-list>
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:37 PM
> Subject: RE: Here comes the EGO-MANiac again - Ralph's
>
>
> Yes, voting is optional and in fact the turnouts are pretty low in the
> US, lower than in lots of other democracies.  Yes some Nader people
> might not have voted.  But some of them would have voted.  Can you
> imagine any of them voting for Bush?  That's really hard.  Can you
> imagine a fair number of them voting for Gore?  I can, easily.  It only
> would have taken an extra 500 votes out of the 97,000 to put Gore over
> the top.
>
> - Mitch
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carol Green [mailto:carolgreen]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 8:26 AM
> To: Gart, Mitchell; koffeedonutz; Anthony J. Rzepela
> Cc: babel-list
> Subject: Re: Here comes the EGO-MANiac again - Ralph's
>
> Even if Nader had pulled out, that doesn't necessarily mean the votes
> would
> have gone to either Gore OR Bush. I don't know if in the US you have
> compulsory turnout, but even if you do there is nothing to stop you
> turning
> up and then spoiling your ballot paper, is there?
>
> - carol
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Gart, Mitchell" <Mitchell.Gart>
> To: "Carol Green" <carolgreen>;
> <koffeedonutz>;
> "Anthony J. Rzepela" <spamtony>
> Cc: <babel-list>
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:12 PM
> Subject: RE: Here comes the EGO-MANiac again - Ralph's
>
>
> Carol Green wrote:
>
> WHY are you so sure Nader's votes would otherwuse have gone to Gore?
>
>
>
> In Florida 97,000 people voted for Nader.  Bush beat Gore by 500.  The
> point is that all 97,000 wouldn't have had to vote for Gore.  Some might
> not have voted at all if Nader was out of the race.  Some might even
> have voted for Bush.  But it seems likely that a plurality of more than
> 500 would have voted for Gore, putting him over the top.
>
> Let me ask this:  of the Nader supporters on the list, if Nader hadn't
> been in the race, how many of you would have voted for Bush?
>
> - Mitch
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 
> 269.21.0/1296 - Release Date: 24/02/2008 12:19