PDA

View Full Version : We have a winner. AP News: Kerry calls Bush to concede



Captain Kidd
2004-Nov-03, 04:18 PM
Hot off the press, seems we're not going to have another 36-day Chad-fest (yup, Ohio still has punchout cards in some districts).

Quicker than I thought it'd be.

CNN (www.cnn.com)
Foxnews (www.foxnews.com)

Edit to add: Associated Press (www.ap.org), good luck though, they seem to be Slashdotted.

Captain Kidd
2004-Nov-03, 04:59 PM
I'll thow this last bit out for those who don't have access to news (yet do the BABB, flawed logic, but oh well. :D )

CNN reports (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election.main/index.html) that Kerry will speak at 1 PM EST and Bush at 3 PM EST. Donno yet if I'll wander down to a TV to watch either.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-03, 05:04 PM
I justreally hope that both stop this partisan bickering and they work together.

Glom
2004-Nov-03, 05:33 PM
Does Kerry call Bush for the purpose of conceding to him or does he call on Bush to concede? :-s

You think this is exciting? Wait until next summer. Blair vs Howard vs Kennedy. Blair is very, very unpopular, but his party is the strongest. Howard has the strength of being in the opposition position to the unpopular government but is failing to make a good impression. Kennedy has got the popular attitudes, but is the third party and has to make his party look stronger.

snowcelt
2004-Nov-03, 06:56 PM
I bet that if the popular vote was closer nation wide, Sen Kerry may have not conceded. I think Kerry would not have had a leg to stand on like Pres Bush did in 2000. Three and a half million votes still translate into a large spread in favour of Pres Bush.

Good luck to all of you down south! Hopefully you all can do the mend fences thing.

Candy
2004-Nov-04, 04:30 AM
I'll thow this last bit out for those who don't have access to news (yet do the BABB, flawed logic, but oh well. :D )

CNN reports (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election.main/index.html) that Kerry will speak at 1 PM EST and Bush at 3 PM EST. Donno yet if I'll wander down to a TV to watch either.

Now, only if you could have woke me up! :D

pumpkinpie
2004-Nov-04, 02:11 PM
Heard a great stat this morning (haven't done the research to back it up, so pardon me if it's wrong.) Each candidate got more votes then *any* previous presidential candidate. Even the loser, Kerry, had more people vote for him than Reagan did when he won by a landslide. Way to get out there and vote, USA! =D>

Swift
2004-Nov-04, 02:32 PM
Heard a great stat this morning (haven't done the research to back it up, so pardon me if it's wrong.) Each candidate got more votes then *any* previous presidential candidate. Even the loser, Kerry, had more people vote for him than Reagan did when he won by a landslide. Way to get out there and vote, USA! =D>
I heard this was the biggest percent turnout since 1968, something like 60% (there are more citizens now, so 60% of that number is a bigger number). But I still think it's sad that 40% of eligible voters don't vote. People in this country and elsewhere have died for the right to vote, and yet so many people don't appreciate the priviledge and duty we have.

Gerrsun
2004-Nov-04, 02:43 PM
Bet if you had to pass a test, there'd be a higher turnout for elections, probably in the 90%.

Never happen but an interesting concept. :o

Swift
2004-Nov-04, 02:53 PM
One article (http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~2512947,00.html) with some of the turnout numbers.

Yoshua
2004-Nov-04, 03:18 PM
Heard a great stat this morning (haven't done the research to back it up, so pardon me if it's wrong.) Each candidate got more votes then *any* previous presidential candidate. Even the loser, Kerry, had more people vote for him than Reagan did when he won by a landslide. Way to get out there and vote, USA! =D>
I heard this was the biggest percent turnout since 1968, something like 60% (there are more citizens now, so 60% of that number is a bigger number). But I still think it's sad that 40% of eligible voters don't vote. People in this country and elsewhere have died for the right to vote, and yet so many people don't appreciate the priviledge and duty we have.

I personally have voted in every election since I turned 18 (12 years ago, wouldn't you know it they had a presidential election the same year I turned 18).

But I do feel that the right to vote is also the right not to vote. Perhaps someone doesn't agree with the system we use, or does not support any of the canidates and prefers to abstain (an option I did not see on my ballot). I do not begrudge someone for not voting unless they didn't simply because they were too lazy to do so.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-04, 03:47 PM
Florida had a 80% turnout.

Candy
2004-Nov-04, 04:17 PM
The Next 4 Years

Waiting For First Post-Election News Conference From President Bush

It's on Network TV now. :D

Captain Kidd
2004-Nov-04, 04:50 PM
I'll thow this last bit out for those who don't have access to news (yet do the BABB, flawed logic, but oh well. :D )

CNN reports (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election.main/index.html) that Kerry will speak at 1 PM EST and Bush at 3 PM EST. Donno yet if I'll wander down to a TV to watch either.

Now, only if you could have woke me up! :DBoy, some people just want everything handed to them. :D :D :D

Candy
2004-Nov-04, 05:04 PM
Arafat Reported Clinically Dead; PM Denies (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=226539)
Quoting President Bush, "God Bless His Soul".

sts60
2004-Nov-04, 05:27 PM
...I personally have voted in every election since I turned 18 (12 years ago, wouldn't you know it they had a presidential election the same year I turned 18).
Good for you. =D>


But I do feel that the right to vote is also the right not to vote. Perhaps someone doesn't agree with the system we use, or does not support any of the canidates and prefers to abstain (an option I did not see on my ballot). I do not begrudge someone for not voting unless they didn't simply because they were too lazy to do so.
I think that most of the non-voters are too lazy to vote, including the ones who say they don't support any of the candidates. They can't go write someone in? What about the state and local elections they are tossing away at the same time?

It p***es me off when someone smugly says they're above the losers on the ballot. Go and write in the person you want, or run yourself, or start a new party.

This feeling is reinforced every time I read about some country with a shaky new democracy where the people trek three days on foot, get shot at, and wait in line all day to vote. And then you read here in the U.S. about how "it's too hard to vote" or "there's nobody on the ballot I like". :evil: :evil: :evil:

2004-Nov-04, 05:41 PM
Let's all just hope that everyone can work together from now on!! 8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 8-[

Swift
2004-Nov-04, 05:50 PM
I've never been a big fan of the "I didn't vote because I didn't like any of the candidates" excuse. The reality is that someone is going to win and if all you are doing is picking the one you hate less, that's fine. Some people have advocated having a "none of the above" category on ballots. I personally think that's nonsense, if none-of-the-above won, do we not have a president for the next four years. #-o I'd rather people used sts60's idea of writting in a candidate.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-04, 05:58 PM
I'd rather people used sts60's idea of writting in a candidate.Dare i say a certain reptilian friend? :wink:

Yoshua
2004-Nov-04, 06:03 PM
I'd probably agree that most of the people who don't vote probably do not do so out of laziness. Still, I think if someone genuinely dislikes the election system we have, they should have the right to protest it by not participating. It's like insisting people talk because we have free speech even when they having nothing to say.

What's the differance between abstaining and writing in a name of someone who isn't even in the running ?

Gullible Jones
2004-Nov-04, 09:14 PM
Wow... another 4 years of someone with no religious tolerance. Whoopee. :roll:

pghnative
2004-Nov-04, 09:27 PM
Careful [-X

To get back (sort of) on the posted topic of Kerry calling Bush to concede. Why does this matter???? The election isn't over because Kerry conceded. It'll be over when all election results are certified (which won't happen for little while). (Well, technically it won't be over until the EC votes, but let's please not go there. There are enough other threads on the EC) If tomorrow, the state of Ohio determines that 200,000 Bush votes were fraudulent, Kerry would end up being the next president.

Obviously the chances of something like that happening are one in a gabillion (squared) -- it just annoys me that the media makes a big deal over whether or not Candidate X conceded or not.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-04, 10:29 PM
Its a goodwill gesture. Basically saying "I'm a good looser, here is my thanks for a fun contest, now lets work together and get America behind you..."

Captain Kidd
2004-Nov-04, 10:29 PM
Um, I think by conceding that means he dropped out voluntarily. Which means he's out of the race altogether. Even if something happens and it turns out he did win, he already quit. It would be major bad for to suddenly go, "I what? Oh, well in that case I take it back!"

I don't even want to try to think of the legal battles that would ensure.

I'm just glad I have thick skin. 8)

pghnative
2004-Nov-04, 10:37 PM
But that's exactly what happened in 2000. The early returns looked bad (to Gore), the networks called the race for Bush, so Gore called and conceded. Once it was realized that Florida was in chaos, Gore called and un-conceded. Clearly his phone call was not an official withdrawl from the race. (Nor should it be -- all such things would have to be done by filing papers.)

I'm fine with politicians calling each other to be gracious. i just don't get why the media make such a big deal about it.

Captain Kidd
2004-Nov-04, 11:28 PM
Well the media does it for ratings. Funniest thing I've heard recently was an NPR story about the media. Now that they've shifted to ratings oriented and not news reporting oriented they're focusing on the obvious stuff like fancy graphics and talking heads and cutting back on the unseen stuff; one of which is news gathering!

Yep, the "news agencies" are focusing more on ratings and less on getting the very things they suppose to report. The CBS memo event for example.

As for calling and conceding and the taking it back when it suddenly looks to be going your way... well, I've never been in such a position and hope to never be in one, but I'd like to hope I'd have the ability to laugh about it and say oh well, shoulda kept my mouth shut, have fun.

(I didn't know Gore did that, by day 1.5 I was like forget it and just tell me who won when they finally figure it out, until then, does the rest of the world still exist? :D )

Glom
2004-Nov-05, 05:21 PM
That explains why journalists are stupid.