Yes, that’s possible, and, given the recent irresponsible and obstructionist behavior of the Republicans while in control of Congress, I’d have to agree that it’s a bad thing. On the good side, any margin of majority in either house will be slim, and that has to tend to force more of a spirit of political compromise and mutual respect than has been noted lately. But if Trent Lott and Dick Armey (don’t kid yourself about Hastert actually being in charge in the House, btw) are still running the show on the Hill, and Gore is the President, you can expect more of the same, I’m sorry to say.
Elvis…Elvis…Elvis…
Do you not get the point I was trying to make? You feel that there is a “broad resentment” about impeachment. I think “most Americans” support it. (now)
My point was, we don’t really have to stress all that long. I agree that today is a basically a referendum on the last 8 years, Clinton/Gore, Impeachment and the animosity in Washington.
If Gore wins, I will concede that your point is correct. If the Republicans sweep, will you concede that you may be wrong?
BTW…I am still smiling:)…only 45 minutes until the exit polls should hit Drudge.
Freedom-yeah people are annoyed by the impeachment…by the fact it was brought up in the first place.
He lied about a FUCKING BLOWJOB…for crying out loud, look at Newt Gingrich.
John C, congratulations on completely mis-stating or misunderstanding Rillian’s point regarding the past performance of the candidates; that “…past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.”
Notice that in his/her post, Rillian never addressed the relative successes of the candidates’ pasts, but instead examined the focus and character of their respective actions.
BTW, very nice first post, Rillian. Welcome to the SDMB.
Since 1942, I don’t have the site, every time the Washington Redskins won the game before a Presidential election, the incumbent party won the election, every time they lost, the challenging party won. Well, all you Democrats can just blame the Arizona Cardinals. (They had an easy game set up to keep the Democrats in power and they blew it!)
Freedom2,
Yes, I know, but the difference isn’t that big.
How about ordinary laws, ones that comply to the Constitution, do they require more than a simple majority?
You can do a lot of damage with those as well.
Constitutional matters aren’t decided with a simple majority here in Finland either (actually I believe the process is harder here than in the US), and I suspect that it’s the case with other European countries as well.
*** EARLY INDICATIONS ***
Turnout is very heavy, at record levels in many locations, despite bad weather in the Midwest:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/election.turnout/
Heavy turnout “traditionally” favors Democratic candidates.
Stay tuned.
Freedom2…Freedom2…Freedom2…
I repeat, no evidence exists for your statements. You’re on the verge of admitting that, by saying you think “most Americans” have changed their minds in so short a time. That’s a real leap of faith.
Jaakko,
Constitutional amendments here require passage by a 3/4 majority in both houses, signature by the President, then ratification by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.
I should add, to an earlier post about single-party control, that it’s not the usual situation. We Yanks have a habit of “ticket-splitting” with the intent of keeping the parties cooperating with each other, and keeping each others’ views respected. For most of the time in the last 50 years or so, we’ve had both houses controlled by one party, with a President of the other party. That’s an unwritten added leg of the “checks and balances” between the 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial).
In a parliamentary system such as yours, it seems that the minority party can only complain and criticize and continually introduce no-confidence motions. Is that a fair statement?
I am not voting for either Bush or Gore, but I have to admit I find the Gore supporters Bush bashing to be pretty obnoxious. Actually it isn’t the Bush bashing as much as the bashing of Bush supporters as being stupid, folks without conscious, etc.
I am only talking about some Gore supporters, not all or even most. I just wish everyone could have the same attitude as Dinsdale.
2/3
My error.
THIS JUST IN:
Due to an early, heavy vote by Republicans, Al Gore has conceded the Presidency.
http://www.mnbc.com/algoreconcedes
http://www.abcnews.com/algivesup
http://www.cbsnews.com/altakesabreakfrompolitics
http://www.foxnews.com/algetsamuchneededvacation
So, Republicans, go out and show your new president how much you support him. Democrats, save the gas, stay home and lick your wounds.
Hey, no fair! That’s dirty politics! The Republicans were repeatedly told to vote TOMORROW to control the crowds at the polling places.
Give it a rest, already. For cryin’ out loud, Ted Kennedy DID kill somebody while driving drunk, and he’s a perpetual fixture in politics. For one thing, who hasn’t done something stupid in their past? I sure have. For another, that DWI arrest puts him firmly in the footsteps of respected politicians.
Anyway, he fessed right up, and he didn’t repeat it. Clinton still pretends to think he didn’t do anything wrong, and Kennedy is still a Lucking Fush. And Gore is as solid as a blade of grass. He gets a makeover and pretends to be somebody different every week (or every time a poll comes out) and bends whatever way the wind blows him.
By the way, I thought CLINTON was the one who pulled it out at the last second.
Otherwise how did the dress get stained?
::running away::
The Onion is reporting that the cat is still in the box:
"‘The people have spoken,’ Bush or Gore continued, ‘and with their vote they have sent the message, loud and clear, that we are the true party of the people.’
“With these words, the crowd of Republicans or Democrats erupted.”
“It’s no exaggeration to say the undecideds could go either way.”
– George H.W. (Poppy) Bush