Where Native America meets pop culture
Writerfella here -- At first, you claimed it was 'prescience.' Did you forget how to spell it?All BestRuuss Bates'writerfella'
Writerfella hdre == The polls now indicate that Obama leads McCain by quite a lot. But those polls ignore rhe current numbers that state one particular fact: the number of registered American white voters is 66%. Thus, they become subject to how American voters will react. Then, you must understand that the popular vote DOES NOT elect the President. The electoral college performs such a task. That is why Kennedy won out over Nixon back in 1960, even if Nixon's popular vote exceeded Kennedy'a. At this point in time, who can say how the electoral college will respond? writerfella says, watch the skies, keep watching the skies...All BestRuss Bates'writerfella'
I still claim it was prescience, since prescience and foresight are synonymous. But I changed the word so I wouldn't have to lecture you on word definitions again. Being right all the time is exhausting. ;-)Everyone knows the Electoral College elects the president, not the voters. But the Electoral College vote closely reflects the popular vote, so popularity is a good indicator of who will win. In 56 presidential elections, the less popular candidate (the one with fewer votes) has won only four times.
Why mention Kennedy's case when a more recent case is still fresh in our minds? Bush stole the 2000 election by persuading the Supreme Court to short-circuit the normal counting process and give him Florida. It was possibly the worse ruling since Dred Scott, which is one reason I've called Justice Scalia a doofus.Besides, Kennedy isn't one of the four presidents who was elected with fewer votes. Or rather, his case is uncertain at best. Here are the facts:http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004320Kennedy's edge in the nationwide popular vote was the equivalent of less than one vote per precinct. The Associated Press reported that Kennedy's plurality was just 112,827 votes nationwide, a margin of 49.7% to 49.5%. But was Kennedy, like George W. Bush, actually a "minority president," elected without a popular-vote plurality?It's uncertain because in Alabama, JFK's name didn't actually appear on the ballot. Voters were asked to choose between Nixon and a slate of "unpledged Democrat electors." A statewide primary had chosen five Democratic electors who were "loyalists" pledged to JFK six who were free to vote for anyone.The Democratic slate defeated Nixon, 324,050 votes to 237,981. In the end, the six unpledged electors voted for Sen. Harry Byrd of Virginia, a leading Dixiecrat, and the other five stuck with their pledge to Kennedy. When the Associated Press at the time counted up the popular vote from all 50 states it listed all the Democratic votes, pledged and unpledged, in the Kennedy column. Over the years other counts have routinely assigned all of Alabama's votes to Kennedy.But scholars say that isn't accurate. "Not all the voters who chose those electors were for Kennedy--anything but," says historian Albert Southwick. Humphrey Taylor, the current chairman of the polling firm Louis Harris & Associates (which worked for Kennedy in 1960), acknowledges that in Alabama "much of the popular vote . . . that is credited to Kennedy's line to give him a small plurality nationally" is dubious. "Richard Nixon seems to have carried the popular vote narrowly, while Kennedy won in the Electoral College," he concludes.
Writerfella here -- 'Being right all the time(?)' Wednesday morning, Nov. 5, 2008, we'll all see just what that quote REALLY means...All BestRuss Bates'writerfella'
Fortunately, I haven't made any predictions about the 2008 election except in my fiction.
Post a Comment