Actually, no, even by the rules of the electoral college system, his election was questionable. He was elected by an action of the Supreme Court more than he was by how the vote count actually went in Florida.
No, the electoral college voted him in. It's not the first time a president has lost the popular vote, and still been elected. Last time it happened, the candidate was also the son of a president (John Quincy Adams). Same old, same old.
No, he was not. To be elected by the electoral college, he needed to get the most votes in Florida. He didn't. He did not even let the recount continue. Given the number of dangerous, immoral, unethical, and generally inhumane decisions he made, the difference in the winner would be remarkable. Especially when you consider that his lead was less than a hundred votes, and dropped when he had the Supreme court make a decision to protect us from Democracy.
Had he been elected, he would not have needed to have his supporters 'correcting' votes so they would be valid.
Hell, I would have been satisfied if had been middle of the road. Instead he has lied, cheated, stolen, and punished anyone who got in his way. Notice how the only people Bush ever fires are the ones who gasp tell the truth.
There's a study in my Statistics textbook which has data from the Florida polls, and it clearly shows that the votes for what's-his-face were significantly higher in the butterfly poll state counties than elsewhere in Florida.
And I don't mean the Shrub, I mean the guy whose name appeared beside Al Gore's and whom people accidentally voted for instead of old Al. And there were a bizarrely high number of votes discounted because TWO of the squares were punched: those of Al's and what's-his-face (WHY does his name escape me?!)
It seems pretty much to me that the Shrub may have won on a faux pas of massive proportions and utter stupidity.
Personally, I'm hoping he clutches Rumsfeld to his Presidential bosom as tightly as possible; people are crying- loudly- for Rummy to get tarred and feathered, and some of that might stick to Dubya, come November.
I think it kind of bears out the theory that Dubya is pretty much run by his handlers. Whether he's too dumb or lazy to do his own thinking or else they've got some heavy dirt on him and a tight grip on his leash, he seems to do what he's told by his "advisors" -- and Rummy is one of them. I think he's got too firm a hold on the puppet strings to be thrown to the wolves by the Shrub, even when the public is nearly ready to demand just that...
1. Bush does not know what the meaning of the word "superb" is. 2. Bush actually is far enough out of touch with reality to also believe that he himself is doing a superb job.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
malionette
no subject
Date: 2004-05-10 09:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-10 10:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-10 10:21 am (UTC)And sadly, all I can picture is the pair of them making out. It's enough to put me off gay sex for, oh, the whole afternoon.
Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-10 10:23 am (UTC)Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-10 10:55 am (UTC)People's ignorance of how the electoral college system works continues to irk me.
Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-10 11:01 am (UTC)Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-10 11:22 am (UTC)Actually, no, even by the rules of the electoral college system, his election was questionable. He was elected by an action of the Supreme Court more than he was by how the vote count actually went in Florida.
Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-10 12:07 pm (UTC)Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-10 01:15 pm (UTC)Did the final count of all the votes in Florida matter, or not? As I recall, the decision was made before the final recount was done.
Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-10 12:15 pm (UTC)Had he been elected, he would not have needed to have his supporters 'correcting' votes so they would be valid.
Hell, I would have been satisfied if had been middle of the road. Instead he has lied, cheated, stolen, and punished anyone who got in his way. Notice how the only people Bush ever fires are the ones who gasp tell the truth.
A crime in this admin, er regime.
Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-10 12:43 pm (UTC)Back your shit up.
Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-10 03:44 pm (UTC)And I don't mean the Shrub, I mean the guy whose name appeared beside Al Gore's and whom people accidentally voted for instead of old Al. And there were a bizarrely high number of votes discounted because TWO of the squares were punched: those of Al's and what's-his-face (WHY does his name escape me?!)
It seems pretty much to me that the Shrub may have won on a faux pas of massive proportions and utter stupidity.
Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-12 05:53 am (UTC)Re: Are you surprised?
Date: 2004-05-12 08:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-10 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-11 07:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-11 08:51 am (UTC)1. Bush does not know what the meaning of the word "superb" is.
2. Bush actually is far enough out of touch with reality to also believe that he himself is doing a superb job.
That is all.