Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Score one for the Dems; Bush coattails tear.

Feb 17, 2004 9:41PM PST
Kentucky Voters Send Democrat To Congress.
This is important because kentucky is a swing state, Bush won the district in 2000, and the losing candidate attempted to make the race a referendum on Bush as leader, tying herself to him at every opportunity. In fact, Chandler's theme became that she would be "a rubber stampt for the President." So when Mitch McConnell now denies that it was any sort of referendum on Bush, he's merely trying to spin away yet another sign that Bush is in trouble, in a poll that even Ed can't dispute.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Actually it is unimportant because...
Feb 18, 2004 1:04AM PST

the 6th Congressional District seat has always been a tough win for Republicans and Chandler was basically given the seat as a consolation prize for his bad beating in the gubernatorial election. The special election was to fill the new Governor Ernie Fletcher's seat.

Pretty meaningless all in all Dave despite Chandler's big out of state funding for his campaign. His biggest asset is that his family is well known in the district and the memory of his grandfather, A.B. "Happy" Chandler, who was governor twice, U.S. senator and commissioner of Major League Baseball was played to the hilt.

The Fall election will be the interesting one.

- Collapse -
Re:Actually it is unimportant because...
Feb 18, 2004 3:48AM PST

Hi, Ed.

>>Chandler was basically given the seat as a consolation prize for his bad beating in the gubernatorial election. <<
I've heard you use some really specious arguments in trying to prove that black is white, but this one really takes the case. Tom Delay wouldn't give a Democrat the time of day, as the travesty with the Texas House "reapportionment" shows ("illegal gerrymandering" is more accurate, no matter what a Republican SCOTUS says).

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
If the Supreme Court is Republican, I shudder to think what a Democrat one would be like. Perhaps,
Feb 18, 2004 4:01AM PST

the 9th Circuit gives us a clue.

- Collapse -
Re: Supreme Court -- of course, it'sRepublican -- or Bush wouldn't be President!
Feb 18, 2004 7:35AM PST

Hi, KP.

As for what a Dem court would look like, the Warren Court was the best in our history, even if Warren was a Republican!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Supreme Court -- of course, it'sRepublican -- or Bush wouldn't be President!
Feb 18, 2004 12:46PM PST

Sigh, so if it had been a Democratic court and the alleged situation had been reversed, what would you expect?

Instead of all of us keep debating about what should have been done, can't anyone look at what should be done to avoid future problems?

And it still smacks of ego elitism to categorically state the Supreme court "robbed" someone of an election, as it is done repeatedly. To accuse the Court of deliberately subverting the election results is to accuse it of treason.

The problems were real, but the established procedure was ruled on by the law. So your interpretation disagrees with theirs, that is a matter of philosphy perhaps, political leanings certainly, but not an indictment that our country's foundation is totally irrelevant.

There are process for changing laws, through the legislature more than through the courts, even if both have their place. So if they're so wrong, it should be possible to convince enough people to change them.

- Collapse -
Re: Supreme Court -- of course, it'sRepublican -- or Bush wouldn't be President!
Feb 18, 2004 9:25PM PST

Hi, Roger.

I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but the problem was that there were two conflicting time limits in FL law. On the one hand, a certain time period (I forget the numbers now, and it's the principle that matters) was given to request a recount. On the other hand, certification of the final results was required only a few days after the deadline for requesting a recount, which meant there wasn't adequate time to do the requested recount and have it mean anything. The Florida Supreme Court said that the second deadline was illogical and therefore void -- that there had to be adequate time for a recount after the deadline for requesting it. The SCOTUS then intervened in a matter of STATE law, completely contrary to their new principle of "The New Federalism." More importantly, they ignored the inconsistency and simply chose the deadline that favored their party, with nothing but hand-waving to support the choice. If that's not partisanship, then what is? As for "treason," those are your words, not mine. I will simply say it wasn't justice.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
What this latest claptrap of yours...
Feb 19, 2004 1:39AM PST

avoids mentioning is that time limitations were predicated on the period of request for recount. Gore requested OUT OF THE TIME ALLOWED.

- Collapse -
Yeah ...
Feb 18, 2004 9:13PM PST

... and had only Quayle not cast that tie breaking vote to confirm Justice Thomas ...

Oh wait, that never happened as you claimed now did it? Faulty memory or wishful revisionism?

Same thing here Dave. The major part of that decision was a 7-2 vote on the Equal Protection argument. I didn't need to look that up because I absorbed the facts at the time. To repair your memory, read here. The summary is nice and short so you can't use your "busy man" excuse not to read it.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Yes, the SCOTUS opinion was just terrible. Florida ABIDE BY THE LAW!
Feb 19, 2004 1:37AM PST

and it wasn't just a simple majority Dave. Even the staunchest liberals on the court agreed overall with just a minor point of dissention.


Just terrible when a court has to remind another that they must interpret and abide by existing law and are not free to legislate from the bench. THAT is what frosts your cookies!

- Collapse -
Tell you what Dave...
Feb 18, 2004 4:22AM PST

check what the Kentucky papers are saying. "Consolation prize" wasn't MY words (and Kentucky papers tend to be rather liberal).

Regardless of your opinion, the fact remains that the redistricting in Texas was COMPLETELY in accordance with law (both federal and Texas) because it had not been accomplished when it was supposed to be.

It is just terrible all those Conservative Texans FINALLY getting a chance at actual representation of their political views isn't it. Really frosts your cookies.

- Collapse -
Re: Signs and portents -- another one you can ignore
Feb 18, 2004 7:42AM PST

Hi, Ed.

The latest polls show Kerry, Edwards Both Lead Bush by Double Digits.

As for Texas, the redistricting WAS already done, by a Federal court (of the conservative Fifth Circuit, in fact). In a similar case this year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that redistricting had already been done by the Courts, and couldn't be done again. The power grab was partisan all the way, with 2-1 and 6-3 Republican majorities in the Fifth Cirtuit panel and Supreme Court riding roughshod over both the law and fairness for partisan gain.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Yep, polls == disregard, Texas on the other hand...
Feb 19, 2004 1:32AM PST

required redistricting because one, it is required by law that the legislature do it and two, the court's temporary solution was just that, TEMPORARY to allow for the ONE election in a timely manner.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Actually it is unimportant because...
Feb 18, 2004 12:36PM PST

"...Texas House "reapportionment" shows ("illegal gerrymandering" is more accurate, no matter what a Republican SCOTUS says)."

While understanding you disagree with them, you just appeared to claim your view was above the law of the land. I wonder how you would have felt about those that said the same about a more liberal ruling?

- Collapse -
Possible conflicting view even in the story? BTW why is Kentucky a swing state?
Feb 18, 2004 2:01AM PST

"Kerr "hooked her fortunes to George Bush, and his fortunes took a nose dive," said Dale Emmons, a Democratic consultant from Richmond."

"As a state official for 12 years, Chandler enjoyed an advantage in name recognition."

Offsetting advantages? perhaps.

Curious, why is Kentucky regarded as a swing state? not contradicting, just wondering what are the qualifications.

One site defines it as "Any state where the margin between (Gore + Nader) - (Bush + Buchanan) was

- Collapse -
Re:Possible conflicting view even in the story? BTW why is Kentucky a swing state?
Feb 18, 2004 3:13AM PST

Hi, Roger.

"Swing states" are those that have a history of being "in play" within a set period (I'm not sure the exact time-frame), and that often determine the election's final outcome. The newer term for them is "battleground state."

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Well sure, understand
Feb 18, 2004 3:22AM PST

Was just wondering if you had any idea of any formal definition of how often have to change between republican and democratic to be considered such.

Or if anything besides presidental race is figured, etc. Besides the time frame considered, there has to be a minimum number of each I would think.

Oh well, politics, a pox on all of them.

- Collapse -
As a Democrit, he redefines as he goes...
Feb 18, 2004 4:25AM PST

in the time honored Democritic tradition.

- Collapse -
Re: Well sure, understand
Feb 18, 2004 12:20PM PST

Hi, Roger.

Sorry I couldn't be more specific -- I'm not a political scientist, and a brief Yahoo search ("swing state" definition criteria) wasn't helpful. I did find a quite different (and more specific) definition on one web site, calling a "swing state" one that went for Bush or Gore by 5% or less last time -- Kentucky doesn't count by that definition.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Well sure, understand
Feb 20, 2004 3:00AM PST

HMmm both sites defining by percentage win/lose of last election, that seems ridiculously narrow to me.

Calling some state, community, group, a swing implies to me that historically (at least over a decade or two?) they have gone to one side one time and the other another time.

Labelling a group as a swing group by what % voted for Bush or Gore lets you create as many as you want just by how you define the terms.

Sloppy

- Collapse -
It's always been a vague term. -nt
Feb 20, 2004 3:37AM PST

.