Not to derail but do you think the polls would be this close if Clinton was running instead of Kerry. Bush would have conceded already!
no, clinton would've coopted bush's terror message long ago, and vietnam would've never been an issue. bush is certainly a divisive figure, but it's hard to believe the democrats succeeded in nominating someone just as divisive, if not more so.
When the GOP, wallowing in their hatred of Clinton, spent millions upon millions of dollars to "get to the bottom" of Whitewater, only to fail miserably. Then, to compound matters, they impeached him over an illicit affair with an intern when the country was facing FAR bigger issues. The polarization started LONG before Gore and the 2000 election.
Only because Perot had the money to get his message out and was able to get in the debates since the GOP and Dems hadn't yet hijacked the debate process from the League of Women Voters.
Getting back to the subject matter of this thread. I think Bush v. Gore has really muddied the waters on this issue. The Supreme Court's ruling essentially stated that the Federal Gov. can overrule the States' when it comes to the disposition of their electors.
not exactly. Bush v Gore overturned an earlier ruling by the fla. supremes, saying that their mandate for a limited recount, w/ differing standards, was unconstitutional. remember, this was a 7-2 ruling. the 5-4 split everyone remembers was over how to address the fla. supremes' mistake.
1992, when Bill Clinton was elected President, and the entire Republican party thought that he had taken something that was rightfully theirs, and began launching multiple ridiculous witchhunts that did nothing but waste taxpayer money. See: Travel-gate
But that is exactly the Fed. Government, in this case the US Supreme Court, stepping in to overturn a state deciding the disposition of its Electors.
