On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Adam C. Lipscomb wrote:
> JDG wrote:
>
> > George W. Bush has been proclaimed the winner at 2:21 am EST. After
> > initially predicting that Florida would vote for Gore, after 97% of the
> > precincts were counted, Bush was ahead, giving him one more electoral vote
> > than he needed to become President.
> >
> > Wow.
>
> It was pins and needles for me - I literally wasn't sure how the race would
> end until the last 30-40 minutes. While I'm not terribly pleased that Bush
> won, he in no way claimed a mandate, which, combined with the Senate and
> House results I saw, will make it hard for him to enact anything truly
> horrid.
Well, assuming there are no last minute surprises, congratulations are in
order for the Repubs on the list. GWB ran a pretty splendid campaign,
despite the occasional gaffe, against an overconfident and fractured
opposition (reminds me of his race vs. Ann Richards).
> The last figures I saw indicated that, like Perot in '92, Nader served as a
> spoiler, taking key votes away from Gore in several states. Guess that's
> payback for the '92 election, eh?
I guess. News flash for Nader protest voters: now you get to find out if
there's any difference between the dems and the repubs for real, eh?
(Sorry, I'm a little bit disappointed. While I never disagree with
voting one's conscience, it seems to me that America's progressive
movement has to focus on grassroots education and on moving
the electorate to the left inch by inch, not attempting to leapfrog
towards a Euro-style socialism that obviously still repulses most
American voters. What's needed is torque, not speed, and I feel confident
that Congress is (half-) full of liberal democrats who'd love a chance to
be more progressive if they didn't have to be the opposition party.)
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
