Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#3111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <duSpb.77564$275.206280@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8jlm$3lv$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>>>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>>>or something to dismiss it all.
>
>> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
>> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
scientists publish in.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8jlm$3lv$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>>>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>>>or something to dismiss it all.
>
>> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
>> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
scientists publish in.
#3112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <duSpb.77564$275.206280@attbi_s53>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8jlm$3lv$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>>>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>>>or something to dismiss it all.
>
>> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
>> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
scientists publish in.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bo8jlm$3lv$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>>>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>>>or something to dismiss it all.
>
>> Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
>> National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?
>
>You didn't comment on the journal article URL I posted earlier.
Because it's not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You know, the kind real
scientists publish in.
#3113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it.
Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly - like
you said - "The onus of proof should be born by the ones who may be
destroying the environment not by the ones who try to protect it".
Meanwhile, 20 people die, lives are destroyed, and 2000 houses are lost
(not to mention the damage to the environment). Thank you to those who
are "protecting our environment" but who curiously seem to be doing the
most damage.
How about first proving that you aren't going to throw everything out of
balance and create an even worse nightmare by your efforts to tweak
things that you have no way of understanding to adequate depth the full
ramifications.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#3114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it.
Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly - like
you said - "The onus of proof should be born by the ones who may be
destroying the environment not by the ones who try to protect it".
Meanwhile, 20 people die, lives are destroyed, and 2000 houses are lost
(not to mention the damage to the environment). Thank you to those who
are "protecting our environment" but who curiously seem to be doing the
most damage.
How about first proving that you aren't going to throw everything out of
balance and create an even worse nightmare by your efforts to tweak
things that you have no way of understanding to adequate depth the full
ramifications.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#3115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it.
Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly - like
you said - "The onus of proof should be born by the ones who may be
destroying the environment not by the ones who try to protect it".
Meanwhile, 20 people die, lives are destroyed, and 2000 houses are lost
(not to mention the damage to the environment). Thank you to those who
are "protecting our environment" but who curiously seem to be doing the
most damage.
How about first proving that you aren't going to throw everything out of
balance and create an even worse nightmare by your efforts to tweak
things that you have no way of understanding to adequate depth the full
ramifications.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#3116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
Those don't contribute directly to my cost to an employer, Social Security Taxes
do. When my employer is figuring the total cost of keeping me around, he doesn't
just include my salary, he also includes those pesky SS taxes. And self employed
people (like farmers) have to pay both sides of the tax. The way it set up was
always a scam to prevent people from realizing they were paying 15% to Social
Security. I am not even opposed to SS, and I don't even mind paying the tax, I do
hate the tricks employed by the government to make it seem as if it is a bargain
(it isn't, unless you were born before 1940).
> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I bet
> you could get up over 100%!
I am hardly a "right-winger" but then sometimes it seems anybody to the right of
Mao is a right-winger to you. I don't doubt the need for taxes. I don't mind the
government paying for lots of necessary services. I do mind the hidden taxes. I do
mind the multiple layers of bureaucracy (for instance why do we need local, state,
and federal departments of education?). I do worry that people who don't have my
best interest at heart have hijacked the tax code and are using it as a social
engineering tool. I do mind that a very large percentage of the money that I send
to the various government entities is wasted. I think if more people understood
exactly how much money they paid in direct, indirect, and hidden taxes they might
demand a little more accountability from the governments that take the money and
spend it. Lots of lower income people think they don't have to worry about taxes
since their income taxes are low or non-existent. However, in reality they are
paying a lot of taxes in the form of sales taxes, tolls, gas taxes, hidden taxes
buried in the cost of things they buy, real estate taxes hidden in rent, etc.,
etc., etc.
Regards,
Ed White
#3117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
Those don't contribute directly to my cost to an employer, Social Security Taxes
do. When my employer is figuring the total cost of keeping me around, he doesn't
just include my salary, he also includes those pesky SS taxes. And self employed
people (like farmers) have to pay both sides of the tax. The way it set up was
always a scam to prevent people from realizing they were paying 15% to Social
Security. I am not even opposed to SS, and I don't even mind paying the tax, I do
hate the tricks employed by the government to make it seem as if it is a bargain
(it isn't, unless you were born before 1940).
> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I bet
> you could get up over 100%!
I am hardly a "right-winger" but then sometimes it seems anybody to the right of
Mao is a right-winger to you. I don't doubt the need for taxes. I don't mind the
government paying for lots of necessary services. I do mind the hidden taxes. I do
mind the multiple layers of bureaucracy (for instance why do we need local, state,
and federal departments of education?). I do worry that people who don't have my
best interest at heart have hijacked the tax code and are using it as a social
engineering tool. I do mind that a very large percentage of the money that I send
to the various government entities is wasted. I think if more people understood
exactly how much money they paid in direct, indirect, and hidden taxes they might
demand a little more accountability from the governments that take the money and
spend it. Lots of lower income people think they don't have to worry about taxes
since their income taxes are low or non-existent. However, in reality they are
paying a lot of taxes in the form of sales taxes, tolls, gas taxes, hidden taxes
buried in the cost of things they buy, real estate taxes hidden in rent, etc.,
etc., etc.
Regards,
Ed White
#3118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jonesy wrote:
> >
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
> >> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
> >>
> >> Yet another right-wing lie.
> >>
> >> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
> >
> >In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd
> guess some engineers in high
> >tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
> sides, not just "your half") and
>
> Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.
Those don't contribute directly to my cost to an employer, Social Security Taxes
do. When my employer is figuring the total cost of keeping me around, he doesn't
just include my salary, he also includes those pesky SS taxes. And self employed
people (like farmers) have to pay both sides of the tax. The way it set up was
always a scam to prevent people from realizing they were paying 15% to Social
Security. I am not even opposed to SS, and I don't even mind paying the tax, I do
hate the tricks employed by the government to make it seem as if it is a bargain
(it isn't, unless you were born before 1940).
> >state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct
> annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
> >of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.
>
> Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I bet
> you could get up over 100%!
I am hardly a "right-winger" but then sometimes it seems anybody to the right of
Mao is a right-winger to you. I don't doubt the need for taxes. I don't mind the
government paying for lots of necessary services. I do mind the hidden taxes. I do
mind the multiple layers of bureaucracy (for instance why do we need local, state,
and federal departments of education?). I do worry that people who don't have my
best interest at heart have hijacked the tax code and are using it as a social
engineering tool. I do mind that a very large percentage of the money that I send
to the various government entities is wasted. I think if more people understood
exactly how much money they paid in direct, indirect, and hidden taxes they might
demand a little more accountability from the governments that take the money and
spend it. Lots of lower income people think they don't have to worry about taxes
since their income taxes are low or non-existent. However, in reality they are
paying a lot of taxes in the form of sales taxes, tolls, gas taxes, hidden taxes
buried in the cost of things they buy, real estate taxes hidden in rent, etc.,
etc., etc.
Regards,
Ed White
#3119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message news:<newscache$uvotnh$8a$1@news.ipinc.net>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com...
(snip)
> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
His state also doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, and let's keep
in mind that this was a national election. Of course, if I were in his
shoes, I imkagine it would be nice to win my own state, but in a
national election I'd have to put my effort into winning states with
more electoral votes. To explain further, in 2000 TN had 11 votes,
while CA had 54 (and may gain more in the future as the population
grows, BTW). Gore won CA. I assume he put more effort into CA, and for
an obvious reason, that would be the smart thing to do.
Would winning TN have made the difference for Gore? Yes, because it
was such a tight election, with Dubya winning by only 4 electoral
votes. See:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.ev.html
Actually, if Gore had carried Hawaii or Idaho or Rhode Island, he'd
have won the electoral vote. It doesn't really matter where the
electoral votes come from in a national election, although I agree it
seems kinda nice if a candidate carries his home state.
> > because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> > Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
> > which he'd not convinced.
> >
>
> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> stupid.
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush.
This is a fallacy. (BTW, I didn't vote Green, but might do so in the
future. If they're on the ballot, then it's my vote and my choice to
use my vote as I see fit.) When a party loses, such as the Democratic
Party, then they have to take responsibility. The votes were there for
to be earned by any party, and had the Democrats or Republicans earned
more votes, the election wouldn't have been such a squeaker.
As the following points out, "Greens have no power to steal votes from
Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone's vote":
http://gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html
BTW, most Americans disagree with the idea of Green votes helping
Bush, according to USA Today. See:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-11.htm
>set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
Both the Democrats and Republicans had the chance to win any of the
votes that were counted. Both failed to make much a strong showing
over the other. That's their problem and it's their responsibility to
run stronger Presidential candidates and better campaigns in 2004. If
one candidate can do that, then they'll earn enough votes to win
decisively.
If people vote Green, OK by me. If that's where the voters go, then
both the Democrats and Republicans, if they're smart, will head after
those voters and try to earn the votes of the Greens.
BTW, I found all of the above info and URLs just by spending a minute
or two searching. Anyone seeking more info could do the same.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in CA in 2004, now that
they've elected a moderate Republican as governor. Maybe Bush soften
rethink his positions to win the CA vote. It's also possble that
voting for Schwarzenegger is a thumbing-your-nose vote that won't mean
much in the long run for either party. CA's one of the 37
weak-governor states and he may have little effect on CA and its
politics.
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com...
(snip)
> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
His state also doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, and let's keep
in mind that this was a national election. Of course, if I were in his
shoes, I imkagine it would be nice to win my own state, but in a
national election I'd have to put my effort into winning states with
more electoral votes. To explain further, in 2000 TN had 11 votes,
while CA had 54 (and may gain more in the future as the population
grows, BTW). Gore won CA. I assume he put more effort into CA, and for
an obvious reason, that would be the smart thing to do.
Would winning TN have made the difference for Gore? Yes, because it
was such a tight election, with Dubya winning by only 4 electoral
votes. See:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.ev.html
Actually, if Gore had carried Hawaii or Idaho or Rhode Island, he'd
have won the electoral vote. It doesn't really matter where the
electoral votes come from in a national election, although I agree it
seems kinda nice if a candidate carries his home state.
> > because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> > Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
> > which he'd not convinced.
> >
>
> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> stupid.
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush.
This is a fallacy. (BTW, I didn't vote Green, but might do so in the
future. If they're on the ballot, then it's my vote and my choice to
use my vote as I see fit.) When a party loses, such as the Democratic
Party, then they have to take responsibility. The votes were there for
to be earned by any party, and had the Democrats or Republicans earned
more votes, the election wouldn't have been such a squeaker.
As the following points out, "Greens have no power to steal votes from
Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone's vote":
http://gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html
BTW, most Americans disagree with the idea of Green votes helping
Bush, according to USA Today. See:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-11.htm
>set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
Both the Democrats and Republicans had the chance to win any of the
votes that were counted. Both failed to make much a strong showing
over the other. That's their problem and it's their responsibility to
run stronger Presidential candidates and better campaigns in 2004. If
one candidate can do that, then they'll earn enough votes to win
decisively.
If people vote Green, OK by me. If that's where the voters go, then
both the Democrats and Republicans, if they're smart, will head after
those voters and try to earn the votes of the Greens.
BTW, I found all of the above info and URLs just by spending a minute
or two searching. Anyone seeking more info could do the same.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in CA in 2004, now that
they've elected a moderate Republican as governor. Maybe Bush soften
rethink his positions to win the CA vote. It's also possble that
voting for Schwarzenegger is a thumbing-your-nose vote that won't mean
much in the long run for either party. CA's one of the 37
weak-governor states and he may have little effect on CA and its
politics.
#3120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message news:<newscache$uvotnh$8a$1@news.ipinc.net>...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com...
(snip)
> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
His state also doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, and let's keep
in mind that this was a national election. Of course, if I were in his
shoes, I imkagine it would be nice to win my own state, but in a
national election I'd have to put my effort into winning states with
more electoral votes. To explain further, in 2000 TN had 11 votes,
while CA had 54 (and may gain more in the future as the population
grows, BTW). Gore won CA. I assume he put more effort into CA, and for
an obvious reason, that would be the smart thing to do.
Would winning TN have made the difference for Gore? Yes, because it
was such a tight election, with Dubya winning by only 4 electoral
votes. See:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.ev.html
Actually, if Gore had carried Hawaii or Idaho or Rhode Island, he'd
have won the electoral vote. It doesn't really matter where the
electoral votes come from in a national election, although I agree it
seems kinda nice if a candidate carries his home state.
> > because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> > Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
> > which he'd not convinced.
> >
>
> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> stupid.
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush.
This is a fallacy. (BTW, I didn't vote Green, but might do so in the
future. If they're on the ballot, then it's my vote and my choice to
use my vote as I see fit.) When a party loses, such as the Democratic
Party, then they have to take responsibility. The votes were there for
to be earned by any party, and had the Democrats or Republicans earned
more votes, the election wouldn't have been such a squeaker.
As the following points out, "Greens have no power to steal votes from
Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone's vote":
http://gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html
BTW, most Americans disagree with the idea of Green votes helping
Bush, according to USA Today. See:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-11.htm
>set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
Both the Democrats and Republicans had the chance to win any of the
votes that were counted. Both failed to make much a strong showing
over the other. That's their problem and it's their responsibility to
run stronger Presidential candidates and better campaigns in 2004. If
one candidate can do that, then they'll earn enough votes to win
decisively.
If people vote Green, OK by me. If that's where the voters go, then
both the Democrats and Republicans, if they're smart, will head after
those voters and try to earn the votes of the Greens.
BTW, I found all of the above info and URLs just by spending a minute
or two searching. Anyone seeking more info could do the same.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in CA in 2004, now that
they've elected a moderate Republican as governor. Maybe Bush soften
rethink his positions to win the CA vote. It's also possble that
voting for Schwarzenegger is a thumbing-your-nose vote that won't mean
much in the long run for either party. CA's one of the 37
weak-governor states and he may have little effect on CA and its
politics.
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
> news:bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com...
(snip)
> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
His state also doesn't have a lot of electoral votes, and let's keep
in mind that this was a national election. Of course, if I were in his
shoes, I imkagine it would be nice to win my own state, but in a
national election I'd have to put my effort into winning states with
more electoral votes. To explain further, in 2000 TN had 11 votes,
while CA had 54 (and may gain more in the future as the population
grows, BTW). Gore won CA. I assume he put more effort into CA, and for
an obvious reason, that would be the smart thing to do.
Would winning TN have made the difference for Gore? Yes, because it
was such a tight election, with Dubya winning by only 4 electoral
votes. See:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.ev.html
Actually, if Gore had carried Hawaii or Idaho or Rhode Island, he'd
have won the electoral vote. It doesn't really matter where the
electoral votes come from in a national election, although I agree it
seems kinda nice if a candidate carries his home state.
> > because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> > Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
> > which he'd not convinced.
> >
>
> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
> stupid.
> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush.
This is a fallacy. (BTW, I didn't vote Green, but might do so in the
future. If they're on the ballot, then it's my vote and my choice to
use my vote as I see fit.) When a party loses, such as the Democratic
Party, then they have to take responsibility. The votes were there for
to be earned by any party, and had the Democrats or Republicans earned
more votes, the election wouldn't have been such a squeaker.
As the following points out, "Greens have no power to steal votes from
Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone's vote":
http://gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html
BTW, most Americans disagree with the idea of Green votes helping
Bush, according to USA Today. See:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1022-11.htm
>set the entire
> Democratic
> party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.
Both the Democrats and Republicans had the chance to win any of the
votes that were counted. Both failed to make much a strong showing
over the other. That's their problem and it's their responsibility to
run stronger Presidential candidates and better campaigns in 2004. If
one candidate can do that, then they'll earn enough votes to win
decisively.
If people vote Green, OK by me. If that's where the voters go, then
both the Democrats and Republicans, if they're smart, will head after
those voters and try to earn the votes of the Greens.
BTW, I found all of the above info and URLs just by spending a minute
or two searching. Anyone seeking more info could do the same.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in CA in 2004, now that
they've elected a moderate Republican as governor. Maybe Bush soften
rethink his positions to win the CA vote. It's also possble that
voting for Schwarzenegger is a thumbing-your-nose vote that won't mean
much in the long run for either party. CA's one of the 37
weak-governor states and he may have little effect on CA and its
politics.