John Quiggin

Apparently Fox have called Ohio. Who for? (as if I can’t guess).

If it becomes a legal fight, Bush has it sewn up, as it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. There, as was shown in 2000, the Republicans have the numbers.

But it won’t get to that. Bush will win Ohio.

Interesting that Kerry did not win a single southern state, despite having a southerner, Edwards, as his running mate.

Never mind. NBC have projected the winner in Florida too. And their website is more obvious than fox’s

Never mind. NBC have projected the winner in Ohio too. And their website is more obvious than fox’s. (Hopefully I pressed escape before the erroneous post got through). And doesn’t Jim Lehrer seem throaty today? (Bush for those in suspense)

Sorry about the bad post, but in good news Jim’s throat seems better now

Hooray.

Not that it would have made much difference who won – but I just couldn’t stand seeing Michael Moore’s smug face if Kerry had got up… hopefully he’ll disappear back under a rock

“Four more wars!”
“Four more wars!”
etc

Don’t be too harsh on Moore. I’m sympathetic to his views so might be a little less critical, but I think his TV work is better than his cinema work. His cinema work seems a little pompous, but I thought his TV work was quite humorous and probably less partisan.

In Iowa, out of 1.3 million vote cast, Bush leads by 17.

Nader has 5000 votes.

Thanks, Ralph.

Never mind.

We can read this post and console ourselves.

Really? MSNBC has bush at 7000 ahead in Iowa (5000 a few minutes ago). Nader doesn’t seem an issue – so much so that they don’t even list him.
It’s a cop out anyway. If you were happy for Perot to take votes from the Republicans you shouldn’t mind Nader taking them from Democrats.

Apologies to Spiros if that seems too personally critical. By “you” I mean to include all those critical of minor party participation rather than a single commenter on this thread.

Of course I was happy that Nader took votes from the Republicans. And for the same reasons, in reverse, I am unhappy about Nader taking votes from the Democrats.

I know what you mean. I take some pleasure in minor parties taking important votes from the right too. But I think it’s a bit hypocritical to reserve democracy to those who support one of only two parties. Surely people should vote for those whose policies they agree with, rather than one of two parties whose policy they least disagree with?

Matt, I’d agree with you, but that presupposes an electoral system that allows people to vote for those whose policies they agree with without, in effect, giving their vote (or the equivalent of half a vote) to the candidate they oppose most strongly.
Given the US electoral system is what it is, voting for minor party candidates in swing states is just silly, unless you truly do not care whether a Republican or Democrat gets up.

I think that minor party voters do consider the effect of their vote on outcomes, probably moreso than major party voters.
Be that Greens, Dems, One Nation, FF etc in Aus or Nader/Perot/Jessie “The Body” Ventura voters in the US. Minor party voters are usually more politically aware than major party voters.
(I actually think the bigger problem is in preferential systems where the major parties distribute preferences in unexpected ways. E.g. Labor -> Family First or Liberals -> Greens in Australia)

I have looked at the US budget situation from a few angles however I just cannot see any sgnificant improvement.My best guess for Bush is to reduce it to around 3.5% but that assumes a strong economy and then you have to second guess the FED.

The obvious solution is to raise taxes however I can’t see that being approached.

I don’t think the deomcrat in 4 years time will appreciate the task he has taken on.

no Hillary has NO chance!