http://www.nbc5.com/news/2152634/detail.html Hilarious. If it comes down to a write-in vote, what are the chances Bush will win? I'd say close to 0%, as I seriously doubt many southern reeps are possesed of enough faculties to read or write. I hope the Alabama state legislature absolutely sits on this.
I'd be thrilled if Bush loses, but not this way. This is just another example of what a joke our electoral system is.
The Olympics, and they wanted to get their nomination as close to the 9/11 anniversary as possible, because they're is nothing at all cynical about politicizing the deaths of thousands of people.
To clarify: The Democrats will hold their national convention from July 26-29 next year. The Summer Olympics will be held from August 13-29. So why couldn't the Republicans have held their convention in early August, hot on the heels of the Democrats' Beantown bash? Some RNC bigwigs in the great state of Alabama should have raised those red flags right off the bat...
Two reasons: a) for the Bush team, the closer to 9/11, the better b) until he's certified as the party's candidate, he's not beholden to certain federal spending laws. Since the Republicans feel (rightly so) that they'll have a fund-raising advantage, the longer they can go with as few restrictions as possible, the better.
As opposed to Brooklyn, the capital of literacy (they just don't know how to talk propertly over there).
I'm not sure if this reason applies. Bush may decide to forgo federal matching funds. (I think he did this in '00.) In that case, he's free to do as he pleases. How many votes does Alabama have? Certainly enough to have turned the 2000 election, that's for sure.
Now, if they could also find a way to keep Bush from the ballot in Florida, Texas and a couple more southern states, then the dems might have a fighting chance to win the election.
Not a problem. Alabama's ballot has pictures of the candidates rather than their names. Occasionally they use pics of a cross for the Republican candidate and a pentagram for the Democratic one.
No different, is it? Fvcking bigot. And especially hilarious seeing as how you miswrote the title of the thread.
Can anyone dig up those threads about the NJ Senate race last year? I wanna know which conservatives were ultra-righteous in their indignation. Might be fun to cross reference them to this thread.
Uhhh, there is like a year and half until the election. The parties have not had to certify a candidate yet as the deadline has not nearly passed as it had in NJ Senate race. In short, your analogy sucks.
Re: Re: Bush will not on Alabama Ballot in 2004 Yes, and all those French jokes you probably laugh at are what?
Bush should be allowed on the ballot if he is the nominee. However, it will be fun to watch the GOP scream for clemency and take this to court -- again.
Maybe the circus will be in town? I mean, the RNC has to see what facilities are available, right? Politics...the greatest show on earth!
He still could be on the ballot, but it remains to be seen if the Dem legislature will pass the bill that changes the deadline (I predict it will, and I don't think I'm going out on a limb on that prediction). However, this problem just isn't in Alabama. Because they are holding their convention so late, the RNC has to get a few other states to change their election law to allow their candidates access on the ballot. According to Ballot Access News, they were able to get Virginia and Indiana to change their deadline for POTUS and VPOTUS candidates, but I'm not sure how many or which states remain on their list. Edit: Looking closer at BA news, Idaho has changed their deadline as well.
I think in the NYT article from the other day that they said they planned on taking matching funds. I could be wrong though.
Does anybody really think it would make a difference if Bush is not in the ballot? Jokes aside, are the people in Alabama really not smart enough to know who the republican candidate for president will be, and uncapable of writing his name if they happen to support him? What is the literacy rate in Alabama anyway? As far as matching funds, why would Bush not take them? I would think you need all the money you can get in order to get elected. Or is there some principle he is trying to prove by not taking them? My prediction is, Bush takes the matching funds. And ,(unless something highly unusual happens before the elections), he also takes Alabama. Even if his name is not printed in the ballot.
Bush will be on the ballot. Period, full stop. Bush will not take matching funds. If he did that he would have to abide by the caps. He didn't in '00 and he is even less likely to do so now, with a campagin budget of $200M.
He can use his own money before the Republican convention, and then take the matching funds to use after the convention. The cap restriction begins only after the candidate has been chosen by the party.
To answer some of your questions: a) yes it would make a difference. I don't have numbers handy, but write-ins, even popular or well known ones, don't tend to do very well in respect to those with their names printed on the ballot b) As soon as you take matching funds, you are limited by federal fundraising rules that don't apply if you don't accept public money. That's why he might not take them. The only principle he would try to prove is that he could raise more money than Democrats
Yeah, maybe the Democrats can even get a majority of the vote across the nation for the FIRST TIME since Jimmy Carter squeezed by with 50.06% in 1976. Before that, it goes back to 1964.
This tired old line that Gore won the election is tiring and quite silly. I have never met sucha bunch of sore losers in my life.