Us presidential election 2004

[Blake 0]

Looks like some may change their signatures pretty soon

[Akira 0]

In case anyone cares...

If you have iTunes, they have all the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates in audio book format for free.

[Blake 0]

Somebody could do an OFP mission with the characters debating while you could be part of audience. Would make nice coop

[billybob2002 0]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1138adf6-2076-11d9-af19-00000e2511c8.html

Quote[/b] ]Canada deals blow to cheap US drug imports

By Bernard Simon in Toronto

Published: October 17 2004 21:47 | Last updated: October 17 2004 21:47

More than 30 Canadian internet pharmacies have decided not to accept bulk orders of prescription drugs from US states and municipalities.

The move delivers a potentially serious setback to US politicians most notably Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry campaigning to give Americans easier access to cheap drugs from Canada.

Mr Kerry has argued that opening the US to Canadian imports could help lower the costs of prescription drugs for elderly Americans. Such reimportation has become one of the points of difference between him and President George W. Bush during the election campaign.

But growing concern in Canada that growing exports to the US could lead to rising prices and shortages north of the border has prompted the Canadian International Pharmacy Association (Cipa), whose members include several of the biggest internet and mail-order drugstores, to act. “We don't want to give Americans the impression that we have unlimited supply for them to tap into on a commercial basis,†said David Mackay, the association's executive director. Americans, he added, “can't get everything from Canada. We can't be your complete drugstoreâ€.

Prescription drug prices are significantly lower in Canada than the US, because of price controls and bulk buying by the 10 provinces. Individual Americans have crossed the border for years to buy cheap medicines, but the internet and spiralling healthcare costs in the US have led to a wider movement for states and cities to sourcethe drugs they need from Canada. Several states, such as Minnesota and New Hampshire, have set up websites directing residents to approved pharmacies in Canada. Cipa members would continue to service these customers, Mr Mackay said, but would not deal with states such as Illinois and Wisconsin that have proposed turning over their entire supply system to a Canadian internet pharmacy.

Cipa members make up about a quarter of the roughly 150 internet pharmacies operating in Canada, raising the question whether others will follow its lead. Mr Mackay said discussion had been heated at an all-day meeting of Cipa last month at which the new policy was approved. With pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to restrict supplies and the US Congressional Budget Office recently saying that reimportation from Canada would have a “negligible†impact on US drugs spending, the internet pharmacies have already had difficulty meeting demand from south of the border.

Several have set up alliances with pharmacies in other countries. A sharp rise in the Canadian dollar has also squeezed profits.

Ujjal Dosanjh, Canada's health minister, said over the weekend that he was not concerned “at this point†either about domestic shortages or the safety of Canadian medicines.

Still, public opinion appears to be gradually turning against the online operators. Canadian Treatment Action Council, a lobby group representing pharmacists and patients, is due to speak out today against drug exports to the US.

Your next Canada!

*Plays Goldberg theme music*

[denoir 0]

I seriously doubt Kerry will lose NJ, NH, FL, NM, IA and MO.  Just those would give Kerry 297 vs the 270 needed to win.  AR, WS, OH and VA are also shifting to Kerry and would give him another 49.

TODAY:  Kerry 243   Bush 257

New Jersey (NJ) => Kerry

Florida (FL) => tie

...Another day, another state.  

TODAY:  Kerry 253   Bush 247

Wisconsin (WS) => Kerry

I don't think there's any way in hell Ohio is going for Bush. They have been hit pretty hard by manufacturing cutdowns, increased poverty and not to mention the removal of the steel tariffs.

As for Florida, I'd say that most of the poll results are useless. Besides the statistical margin of error, there's also the often forgotten fact that statistical polls assume a fairly homogenous distribution of the population: i.e not too many sub-groups. Florida is an excellent example of a very mixed population with quite a few groups that themselves are internally divided in various ways. A 1000 sample poll is unlikely to capture the necessary amount of people to reflect the internal dynamics of the smaller groups.

An interesting article:

GOP faces civil war over Bush's 'faith-based' rule [NYT]

A minor extract:

Quote[/b] ]

Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

   "I don't know why you're talking about Sweden," Bush said. "They're the neutral one. They don't have an army."

   Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: "Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army." Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

   Bush held to his view. "No, no, it's Sweden that has no army."

   The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

It's a long article, but worth to read - it shows how the Bush Administration has a very strong princple that says "Better certain than right."

Quote[/b] ]

   This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a California congressman in a meeting about one of the world's most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any number of times on the campaign trail, "By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful."

....

[red oct 2]

I don't think there's any way in hell Ohio is going for Bush. They have been hit pretty hard by manufacturing cutdowns, increased poverty and not to mention the removal of the steel tariffs.

he certianly wont. my prediction is 6 out of 10 will vote for Kerry here in Ohio. I also doubt Bush will get neighboring Pennsilvania, like Ohio PA was largely manufacturing and very very anti-WTO were as Bush is pro-WTO. not even Bush's abortion and religious views will sway much in either state when people have to watch as good paying jobs go to Mexico, China, and India. i also think many people favor Kerry's health plan over Bush's.

[Bernadotte 0]

I don't think there's any way in hell Ohio is going for Bush.

Ohio supported Bush over Gore by 4%, but lately the pollsters have been very split.  Have a look here at the findings of different organisations.  I generally trust Zogby the most (so does the WSJ) who see it as a tossup.  And tossup states are usually determined by the undecided voters who tend to go against encumbants by about 2:1.

Quote[/b] ]As for Florida, I'd say that most of the poll results are useless.

I agree, but for a different reason - the 'snowbirds' have yet to fly.  A significant portion of Florida's residents actually spend most of the year in northern states with Democrat strongholds like New York City.  They migrate annually to Florida when it gets colder and declare their residence down there because there's no state taxes (unlike every other state, I believe).  So, if Bush is only able to break even in the polls at a time when these migrating Democrats have yet to be accounted for then I'd have to give FL to Kerry.

[Bernadotte 0]

I seriously doubt Kerry will lose NJ, NH, FL, NM, IA and MO.  Just those would give Kerry 297 vs the 270 needed to win.  AR, WS, OH and VA are also shifting to Kerry and would give him another 49.

TODAY:  Kerry 243   Bush 257

New Jersey (NJ) => Kerry

Florida (FL) => tie

...Another day, another state.  

TODAY:  Kerry 253   Bush 247

Wisconsin (WS) => Kerry

New Hampshire (NH) => Kerry

TODAY:  Kerry 257   Bush 247

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

What is interesting to know is that currently No-voters are more likely to fall for Bush than for Kerry.

[billybob2002 0]

Good news or Bad news...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/18/putin.iraq/index.html

Quote[/b] ]

Putin urges voters to back Bush

By CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty

Monday, October 18, 2004 Posted: 7:08 AM EDT (1108 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at preventing the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush and that a Bush defeat "could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."

Putin, speaking Central Asian Cooperation Organization summit in Tajikistan Monday, made his most overt comments of support so far for the re-election of Bush for a second term.

"Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush," Putin said.

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

"In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."

Putin noted that American voters will not decide the election just on Iraq.

"Because of this we must take a realistic approach and be prepared for any development of events," he said. "We respect any choice the American people will make."

President Putin made it clear Russia remained opposed to the war in Iraq.

"Today, our views on that differ from the views of President Bush," he said

You decide!

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Good news or Bad news...  

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/18/putin.iraq/index.html

Quote[/b] ]

Putin urges voters to back Bush

By CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty

Monday, October 18, 2004 Posted: 7:08 AM EDT (1108 GMT)

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at preventing the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush and that a Bush defeat "could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."

Putin, speaking Central Asian Cooperation Organization summit in Tajikistan Monday, made his most overt comments of support so far for the re-election of Bush for a second term.

"Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush," Putin said.

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

"In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."

Putin noted that American voters will not decide the election just on Iraq.

"Because of this we must take a realistic approach and be prepared for any development of events," he said. "We respect any choice the American people will make."

President Putin made it clear Russia remained opposed to the war in Iraq.

"Today, our views on that differ from the views of President Bush," he said

You decide!

He is saying this because he realises that with Kerry leading the US, he will not have a free hand in Chechnya, whereas with Bush he will be able to get away with murder (literally) due to the terrorism card.

[denoir 0]

Poll: White House race stays tight [CNN]

Quote[/b] ]

Although Americans think Sen. John Kerry did the best job in the debates, the Democratic nominee appears to have lost some ground to President Bush in the popularity contest, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The new survey comes as voters in the battleground state of Florida begin casting early ballots today.

...

Funny thing - Bush is now in a slight lead in US-wide popularity, but at the same time Kerry is in a slight lead in the electoral votes count.

I would not be entirely surprised if the electoral collage and the democratic results will be different. The funny thing is that it looks now like Kerry could bag the EC while Bush gets the popular vote.

Make or break [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

It is hard to imagine a political race freighted with greater significance than this one. As one of my colleagues in the American press said to me recently, "it's only going to decide the future of the free world."

It is the first election of the post-9/11 United States. It is a referendum on America's biggest military engagement since Vietnam and America's role in the world.

But for the two political parties, the result is critical to their survival.

Rallying the base

If the Republicans win a second term and retain their hold on Congress, the Democrats would probably be shut out of power for the rest of the decade. On the other hand if the Democrats win, it will represent the failure of the Bush Doctrine, triggering a civil war within the Republican Party.

At the centre of this titanic battle sits Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor. Rove has fashioned a unique political strategy around George Bush which relies more on motivating social conservatives than winning over moderates in the middle ground.

That's why George Bush has been unabashedly conservative in almost everything he has done, surprising even those within his own party. He has clamped down on stem cell research, gay marriage and funding for abortion clinics abroad. He has portrayed himself as a tough, decisive, and, above all, principled leader. When he lashes his opponent as a liberal on the "far left bank", Bush is not trying to win over the undecided voter.

He is firing up his base.

Pivotal

Liberal is one of those keywords that make social conservatives mad. Karl Rove believes there are more votes to be had in increasing the numbers of conservatives who go to the polls than in trying to bring in undecideds.

After the last election, he noted that four million evangelical conservatives did not bother to vote. With a president like George Bush, he reasons it's easier to excite them than swing voters, for whom Bush's "with us or against us" view of the world might be a hard sell. If Rove is right and he wins a second term for his boss, he will go down in the pantheon of great political operators.

If he fails, his boss will be remembered as a one-term Republican president who had no major impact on the course of Republican philosophy. It's the difference between being a repetition of his father and being Ronald Reagan.

If Bush loses, "there will be civil war in the Party on November the 3rd," Pat Buchanan, the former Republican presidential candidate, told me this summer. Conservatives will say that Bush's unusual mix of tax cuts and military interventionism failed because it departed from the straight and narrow of Conservatism which is small government, fiscal discipline and no foreign adventures.

And Karl Rove will be cast into the wilderness.

Where now?

In the Democratic camp, success will spell the same thing: proof that the Bush Doctrine was a failed experiment. Failure for the Democrats, however, will raise serious questions about their viability as a party.

Why can't they pick a populist candidate? Has America shifted permanently to the right? Does the Democratic Party need to reinvent itself? These are the sorts of questions the elders will ask.

The Democratic Party lacks the cohesive unity of the Republicans. It is a motley and sometimes fractious alliance of Deaniac anti-war protesters, blue collar union men, aspirant yuppies, retired Jewish communities and soccer mums.

Some will say that the Party must return to its roots - whatever they are. Others will say it should stay with Clinton's centrist approach. Whatever the outcome, it is going to be extremely painful for the losing side. The stakes could not be higher. So don't expect it to be over quickly. Unless there is a clear Electoral College victory one way or the other on 2 November, both sides will dig in for a long legal fight.

They have too much to lose.

Anybody have any numbers on how large percentage is still undecided?

Edit: The answer to that is 7%. New York Post quotes GOP pollster Frank Luntz:

Quote[/b] ]

"Having seen undecided voters break 2-to-1 to the challenger, and with tens of millions that has poured into the Democrats' grassroots efforts, Bush will need a 3-point lead to win the election"

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anybody have any numbers on how large percentage is still undecided?

It is large enough to swing the election to Bush or Kerry.

Reuters/Zogby daily tracking poll has it at 7%.

[denoir 0]

It is large enough to swing the election to Bush or Kerry.

Probably, which is bad news for Bush.

Undecided voters generally don't like the incumbent but arn't convinced by the challenger. In past elections they've shown that they tend to end up 2:1 for the challenger.

Bush however seems more interested in getting his base out to vote, rather than convincing the undecideds. Kerry on the other hand tries to go as wide as possible. This gives Bush an edge in delivering his message while it appeals potentially to a lot fewer people. We'll see which approach works.

More on polling on Electoral Vote Predictor:

Quote[/b] ]

The Los Angeles Times has a story on polling too. It points out, as most experts already know, that an incumbent president rarely gets even more than 1% of the popular vote than the final polls show. If an incumbent is polling, 47%, 48% just before the election, that is probably what he will get. In contrast, the challenger always does much better than the final polls indicate.

Plus Bernadotte's "Another day, another state" seems to hold. Latest poll in New Hampshire breaks the tie and puts Kerry in the lead by 4% (which is also the margin of error).

Edit2: Ps, I found the most beautiful site the other day: Townhall: Conservative Columnists. Really a joy to read

[billybob2002 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3750350.stm

Quote[/b] ]

Last Updated: Sunday, 17 October, 2004, 02:33 GMT 03:33 UK  

Kerry gets blame for Haiti unrest

By Steve Kingstone

BBC correspondent in Sao Paulo  

Brazilian forces are in control, says General Heleno

The commander of the UN peacekeepers in Haiti has linked a recent upsurge in violence there to comments made by the US presidential candidate, John Kerry.

Earlier this year Mr Kerry said that as president he would have sent American troops to protect Jean-Bertrand Aristide who was ousted from power in February.

The Brazilian UN general, Augusto Heleno, said Mr Kerry's comments had offered "hope" to Aristide supporters. Much of the recent unrest has centred on areas loyal to Mr Aristide.

More than 50 people have died over the past fortnight.

'Unfounded'

Eight months ago the Bush administration withdrew all support for Mr Aristide and made it clear he should leave Haiti.

John Kerry called that "short-sighted" and said he would have sent troops to protect Mr Aristide, who was an elected leader.

Now General Heleno, says those comments have offered hope to Aristide's supporters that should Mr Kerry win the US election in November the former Haitian president might be restored to power.

General Heleno said any hopes of an Aristide comeback were "completely unfounded".

Speaking to Brazil's state news agency the UN commander was trying to explain the recent upsurge in violence in Haiti.

General Heleno insisted the peacekeepers, most of whom are Brazilian, were doing the maximum possible to restore order.

He denied they had ever lost control of events in the capital, Port-au-Prince.

But the Brazilian government has appealed for UN troop numbers to be increased.

At present 3,000 soldiers are in Haiti, less than half the number originally authorised.

weeeee...

[turms 0]

What Kerry did was that he questioned Bushes policy regarding Haiti. If its a sin to question the standing president nowadays, the Kerry is a sinner.

[Bernadotte 0]

Funny thing - Bush is now in a slight lead in US-wide popularity, but at the same time Kerry is in a slight lead in the electoral votes count.

Let me give you 2 examples of how America's electoral college system is deeply flawed:

1.  Theoretically, 11 people could decide the presidency, and I don't mean the Supreme Court.  The 11 states with 15 or more electoral college votes together have 271 electoral college votes - enough to decide the presidency.  If everyone in those states remained at home on election day except for 1 person in each state and those 11 people voted for Kerry he would legally win.  ...Even if all 120 million people in the other 39 states voted for Bush.  Of course, it's an absurd scenario but reality will always fall somewhere between this example and one where the popular vote truly matters.

2.  Each state is allowed 1 electoral vote for every senator and congressman it has in Washington DC.  And since each state has exactly 2 senators and at least 1 congressman that means the minimum electoral votes per state is 3.  Wyoming and its half million population are one of those states represented by 3 electoral votes giving them 1 vote per 166,000 people.  However, there are many states where the population grew much faster than the number of congressional districts.  California's 34 million people are only represented by 55 electoral votes or 1 vote per 618,000.  In other words, a vote in Dick Cheney's home state of Wyoming is worth nearly 4 times more than a vote in California.

You would be surprised at how few Americans know this about their 'democracy'.  

[denoir 0]

1.  Theoretically, 11 people could decide the presidency, and I don't mean the Supreme Court.  The 11 states with 15 or more electoral college votes together have 271 electoral college votes - enough to decide the presidency.  If everyone in those states remained at home on election day except for 1 person in each state and those 11 people voted for Kerry he would legally win.  ...Even if all 120 million people in the other 39 states voted for Bush.  Of course, it's an absurd scenario but reality will always fall somewhere between this example and one where the popular vote truly matters.

I think that the problem here is that abnormal power is given to the 'swing' states. This leads at best to voter apathy in the other ones, and at worst an unfair federal policy, with the politicians trying to suck up to the swing states.

Quote[/b] ]2.  Each state is allowed 1 electoral vote for every senator and congressman it has in Washington DC.  And since each state has exactly 2 senators and at least 1 congressman that means the minimum electoral votes per state is 3.  Wyoming and its half million population are one of those states represented by 3 electoral votes giving them 1 vote per 166,000 people.  However, there are many states where the population grew much faster than the number of congressional districts.  California's 34 million people are only represented by 55 electoral votes or 1 vote per 618,000.  In other words, a vote in Dick Cheney's home state of Wyoming is worth nearly 4 times more than a vote in California.

This is not a flaw - it's by design. You have to remember that America is a federation of states. The smaller states have to have a reason to stay in.

It's the same thing in the EU. This is what it looks like today (Nice Treaty). It will change a bit with the new constitution, but the principle is the same.

Quote[/b] ]

<span style='font-family:"Courier"'>Country         pop. (mio.)      MEPs   pop./MEP rel. influence                                        

Luxembourg      0.4             6       66667   12.42

Malta           0.4             5       80000   10.53

Cyprus          0.8             6       133333  6.21

Estonia         1.4             6       233333  3.54

Slovenia        2               7       285714  2.89

Latvia          2.4             9       266667  3.1

Ireland         3.7             13      284615  2.91

Lithuania       3.7             13      284615  2.91

Finland         5.2             14      371429  2.22

Denmark         5.3             14      378571  2.18

Slovakia        5.4             14      385714  2.14

Austria         8.1             18      450000  1.84

Sweden          8.9             19      468421  1.76

Portugal        9.9             24      412500  2

Hungary         10              24      416667  1.98

Belgium         10.2            24      425000  1.94

Czech Republic  10.3            24      429167  1.92

Greece          10.6            24      441667  1.87

Netherlands     15.8            27      585185  1.41

Poland          38.6            54      714815  1.15

Spain           39.4            54      729630  1.13

Italy           57.7            78      739744  1.11

France          59.1            78      757692  1.09

United Kingdom  59.4            78      761538  1.08

Germany         82.1            99      828283  1</span>

The justification behind it is of course that smaller states should not be run over by the larger ones. You have to give them a good reason to be part of the union.

Personally I think a two-chamber system is enough to protect smaller states and that the parliament/house should be 1:1.

[Bernadotte 0]

This is not a flaw - it's by design.

A design flaw then. Automatically granting each state with 3 electoral votes (even if its population drops to 2) was written into the constitution long before the federation started seeking new members.

By the way, when Germany agreed to be the most under-represented population within EU a German friend of mine said, "How many more times do we have to lose the war?"

[Colossus 2]

Just 2 weeks left until the fait of the humanity is at stake.

Either the remote-controlled monkey wins or the guy who has to win this, Kerry.

Go Kerry

[ralphwiggum 6]

Just 2 weeks left until the fait of the humanity is at stake.

Either the remote-controlled monkey wins or the guy who has to win this, Kerry.

Go Kerry

and two more weeks until either billybob or bernadotte looses their post count.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]and two more weeks until either billybob or bernadotte looses their post count.

Quote[/b] ] Go Kerry

  Go Bush

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ] Go Kerry

  Go Bush

01000111 01101111 00100000 01000010 01100001 01100100 01101110 01100001 01110010 01101001 01101011

[denoir 0]

This is not a flaw - it's by design.

A design flaw then.  Automatically granting each state with 3 electoral votes (even if its population drops to 2) was written into the constitution long before the federation started seeking new members.

The American constitution was written with a federation in mind. I do however think that a major flaw of the US constitution that it can't be changed and updated - but that's another story.

Quote[/b] ]By the way, when Germany agreed to be the most under-represented population within EU a German friend of mine said, "How many more times do we have to lose the war?"

Right behind the Germans are the Brits, the French, the Italians and the Polish. It must be a Luxemburgian conspiracy

No but seriously, I understand the intention of such a design. Had things been 1:1 Luxemburg and Malta for instance would have no seats in parliament. I can understand the point of view of the smaller states.

In the US one might think that it's enough integrated as a country so that the individual states do not have to be paranoid about the other states.

Either way, direct personal elections should be 1:1. The number of representatives is one question, but when everbody votes for the same set of persons, then it's very weird that the votes are weighted differently. (According the new EU constitution, the president will be selected directly through 1:1 elections - which IMO makes sense).

[Llauma 0]

The American constitution was written with a federation in mind. I do however think that a major flaw of the US constitution that it can't be changed and updated - but that's another story.

I wonder if it will ever be changed.. It's like Greece would still have the same constitution as during Socrates time. Times change as the views on what democrazy is.