so... that pretty much sucked, huh?

Actually, I thought it was pretty exciting. While I was pretty sure around 10pm that Bush would win, I kept the TV on while I slept last night and woke up every once in awhile to see if the official results were in.

I think that just like last time, we got the close race without so much of the controversy. While I still don't quite understand the point of the electoral college, I'm relieved to see the popular vote support the electoral vote winner.

Of course, all of this is separate from the fact that the candidate I voted for didn't win, which is what I assume you were referring to when you so eloquently commented that the election "sucked".

I win.

Oh hells yeah! Damn, I look forward to building an even bigger deficit, more decapitations, appointing conservative members to the Supreme Court, stronger morals and being an even bigger, badder US to the rest of the world! Looks like I better get a new job (if I can find one) where I can make over $200,000 and I'll be set! I'm actually RELIEVED Bush/Cheney won. Now we don't have to worry about those nuclear attacks Cheney claimed would happen if Kerry came out on top.

The electoral college doesn't vote until Dec. 13.

My bad. What I meant was: I'm glad the number of electoral as well as popular votes earned favored the same candidate.

And I wish there was actually a chance in hell that the electoral vote would actually be a true election and not a silly formality.

I was just looking at the map of the 2004 and 2000 elections and noticed that Bush has the greater majority of electoral votes (274 versus 271) this time around with the exact same states minus New Hampshire. I guess the population over the past 4 years has only grown in red states.

Or has it!

I'm disgusted. Why bother voting? The reason this idiot got elected again is because people are afraid of change and plus, not enough young people 18-26 voted. I am honestly sick that I will have to see Bush's face for four more years.

Where did you get the numbers on that? I was trying to determine if MTV, etc. was successful in increasing the youth vote this time.

the same amount of people 18-25 who voted in 2000 voted in 2004. per CNN i think.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 4:53 pm on Nov. 3, 2004)

I think that's pretty shocking. Don't you?

I do.

Did you notice that Bush lost in N.Y. and D.C.?

I remember you saying: "I hate Beatle's songs when the Beatles do them, but when other artists cover them I think they're pretty good."

It's warped thinking such as this that makes you a republican my friend.

I too am very saddened and angry knowing that we have four more years of BUSH! I figured that there would be a lot of first time voters to back Kerry. What happened?!? I can only smile knowing that it will be his last term!

By the way, this is my first post! I have been a member sometime now and love to read everyone's messages, but never felt like saying anything until now!

Rock on!

It makes me sick to my stomach. seriously.

(Edited by Sexy Sadie at 4:53 pm on Nov. 3, 2004)

The statistic I heard was that voters aged 18-25 formed the same percentage of the electorate as in 2000. So the actual number of 18-25 voters increased, but it only increased at the same rate as the electorate as a whole. This morning, NPR reported that younger voters supported Bush more than expected. However, I haven't seen any hard numbers on this.

Since the actual number of young voters increased, MTV is claiming victory.

my brother is in the mtv voting commerical with LL Cool J. i never saw it.

yes, tom. young voter numbers did increase, but remained in the same percentage as in the last election. but they did vote about 60%-40% kerry to bush- npr.

This is sickening. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I really didn't think bush would be reelected. I knew it would be close... but damn.

well, yes, pretty much. (although it was somewhat of a joke.)

also, it was about halfway through the day and nobody had posted on it yet, so i figured 'why not?'

like some other people here, i'm pretty exhausted about discussing it.

i'm glad the popula vote matched the electoral, but the system of a whole seems absolutely ludicrous to me. since i didn't vote the way the majority of the people in the area did, my vote now means nothing. at the same time, taking the raw popular vote does mean that highly populated (and democrat-based) areas such as cali and ny would dominate the election... why don't states split the electorate? i mean, i can see that i'm kinda new to this whole voting thing, but you would think that someone would've figured that out by now. it seems to me the only way to get a fair result. i don't know.... i'm just rambling.

I say they just have a knife fight every four years to determine the President. And charge admission, or air it PayPerView. That'll fix any deficit.