"Implications of the ‘Bread and Peace’ Model for the 2008 US Presidential Election"

In comments, Douglas Hibbs notes that he has "recently posted an analysis of the implications of my Bread and Peace model for the 2008 US presidential election." 

Let's back up. From an earlier post:

Lane Kenworthy...:

Bread, Peace, and the 2008 Election, by Lane Kenworthy: Douglas Hibbs’ “bread and peace” model has been extremely effective at predicting the outcomes of U.S. presidential elections. ...

There are two main exceptions: 1952 and 1968. ... This is where the “peace” component of the model comes in. In those two years the incumbent (Democratic) party suffered from a large number of American casualties in a war for which it was viewed as responsible — Korea in 1952 and Vietnam in 1968. Those two wars were still relevant in the ensuing elections, in 1956 and 1972, but the incumbent (Republican) party didn’t suffer much because it hadn’t started the wars. ...

What does the model predict for the 2008 election? It’s early yet, but nevertheless interesting to take a look. Through the end of 2007, Hibbs’ ... model projects a victory for the Republican candidate. ...

Surprised? Many citizens and pundits expect a Democratic victory. And seemingly with good reason. The current Republican president is extremely unpopular, the Democrats did very well in the 2006 mid-term elections, Democratic voters appear to be more energized than their Republican counterparts, and the two issues voters say are most important to them, the economy and the Iraq war, seem likely to favor the Democratic candidate. ...

But this update comes to a different conclusion:

Implications of the ‘Bread and Peace’ Model for the 2008 US Presidential Election[1], by Douglas Hibbs [IE only] [web page]: Summary: Presidential election outcomes are well explained by just two objectively measured fundamental determinants: (1) weighted-average growth of per capita real personal disposable income over the term, and (2) cumulative US military fatalities owing to unprovoked, hostile deployments of American armed forces in foreign conflicts not sanctioned by a formal Congressional declaration of war. At the end of 2007 weighted-average growth of real incomes during Bush’s second term stood at 1.1 percent per annum. If the same performance were sustained for the rest of the term it might barely suffice to keep the Republicans in the White House, other things being equal. However the economy slid into recession at the beginning of the year and per capita real incomes will most likely decline throughout 2008. Moreover, by Election Day cumulative US military fatalities in Iraq will approach 4,500 and this will depress the incumbent vote by more than three-quarters of a percentage point. Given those fundamental conditions the Bread and Peace model predicts a Republican two-party vote share of 46-47% and therefore a comfortable victory for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election.

Relieved? Not so fast. Here's a bit more from the paper:

...Qualifications The Bread and Peace model aims to quantify the effects of fundamental determinants of presidential voting outcomes. Every election is affected by random, idiosyncratic factors which at times are important enough to obscure the persistent influence of fundamental determinants. Indeed idiosyncratic events contribute a lot of the fun to political affairs...

In 2008 the Democratic nominee will be either a woman or an Afro-American man – both firsts in American major party politics. Most of us would like to think that the US has matured enough that candidate gender and race as such are of no electoral consequence. Most of us are also realistic enough to know that this untested proposition is uncertain. Pure gender or race effects will cut both ways in 2008 but on balance they likely will hurt the Democratic Party candidate – more so in Obama’s case than Clinton’s. On the Republican side are the issues of John McCain’s age and health. Should he win election, McCain (b. August 29, 1936) would be the oldest first term president ever – a fact that could begin to weigh more heavily on voters than earlier as attentions get focused after the party conventions. Another episode of melanoma (McCain is known to have had three non-malignant bouts so far) could also become a significant negative. A diagnosis of malignant melanoma, which would be impossible to keep secret, would devastate McCain’s chances producing a much lower Republican vote share than expected from fundamental factors.

The Democratic Party nomination process could play out to be a more important idiosyncratic factor in 2008 than health issues or unprecedented candidate demographics. If Hillary Clinton manages to secure the nomination by somehow overturning the ruling of the Democratic National Committee that delegates elected in the unsanctioned, uncontested Florida and Michigan primaries will not be seated at the Party’s convention, then in the absence of sanctioned primary election do-overs or Obama’s acquiescence by acceptance of second place on the ticket, large numbers of otherwise reliably pro-Democratic voters will sit on their hands or defect to McCain – and McCain will win the election even though the fundamentals favor the Democrats. It would be ironic indeed if once again a dispute about electoral procedures in Florida helped put a Republican in the White House.

Comments

[donna]

According to generational theory, McCain is definitely a long shot:

http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/erickson/2008/01/generational_patterns_in_the_p.html

[James Killus]

I believe that this model also predicted that Al Gore would win in 2000. Oh, and 9/11 changed everything--retroactively.

I especially like the part about how an Obama candidacy will hurt the Democratic Party's chance of victory more than a Clinton candidacy, except if Clinton wins the nomination, in which case her candidacy will definitely hurt the Democratic Party because Obama supporters are so pissy.

McCain gets hurt only if he gets cancer, apparently, or if he continues to be old. The idea that some in the Republican Party just don't like him does not seem to be a factor, nor does the ongoing criminality of the Bush Administration. Oh, wait, maybe that's a plus; see my first paragraph.

I'm getting that people really like to project themselves onto this election. That's probably why I'm being so bilious.

[jeff hoffman]

"Another episode of melanoma (McCain is known to have had three non-malignant bouts so far)...". Here the writer is confusing the terms malignant and metastatic. Melanoma is by definition a malignancy. If McCain has had three melanomas removed and been treated for prostate cancer, he has by definition, had four malignancies. If so, a thorough review of his medical records would be appropriate insofar as the risk of metastasis from melanoma, which can occur late, depends on depth of invasion and surgical margins.

[esb]

I have three loosely connected things to mention.

First, main impediment in the way of another Cheney war has been the accidental positioning of a true patriot, William Fallon, at the head of Central Command. As of 1April2008 that impediment will be gone. The amazing "tell" here was the press release from SoD Gates to the effect that the "early retirement" did not mean war was imminent. I suppose that depends on what the meaning of the word "imminent" is, or "war" itself.

Second, the Clinton campaign seems determined to continue the "Blazing Saddles" strategy against Barak, this time rolling out Ferraro (thrice).

Finally, an "independent citizens group" has formed in Florida for the purpose of litigating the unseating of the convention delegates of that state. So it seems that the Clinton campaign is most focused on the following "irregular" delegates, Lewis, Wells, Anstead, Pariente, Quince, Cantero and Bell,

you know, the delegates who sit in a semicircle in black judicial robes.

If the Florida delegates are seated by judicial fiat of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, then the Clinton campaign can respond, "Well, what can we do. We will just have to accept the opinion of the courts, as we did in 2000."

I guess my point in all of this is that this election seems to have far more complexities than the 2000 main event,

if such a thing can be imagined,

with lots of moving parts, lots of balls in the air.

[Organic George]

If Clinton receives the nomination, but fair or foul, the Obama's core supporters will not sit on their hands or switch to McCain to have another 8 years of Bush-Lite.

Because unlike economist, these peoples lives are already in a recession.

A professor of mine in the 70's told us that when you read a article about low wages and high unemployment remember that person writing it has a good job

[Cyrille]

James, Al Gore DID win in 2000. And Kerry in 2004.

The Republicans just did not allow the results to stand.

[Lafayette]

Remain as homogeneous as possible

Article: Most of us would like to think that the US has matured enough that candidate gender and race as such are of no electoral consequence. Most of us are also realistic enough to know that this untested proposition is uncertain.

Let's presume that Obama wins and Clinton loses. Does anyone in their right mind think that those Dems who voted for Clinton, will now vote for McCain? Of course not.

Real Repubs will vote for McCain come hell or high water. The rest will vote the party. They will not vote for Obama (meaningfully). So, the election focuses on idiosyncratic differences between the incumbent and opposition parties, not the persons representing them.

And, there, the Dems have the advantage, hands down. So, for Obama, the primaries ARE his election campaign. The rest will be a cake walk. He will repeat exactly the same formula employed to win the primaries i.e., "Say nothing of particular significance, emphasize change (from the present incompetence), demean your opponent". (Hey, it works!)

So, the Dems win. And, what then?

The fact of the matter is nobody knows, except Obama's Kitchen Cabinet ... and aside from the stray fool who bungled his way into the Canadian consulate in Chicago to talk too much, they're not saying.

They are not saying , get it? Obama is not telling the American people why he should be PotUS, because he's afraid that by doing so, it will hurt his election chances.

The magic of American politics, with its multi-faceted fractions is to NOT OFFEND ANY ONE GROUP. That is, a candidate mouths meaningless sound bites, avoids polemics, sings the one note of "Change, marvelous change!" -- but, above all, says NOTHING of any consequence. They must remain as homogeneous as possible.

Candidates demonstrate no real grasp of the issues or the problems, proposes no solutions. (Have you seen the telegenic image concoction going on as background behind the campaign podiums on either side?) We are supposed to hope for the best, as we did with lead-head. The electoral campaign is all image and no message.

They will hide the beef in the top drawer until well after election day. This is an intelligent democracy? Wow.

BFD.

[Lafayette]

Cy: The Republicans just did not allow the results to stand.

This statement is very naive. The decision by the Supreme Court regarding the Florida vote was final. If you want to attack the Supreme Court by intimating that its supposedly unbiased opinion was imposed, then you attack its very foundations.

From WP: On December 12, the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, as well as a 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recounts and allowed Florida to certify its vote, effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Like it or not, the decision must stand. End of story.

Remember, we are exchanging about America not Putin's Russia.

[Bruce Wilder]

L: "Obama is not telling the American people why he should be PotUS, because he's afraid that by doing so, it will hurt his election chances."

To some, limited extent, that's true. It doesn't pay to get too specific, and the reason is clear. James Killus nails it: "I'm getting that people really like to project themselves onto this election."

People project. Trifle with that at your peril.

But, it is really inaccurate to say that either Obama or Clinton never discuss policy proposals or specific approaches to issues, because they do. It is generally boring, and lacks much substantitve significance, being remote from legislating. But, it is there. Obama's website is lousy with policy specifics. Go look, if you don't believe me.

McCain, on the other hand, really is an idiot, who knows little and cares less about policy in any and all areas. This shortcoming does not seem to hurt him with his base in the Media.

[hari]

I think you're getting no where unless one or another candidate finds it reasonably safe to "sue for Peace" based on American military strength!

Since, Fed will more or less be obliged (by law!) to find a solution to this credit crunch...it'll nevertheless interfere with the high tide of election propaganda; take a que from 1970s - during Viet Nam War.

First, with HRC/BO as opposition, GOP may, it's a long shot, may find a way to sneak through the final line. Unless unforseen developments interrupt and influence voter sentiments - like Iran, Hamas, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Second, HRC has a good chance of getting Florida and Michigan re-vote and diminish the delegate count with BO.
This will eventually lead to her beating him with Super Delegates vote. However, there'll be an imperative need to not only get BO on the tkt (long shot at best!) and/or adopt some of his platform/programmes.

Third, I'm now convinced BO, in the event of defeating HRC, will end up facing a national security hawk who'll reduce him to a puppet...and win for GOP.

That's a simple analysis which implies HRC has the best chance of winning against GOP machine - inspite of the past encounters and its reveberations into Nov 2008.

Will the down trend of economic malise affect the election?
Most likely, if GOP has no answer to forestall it... Neither HRC/BO have so far come with policy alternatives that really catch one's imagination.

[bakho]

The election will be close like the last 5. However, some of the big states like Ohio will flip from GOP to Dem because of the economy. If OH flips, the Dems win. Ohio already flipped at the state level in 2006.

The GOP will win in most of the South and rural states like Idaho and WY. The Midwest has already turned against them because of the economy. Immigration and NAFTA are issues because of the economy. Iraq is sinking in importance. Iraq is important for people who want the US out. The economy is most important for everyone else. A candidate that wants to stay in Iraq and is admits to being clueless about economics (McCain) is a maverick out of touch with the electorate. His age makes it easier to paint him as out of touch and outdated.

[anne]

"Second, the Clinton campaign seems determined to continue the 'Blazing Saddles' strategy against Barak, this time rolling out Ferraro (thrice)."

A horrible vicious lie, a lie for the sake of personal destruction, a lie beyond conscience, a shameful lie for the sake of intimidation.

[anne]

[Please notice, the link to the comment by Douglas Hibbs is not effective for a reason known only to Typepad.]

[kharris]

Lafayette,

That 5-4 vote you mention split along partisan lines. The text of the decision indicated that the decision should not be taken as a precedent in any future election case. Given those circumstances, you high-horse finger wagging about the sanctity of Supreme Court decisions seems naive. We have little reason to belief Supreme Court justices are above politics, since they are appointed by politicians. No amount of pretending that the Court is full of wise, god-like individuals will change reality.

[Lafayette]

BW: It is generally boring, and lacks much substantitve significance, being remote from legislating. But, it is there.

Thanks, what I get over CNN here indicated as much. Which means they are just mouthing the supposed right words like robots.

You cannot get into solutions without going into detail. If you want to gain the confidence of people, then you must show that you master such details. More important, a candidate must show a pedagogical capacity to inform the public simply regarding the proposed solutions.

Who would hire someone as a newspaper editor just because they know their way around a Word Processor? Then why should I vote for either Dem candidate to solve the problem of America's complex reforms necessary to assure its citizens a decent living?

We've lost 8 years in a senseless, wasteful war. We have seriously bungled financial matters with both a dot.com bust and a sub-prime fraud. We have blinded ourselves to the necessity of taking drastic action to prevent an ecological disaster. And, through it all, we have built a plutocracy that garners the lion's share of economic wealth.

I don't see how projecting oneself into Change! is going to address any of the above challenges. It builds a massive amount of hope that will go unrequited. A performance not unlike lead-head's ...

I maintain: This electioneering is a media circus devoid of content. If you go after an image, be careful its not a mirage.

[donna]

"Then why should I vote for either Dem candidate to solve the problem of America's complex reforms necessary to assure its citizens a decent living?"

Because the alternative is to vote for a continuation of the disastrous policies of the last four years.

[W C Fields]

L: "This electioneering is a media circus . . ."

Well, duh.

I don't disagree with you about that; I demur against your demand that it should be something else. The American democracy is a representative one, and the vast majority of the electorate wants to leave policy to someone else in the great division of labor -- and, I believe they are right to do so.

I fault the Media in the Media circus, not the candidates -- the American Media are a seriously broken institution of democracy -- craven, incompetent, tools of the plutocracy, etc. If you watch CNN International (which is at least an order of magnitude better than the domestic product), you have little idea just how bad they are. Journalists, who in the division of political labor should be acting as Tribunes of the People in holding politicians to reasonable standards are idle, complacent, ignorant (often drunken) twits.

But, I don't fault the American People for, by and large, not wanting to engage in a wonk fest with Presidential candidates. Presidents, Bush's pretensions notwithstanding, are not dictators; Presidents propose, and when the Constitution is working, Congress disposes. The details of policy come later in the process -- that's the work of governance, not electioneering, for the very good reason that the electorate do not have the time or inclination to govern -- that's why they are the electorate.

I do think it would improve things immensely if the American Media were better equipped to referee -- to call liars on lies, to name fools, and generally impose a higher threshold for the quality of candidates.

Quite apart from my ideological policy preferences, I am just appalled that the Republicans would run candidates as palpably ill-suited to the Presidency as John McCain (or George W. Bush, for that matter). But, they can get away with it, because leading journalists and journalistic commentators in America are, by and large, incompetent and/or in the tank for the plutocracy.

You can complain that the Media makes politics about personality and character, but we are electing persons, not policies. My problem with the Media focus on personality and "character" is not that that is their focus, but that they get such assessments so appallingly wrong. Would I favor a callow, inexperienced, ignorant dry drunk over a visionary, idealistic man of vast experience? The American punditocrisy and American journalism did in 2000, quite decisively and with effect.

You can talk about "bread" and "peace" models all you want, but if the focus of choice had included the personal suitability of the candidates for office, Gore should have won in a landslide. And, if the Media were doing their job properly, he would have. Of course, if the Media had been doing their job properly, the Republicans would have offered a much better candidate, "better" as in "better" for country, as opposed to "better" at playing false on television.

It is a sad fact of human nature, but it is simply not possible to get a majority of any large, randomly assembled group to consistently favor any rational policy. Consistency and rationality, even in a much smaller, representative assembly, is only achieved by dint of channelling political behavior through complex rules and procedures.

The American requirement of 51% across a vast, diverse continental country pretty much assures that Presidential elections will always have a large element of Tippicanoe and Tyler, Too!

The 25% to 40% it is possible to assemble behind any coherent policy preference or even point of view is not enough to win an election. So, the 30%, consisting of confused ignoramuses with little idea of politics or policy, decide elections, on the basis of how they feel about the price of gas, their paycheck and losing a war, except when a third Party arises to randomly toss the election to the "other guy". That 30%, who hold the balance of electoral power, are amazingly resistant to learning from experience. They don't the difference they've made in their own lives, or the lives of millions.

That's not necessarily a bad thing for democracy, if institutions like the Media are working. If both Parties are acting responsibly and honestly, it just means that the political pendulum swings back and forth between conservative and progressive, and, as power corrupts, the bums get thrown out and bad dealing in office is held to a tolerable noise level.

What ails America today is that the political pendulum is swinging alright, but between rational if wimpy, mostly honest Democrats, and a bunch of irredeemable incompetent and corrupt Republicans. We get eight years of Clinton -- honest, decent, moderately conservative, earnest, followed by Bush -- totally corrupt and incompetent. That kind of political pendulum will literally and without exaggeration bring the country to complete ruin in another cycle.

We are about to have another round of moderately conservative, earnest and honest government. Because the corrupt and dishonest have brought about economic ruin and lost two wars, and even the dumbest 30% know-nothings cannot mistake the lesson . . . for the moment. Bread and Peace, indeed.

But, this political pendulum is attached to a ratchet that is bringing the country, and the world with it, toward escalating catastrophe.

[Bruce Wilder]

Ooops. Forgot to drop my WC Fields identity.

[Patricia Shannon]

W C Fields/Bruce Wilder
100% correct

[anne]

Douglas Hibbs:

"If Hillary Clinton manages to secure the nomination by somehow overturning the ruling of the Democratic National Committee that delegates elected in the unsanctioned, uncontested Florida and Michigan primaries will not be seated at the Party’s convention, then in the absence of sanctioned primary election do-overs or Obama’s acquiescence by acceptance of second place on the ticket, large numbers of otherwise reliably pro-Democratic voters will sit on their hands or defect to McCain – and McCain will win the election even though the fundamentals favor the Democrats."

This is not analytical prediction but fortune telling, and calls to question any of the analysis. I am not impressed.

[Jay]

The best model out there is the Washington Redskins model (however it applies to the populous vote). If the Redskins win their last regular season home game the incumbent party wins the populous vote in the general election later that year. If they lose their last home game the incumbent party loses the populous vote.

The only 100% predictor of populous vote says the Republicans win the populous vote in November(They beat the Dolphins at home week 17).

[esb]

Well, the United States Supreme Court can trump the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, but in this case I imagine that it will not, should a seating order issue, since the Rs seem to want to have a McCain v Clinton election.

I think that there are more balls in the air at one time here than ever before, but what say you?

Dueling Supremes?

The country glued to CNN/MSNBC?

Taxi drivers opining regarding the significance of individual words in a Justice's inquiry?

Justice Pariente falling asleep?

Just like 2000?

[Jay]

"They beat the Dolphins" refers to the Redskins.

[hari]

If W.C.Fields/Bruce Wilder is right, then US is in a much more dangerous phase of political modernization compared to the financial malise - which is correctable even if damaging to the national economy.

Remember Adlai Stevenson's arguments against Ike that he'd most probably die in office because he's too old! Well, we know Adlai was just trying his luck with the electorate - it didn't work. However, we considered him as a superior intellect. We would have voted for Adlai, as Pres, if we're 21.

I suspect, given the sad resume of American continental politics, based so much on media impact, it's not going to go down too well in Europe - after GWB - and after the devastation of the image of America. It'd take a lot of time to repair the damage done by GWB, but repair it must.

May be Mark, in his innocense, thought there is a connection to "bread and peace" in the crisis period.
It seems there is more to the problems of governance in US than just hi fi mortgages and whatnot....

[hari]

If W.C.Fields/Bruce Wilder is right, then US is in a much more dangerous phase of political modernization compared to the financial malise - which is correctable even if damaging to the national economy.

Remember Adlai Stevenson's arguments against Ike that he'd most probably die in office because he's too old! Well, we know Adlai was just trying his luck with the electorate - it didn't work. However, we considered him as a superior intellect. We would have voted for Adlai, as Pres, if we're 21.

I suspect, given the sad resume of American continental politics, based so much on media impact, it's not going to go down too well in Europe - after GWB - and after the devastation of the image of America. It'd take a lot of time to repair the damage done by GWB, but repair it must.

May be Mark, in his innocense, thought there is a connection to "bread and peace" in the crisis period.
It seems there is more to the problems of governance in US than just hi fi mortgages and whatnot....

[James Killus]

Cyrille says...

James, Al Gore DID win in 2000. And Kerry in 2004.

The Republicans just did not allow the results to stand.

As I said, Cyrille, 9/11 changed everything, retroactively. Time travel stories are always screwed up.

[Lafayette]

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

donna: Because the alternative is to vote for a continuation of the disastrous policies of the last four years.

From McCain? I doubt that.

I think McCain's would be a one term presidency and its nugget of gold would be REAL legislation that takes BigMoney out of American politics.

Such would be an ENORMOUS benefit to an America blinded by greed.

And, it is entirely possible. Obama is an intelligent guy, but all this electioneering froth is just ... air. Despite Democrat fervor, America has actually move subtly right. The nation was spit down the middle in both lead-head's 2000 and 2004 elections.

As someone else has said in a thread elsewhere. The Democrats are supremely apt at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They do it time and time again.

[SanFranciscoJim]

This statement is very naive. The decision by the Supreme Court regarding the Florida vote was final. If you want to attack the Supreme Court by intimating that its supposedly unbiased opinion was imposed, then you attack its very foundations.

Yes, but you neglect to mention the circumstances leading up to the decision by the USSC. The very close election results, mandating a recount, per the Florida Constitution. The GOP's lawsuit to block that recount. The court decision to allow the recount to go forward. The GOP then busing in supporters from the New Jersey mob to physically attack those trying to recount the ballots. The GOP doing everything it its power to delay the recount, then arguing successfully before the USSC that time was of the essence and there wasn't enough time left to do a fair recount before the Constitution required the President to be sworn in.

It was nothing short of a coup and a short circuit of the democratic process.

[Patricia Shannon]

SanFranciscoJim, well said.

[Lafayette]

SFJ: Yes, but you neglect to mention the circumstances leading up to the decision by the USSC.

Look at the court's decision. Read it. There is nothing there that resembles a coup. It is couched in a legal framework and it applies a valid interpretation of law.

" ... on December 12, the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, as well as a 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recounts and allowed Florida to certify its vote, effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."

So what, if it didn't go your way? The decision didn't agree terribly well with me either. But, let's also consider that Gore was part of a government that could have passed legislation that mandated a level of quality to the voting process uniform across the country. After all, it is a national election.

But, that administration did nothing to rectify a recurrent problem due to antiquated machinery being used because it's considered too costly to replace.

Something as important as a democratic election should not be conducted with shoddy material and procedures that vary from state to state. Let NASA handle the next presidential election and there won't be any ballot chads. The results are also likely to be far more precise.

[SanFranciscoJim]

You are correct of course. The sad truth is, that if Gore had been awarded the winner, the Republicans would have rightly complained that he had stolen the election. So there would have been legitimate grumbling, no matter who was awarded the victory. Our electoral system is simply not accurate enough to determine the results down to the 1/10th of one percent.

Perhaps "coup" is too strong a word, but when you use violence against the poll observers to achieve your desired aim, you are certainly opening yourself to the charge. But I guess we have seen these sorts of things, especially in the South, for quite a long time.

[Lafayette]

sfj: Our electoral system is simply not accurate enough to determine the results down to the 1/10th of one percent.

And so the question is: "Why a nation that can send men to the moon cannot devise an electoral system that is exact and impose it on any state that participates in a national election?

This would require the state to undertake the improvements necessary. If a state accepts to build a federally funded road through its territory, it accepts also that it be built against a specification established by the federal government for inter-state highways.

The principles in the matter of state-federal relations have been set down for a great long time.

It's just a matter of typical incompetence and the silly notion that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, counting votes ain't the only thing broke.

[Lafayette]

kharris: Given those circumstances, you high-horse finger wagging about the sanctity of Supreme Court decisions seems naive.

No, I believe it essential. There's a subtlety here afoot.

Accusing the Supreme court of manipulated political coercion is extremely dangerous, for a body that is supposedly independent and unelected. When we say it is "biased", that is what we do. (Bias = inclination or prejudice for or against one thing or person)

You are confusing the interpretation of precedence or constitution with political prejudice. Learn to distinguish between them, because there is a nuanced difference.

The Supreme Court is not an elective body, it has no inbred political bias just because it "splits along political lines". It just may happen to split along political lines by our pre-conceived notions of what those values are.

The Republicans don't own it. The PotUS doesn't call the Chief Justice and tell him/her what a decision should be. And, in this case, the finding was clearly based upon the principles of law -- which you may or may not wish to agree with.

But, that's what courts are for, deciding on the facts and moving on. Which is why Gore accepted the judgment without whimpering. He did precisely what was called for under the circumstances. To have continued the controversy would have dangerously divided the nation.

The Supreme Court decision tarnished this administration even before it came to office. Mostly everything it has done since is simply a mirror image of that blemish.

This administration is unpopular and always will be -- but let's not blame the Supreme Court. The administration sowed its own seeds of self-destruction.