Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: President Edwards?

Expand Messages
  • Greg Cannon
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Julia Ohl <jaohl@...> wrote:

      > Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:28:55 -0600 (Mountain
      > Daylight Time)
      > From: "Julia Ohl" <jaohl@...>
      > To: "Carter, Bobbi" <galpaso@...>, "Cannon,
      > Greg" <gregcannon1@...>, "Green, Dan"
      > <dgreen@...>, "Green, Julia"
      > <woodyjake2000@...>, "Green, Tom"
      > <tom@...>, "Ohl, Ann"
      > <aohlbigbend@...>
      > Subject: President Edwards?
      > October 29, 2004
      > President Edwards?
      > hiladelphia
      > It's Jan. 20, 2005, and a stunned America watches as
      > John Edwards is sworn
      > in as both vice president and acting president of
      > the United States.
      > Impossible? No, nor is a Bush-Edwards
      > administration.
      > There are just a few upsets needed in states where
      > the presidential race is
      > very close. Even if President Bush wins Wisconsin
      > and Minnesota - two states
      > he lost in 2000 - Senator John Kerry would force a
      > 269-269 Electoral College
      > tie if he carries Colorado, Missouri, Nevada and New
      > Hampshire, and Al Gore
      > s states.
      > But Colorado's ballot initiative to divide its
      > electoral votes by popular
      > ballot, rather than have them be winner take all,
      > could change all that. If
      > it's approved, and voting in that state splits as it
      > did in 2000, Mr. Bush
      > would pick up four votes, and win 273-265.
      > If recounts, challenges to provisional ballots and
      > other legal actions don't
      > overturn that result, the Supreme Court could again
      > be called upon to decide
      > the election. Imagine a ruling that applies the
      > results of the Colorado
      > initiative only to future presidential elections,
      > not the 2004 contest. That
      > would reinstate the Electoral College 269-269
      > deadlock, and send the tied
      > contests to Congress; the House would choose the
      > president and the Senate
      > the vice president.
      > In the Senate, at least 51 votes would be required
      > to elect a vice president
      > Given current polls, the Democrats can gain control
      > of the Senate by
      > picking up seats in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois,
      > Kentucky and Oklahoma, while
      > losing seats in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.
      > Senator Edwards would
      > be elected as vice president.
      > The House, however, votes for president by state,
      > with 26 delegations
      > required for election. If members of the House then
      > voted as their states
      > did, President Bush, in this scenario, would carry
      > 28 states, thus leading
      > to a Bush-Edwards administration.
      > Both Minnesota and Wisconsin, however, have House
      > delegations that are
      > evenly divided and are expected to remain that way.
      > Members in those two
      > states could decide to vote in line with the results
      > of their districts, not
      > the statewide result, thus their states would not be
      > able to cast a vote
      > because they deadlocked. If the Congressional
      > delegation in one other state
      > that also voted for Mr. Bush happened to deadlock,
      > or defied the state
      > result and voted for Senator Kerry, President Bush
      > would get only 25 states.
      > The Constitution provides that the vice president
      > becomes president if the
      > president dies, resigns or is removed from office.
      > But the 20th Amendment
      > states that: "If a president shall not have been
      > chosen before the time
      > fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the
      > president-elect shall have
      > failed to qualify, then the vice president-elect
      > shall act as president
      > until a president shall have qualified."
      > The House could remain deadlocked for two years, and
      > perhaps even four,
      > depending on the results of the 2006 Congressional
      > elections. And until the
      > House reaches a decision, Acting President John
      > Edwards would occupy the
      > Oval Office.
      > Stephen J. Marmon, who reported on the House of
      > Representatives for The Times from 1971 to 1973, is
      > an investment banker.
    • Ram Lau
      That s much more unlikely than the 2000 election result. But I m perfectly fine with Edawrds. President Edwards sounds great. Ram
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 29, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        That's much more unlikely than the 2000 election result. But I'm
        perfectly fine with Edawrds. President Edwards sounds great.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.