At 11:47 AM -0700 1/5/03, Harry D. Corsover wrote: > >He was elected by a greater percentage of the popular vote than Bill >>Clinton got in either election. And I don't believe that Gore had a >>majority of the vote either, if he had he would have won. > >Make up your mind, Eric; you can't have it both ways. I am not having it both ways Harry. Gore won the popular vote, by a very small number (it couldn't really even be called a percentage), but lost the electoral. If how much of the popular vote is some criteria one wishes to apply, then it is worth remembering that neither of the main candidates in 2000 won a majority of the votes, and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 won the electoral college, and therefore was the rightfully elected president, but had far less of the popular vote than Bush did in 2000. Finally, I would wager that most of the non-voters are just plain apathetic, and that is probably a sign of satisfaction, that they see the situation as largely satisfactory, and unlikely to change much no matter for whom they vote. *If* they were really unhappy, you can bet that most of them would get out to vote, and make their voices heard before the election. Creating misery and fear is one way of changing the government through the vote. Supporting the national mood is another way of keeping the status quo. It is one of the reasons the media supported and didn't question the inflated economic statistics of the closing Clinton months, and now ignores the good economic news now, instead reporting the Democrat claims of doom and gloom. By nearly every economic standard, it is improving and last year was pretty good. Excepting the overvaluation of the stock market, which Greenspan warned you all about in 1996, but Gore and Clinton pooh-poohed; and slept at the guard tower, or worse bribed or blackmailed or pressured the guards at the gates while the robbers at WorldCom, Enron and Global Crossing absconded with your monies. Creating fear and misery is a major play in the terrorist guidebook too.