nikki2200 4 Posted January 23, 2012 I read the quoted portion of the article. Without attacking Carville personally, I'm trying to take what he said on face value, but I'm not following what he's trying to say exactly. Is he saying that because there is no clear front runner winner of the GOP nomination yet, because three different people have won three different states, that somehow means the GOP is in 'trouble'? I think what he was trying to say is the GOP is not rallying around one candidate and their base is not excited about any of them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 23, 2012 I think what he was trying to say is the GOP is not rallying around one candidate and their base is not excited about any of them. Okay. Howver wouldn't that be the case in any hotly contest primary for any party? Couldn't the same have been said when Hillary and Obama were going at it? Once the dust settles, over time, we'll see how the 'base' rallies. Seems a bit early is all to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,590 Posted January 23, 2012 Okay. Howver wouldn't that be the case in any hotly contest primary for any party? Couldn't the same have been said when Hillary and Obama were going at it? Once the dust settles, over time, we'll see how the 'base' rallies. Seems a bit early is all to me. I thought the '08 Democratic primary had a lot of energy and record turnout? Anti-Bush sentiment was running so high the winner of the primary had an excellent shot at becoming president. This year's GOP primary reminds me more of '04 - a really dispiriting contest between lousy candidates against an incumbent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,148 Posted January 23, 2012 I thought the '08 Democratic primary had a lot of energy and record turnout? Anti-Bush sentiment was running so high the winner of the primary had an excellent shot at becoming president. This year's GOP primary reminds me more of '04 - a really dispiriting contest between lousy candidates against an incumbent. There is a lot of "Anybody but Obama" sentiment out there too. But I'm not comparing the 04 and 08 exactly per se, I'm just saying that unless a primary is a runaway then you can always say that the base isn't rallying behind ONE candidate. Or else it would be a runaway. This seems so easily logical to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 366 Posted January 23, 2012 The man makes a mean Cookiepuss and a fabulous Fudgie The Whale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 920 Posted January 23, 2012 I thought the '08 Democratic primary had a lot of energy and record turnout? Anti-Bush sentiment was running so high the winner of the primary had an excellent shot at becoming president. This year's GOP primary reminds me more of '04 - a really dispiriting contest between lousy candidates against an incumbent. Only difference being the Dems lousy candidate still beat Bush. There's no way either of these guys can beat Obama, regardless of how mediocre he's done. Conservs won't even get honest about these guys, at this point. One of their hugest problems with Obama was "Obamacare" and BOTH of these guys have pushed for pretty much the exact same thing at some point! At least Obama came out and said he wanted universal healthcare from day 1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 23, 2012 Only difference being the Dems lousy candidate still beat Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 920 Posted January 23, 2012 I'm talking about the popular vote. Try to keep up, Corky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted January 23, 2012 Only difference being the Dems lousy candidate still beat Bush. There's no way either of these guys can beat Obama, regardless of how mediocre he's done. Conservs won't even get honest about these guys, at this point. One of their hugest problems with Obama was "Obamacare" and BOTH of these guys have pushed for pretty much the exact same thing at some point! At least Obama came out and said he wanted universal healthcare from day 1. you underestimate how poorly your hero's presidential term has been perceived by normal people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 23, 2012 I'm talking about the popular vote. Try to keep up, Corky. In American Presidential elections you don't "beat" someone by popular vote. You should read up on the electoral college. It's been around for a long time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,590 Posted January 23, 2012 In American Presidential elections you don't "beat" someone by popular vote. True. Your hero the Great Decider lost it twice and still ended up as a two-termer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 920 Posted January 23, 2012 you underestimate how poorly your hero's presidential term has been perceived by normal people. Didn't vote for Obama (or McCain). I didn't even vote in 08. I'll be voting for him over Romney/Newt though. HTH. In American Presidential elections you don't "beat" someone by popular vote. You should read up on the electoral college. It's been around for a long time. I'm well aware of it, you focking jackalope. I'm saying it's stupid. We have these things called computers now. They make counting super easy. There's no need for the electoral college anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted January 23, 2012 True. Your hero the Great Decider lost it twice and still ended up as a two-termer. Did Kerry win the popular vote too? I don't remember that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 23, 2012 I'm well aware of it Apparently not. Either that or you are a ginormous idiot. I'll go with the latter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 23, 2012 you underestimate how poorly your hero's presidential term has been perceived by normal people. This, hey libtards ..critique your own dude. Just wait till the attention turns on him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,590 Posted January 23, 2012 Did Kerry win the popular vote too? I don't remember that. No, sorry - he lost in once. The '04 elections were the closest in history and Kerry won more votes than any challenger ever, despite being a really poor candidate overall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 23, 2012 No, sorry - he lost in once. The '04 elections were the closest in history and Kerry won more votes than any challenger ever, despite being a really poor candidate overall. Not even in the top 5. You are having a bad day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted January 23, 2012 Didn't vote for Obama (or McCain). I didn't even vote in 08. I'll be voting for him over Romney/Newt though. HTH. I'm well aware of it, you focking jackalope. I'm saying it's stupid. We have these things called computers now. They make counting super easy. There's no need for the electoral college anymore. You don't even understand the purpose of the Electoral College! You have to be kidding me. I guess that is a typical BHO voter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,590 Posted January 23, 2012 Not even in the top 5. You are having a bad day. Then it's a good thing my self-esteem isn't contingent on "winning" at FFT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 23, 2012 Then it's a good thing my self-esteem isn't contingent on "winning" at FFT. If by 'winning' you mean actually getting something right, I would say it's a very good thing it doesn't matter to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted January 23, 2012 You don't even understand the purpose of the Electoral College! You have to be kidding me. I guess that is a typical BHO voter. OK. I'll bite. What is the modern day purpose of having an Electoral College and what does this do to improve our election process? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 7,590 Posted January 23, 2012 If by 'winning' you mean actually getting something right, I would say it's a very good thing it doesn't matter to you. I could always go your route and lie, delete threads, and welch when I'm wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,514 Posted January 23, 2012 OK. I'll bite. What is the modern day purpose of having an Electoral College and what does this do to improve our election process? It allows little states like mine a voice in the process of electing the president. Without it, California, New York, and a few other big states would decide every election. It's that simple. I could also argue time zones and the way exit polls have been abused over the last twenty years but I'll keep it simple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted January 23, 2012 It allows little states like mine a voice in the process of electing the president. Without it, California, New York, and a few other big states would decide every election. It's that simple. I could also argue time zones and the way exit polls have been abused over the last twenty years but I'll keep it simple. IDGI. Without an electoral college, every single person's vote in the country would be weighed equally. How does that give an advantage to some states? I think the electoral college is what does that, because they get more votes and 48% of their state may have voted one way, but their vote doesn't count because the other side got the majority. Evan if you take the huge blue states that you guys are scared of, a large percentage of those votes go to republicans, but they aren't counted because the democrats won the majority of the vote. Makes no sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted January 23, 2012 It allows little states like mine a voice in the process of electing the president. Without it, California, New York, and a few other big states would decide every election. It's that simple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,514 Posted January 23, 2012 IDGI. Without an electoral college, every single person's vote in the country would be weighed equally. How does that give an advantage to some states? I think the electoral college is what does that, because they get more votes and 48% of their state may have voted one way, but their vote doesn't count because the other side got the majority. Evan if you take the huge blue states that you guys are scared of, a large percentage of those votes go to republicans, but they aren't counted because the democrats won the majority of the vote. Makes no sense. If it weren't for the Electoral College, why would any presedential candidate care about Louisiana and what their potential voters think? It's doudtfull they would even visit here during the primaries. They would focus on states where the get the most bang for their buck. The Electoral College sets the framework for candidates to campaign. Without it, they would rely on census numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 920 Posted January 23, 2012 IDGI. Without an electoral college, every single person's vote in the country would be weighed equally. How does that give an advantage to some states? I think the electoral college is what does that, because they get more votes and 48% of their state may have voted one way, but their vote doesn't count because the other side got the majority. Evan if you take the huge blue states that you guys are scared of, a large percentage of those votes go to republicans, but they aren't counted because the democrats won the majority of the vote. Makes no sense. Exactly. And California, Florida, Texas, etc have many more electoral votes than the smaller states, but actually still have LESS influence, if you divide the number of electoral votes into the state populations. The electoral college was created for two reasons, neither of which it accomplishes. 1) because politicians thought citizens were too stupid to vote. They thought we could be easily persuaded by a bad guy who knew voodoo or magic. They created the electoral college as a buffer or safe guard between the public and the presidency. 2) To make the small states quit crying. Each state has same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress. So now you take a state like Wyoming with 3 electoral votes, that cast about 210,000 votes in 2008 (210,000/3 = 70,000). While in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 electoral votes (9,700,000/54 = 179,000). So 70,000 = 1 for Wyoming and 180,000 = 1 for California. All that does is create an unfair advantage for voters in the small states, whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,514 Posted January 23, 2012 Exactly. And California, Florida, Texas, etc have many more electoral votes than the smaller states, but actually still have LESS influence, if you devide the number of electoral votes into the state populations. The electoral college was created for two reasons, neither of which it accomplishes. 1) because politicians thought citizens were too stupid to vote. They thought we could be easily persuaded by a bad guy who knew voodoo or magic. They created the electoral college as a buffer or safe guard between the public and the presidency. 2) To make the small states quit crying. Each state has same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress. So now you take a state like Wyoming with 3 electoral votes, that cast about 210,000 votes in 2008 (210,000/3 = 70,000). While in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 electoral votes (9,700,000/54 = 179,000). So 70,000 = 1 for Wyoming and 180,000 = 1 for California. All that does is create an unfair advantage for voters in the small states, whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states. The founders didn't want regions deciding elections. The Electoral College was the reasonable soulution in case or regional antagonism. it's worked well. How many Presidents have won the Electoral vote but not the majority vote? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted January 23, 2012 If it weren't for the Electoral College, why would any presedential candidate care about Louisiana and what their potential voters think? It's doudtfull they would even visit here during the primaries. They would focus on states where the get the most bang for their buck. The Electoral College sets the framework for candidates to campaign. Without it, they would rely on census numbers. I can kind of see what you are saying - that the candidates would spend most of their time in the population centers campaigning. But where we are now, is they create their more focused campaigns on the couple of swing states every election. The election usually comes down to a few states that are on the cusp and they focus their efforts there. So I don't think the result would be all that different. I mean do you think it's right that the entire election comes down to a handful of states and a couple of percentage points within them? A lot of states will ALWAYS be blue, and a lot of states will ALWAYS be red. I think using the popular vote would be a much better gauge on what the American people as a whole want. The electoral college has just never made sense to me. Take NC in the last election. Obama won by .33% of the vote. And he got all 15 EC votes because of that. That just doesn't seem right. It hasn't mattered in any election I can remember except for 2000, but the whole concept just seems silly. I also think that if the EC was eliminated, it would encourage voter turn out too because everyone's vote does count. I've fallen victim to it, where if I was out of town I don't go through the trouble of voting because I know my state was heavily swayed one way and my vote didn't really matter that much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted January 23, 2012 Exactly. And California, Florida, Texas, etc have many more electoral votes than the smaller states, but actually still have LESS influence, if you divide the number of electoral votes into the state populations. The electoral college was created for two reasons, neither of which it accomplishes. 1) because politicians thought citizens were too stupid to vote. They thought we could be easily persuaded by a bad guy who knew voodoo or magic. They created the electoral college as a buffer or safe guard between the public and the presidency. 2) To make the small states quit crying. Each state has same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress. So now you take a state like Wyoming with 3 electoral votes, that cast about 210,000 votes in 2008 (210,000/3 = 70,000). While in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 electoral votes (9,700,000/54 = 179,000). So 70,000 = 1 for Wyoming and 180,000 = 1 for California. All that does is create an unfair advantage for voters in the small states, whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states. Right. So it gives more power to the small states. It just seems weird to me. What do I know? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 920 Posted January 23, 2012 The founders didn't want regions deciding elections. The Electoral College was the reasonable soulution in case or regional antagonism. it's worked well. How many Presidents have won the Electoral vote but not the majority vote? I understand. And like your previous point with candidates not campaigning in smaller states... I get it. At one time in our nations past, it made sense. In the information era, it isn't necessary anymore. People can find everything they need to know about the field with a few clicks on the computer. Nobody goes to those stupid campaign rallys, except old farts who already got their head lodged up Senator XYZ's arse already. There's no reason why my vote should count less than some guy in Wyoming. It goes against pretty much everything this country is based on. Maybe if the electoral votes weren't based on members of Congress, but instead a mathematical equation that changed every election, based on population. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS should be protected. The current set-up is actually a deterrent for people like me (independent voters). Why am I going to waste my time standing in line to vote, when I know California is going to vote DEM and my vote wouldn't count? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 23, 2012 Thank god for the electoral college or the libtards of the world would have this place being France or focking Spain years ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted January 23, 2012 Thank god for the electoral college or the libtards of the world would have this place being France or focking Spain years ago. Right. That's why 5 million people from California who voted for McCain votes didn't count. Do you like what happens to your vote every election in Mass? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 920 Posted January 23, 2012 Thank god for the electoral college or the libtards of the world would have this place being France or focking Spain years ago. Funny how the same monkeys who cry about smaller government and individual choices and freedoms need the gubment to step in and help them vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745 Posted January 23, 2012 I read the quoted portion of the article. Without attacking Carville personally, I'm trying to take what he said on face value, but I'm not following what he's trying to say exactly. Is he saying that because there is no clear front runner winner of the GOP nomination yet, because three different people have won three different states, that somehow means the GOP is in 'trouble'? I think what he is trying to say is that it seems that the voters don't really LOVE any of these guys. You have to admit all of them have pretty serious flaws. Let's review... 1. Romney is the GOP equivilent of John Kerry. Here he is in his second go round the track, and still... nobody really likes him. He will, in my opinion, end up at the end of the day as the nominee, mostly because he has the money and organization to actually take on big states like Florida, not to mention the umpteen states at once super tuesday that is coming. But still... nobody seems that fired up. Then you have... 2. Gingrich. Now many support his policies, but in terms of baggage, this guy is a nightmare. You have it all, multiple infidelities, hypocracy, ethical problems, insider status... Plus he just comes off as a d-bag. Oh, and the dumb S.O.B. promises the number 2 spot to Palin. Yeah, that worked out real focking well the last time. And then... 3. Assfroth. This guy is just your garden variety, kinda creepy bible thumper. Nothing to see here. Oh, and I'm 99% sure he's a closet queer. He just has that repressed look. And... 4. Paul - An interesting candidate. Unfortunately for him, there are two big problems with his candidacy... 1. He goes against everything the GOP stands for (military industrial complex, big buisinesss buddied up with govt, etc.) For this reason, the powers that be will end him if need be. 2. He goes a little too far with some of his platforms and makes people nervous. He needs to reign it in a bit. So he basically will, in the end, have a decision to make... Do I bow out gracefully, or do I run third party, and guarantee an Obama victory? And there you have the field. Doesn't look good. You have a bland candidate with a very low floor that can't excite the base, a candidate that has about the worst personal past of any major candidate ever, your standard "Family values" clown (they never win) and then an anti-establishment wild card. Have fun with 4 more years of Obama, you focking donkey. On the bright side, that gives you 4 more years to make the 2 or 3 people who don't hate you on the forum, realize why everyone else here hates you. Seriously, you spend hour upon hour on a forum where pretty much EVERY SINGLE PERSON can't stand you. Even people with the same political leanings can't stand you, because you're such a gigantic f'ing twat. You're pretty much GFIAFP without the funny. Well done. The only person who likes him is drobs, but then they are the same person. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 23, 2012 Right. That's why 5 million people from California who voted for McCain votes didn't count. Do you like what happens to your vote every election in Mass? Lived in nh for over 10 years only been back in mass for a couple ..this will be my first election .mass is a joke ..loaded with panzy libtards. Not much I can do about it .. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted January 23, 2012 Right. That's why 5 million people from California who voted for McCain votes didn't count. Do you like what happens to your vote every election in Mass? And then Scott brown elections remind you that things can change pretty quickly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 23, 2012 And to all you focktards who get all worked up multi quote and write long paragraphs for retorts all I can say is .. I can laugh but I'm sure your parents are crying Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745 Posted January 23, 2012 If it weren't for the Electoral College, why would any presedential candidate care about Louisiana and what their potential voters think? It's doudtfull they would even visit here during the primaries. They would focus on states where the get the most bang for their buck. The Electoral College sets the framework for candidates to campaign. Without it, they would rely on census numbers. Except what actually happens is that the candidates devote 90% of their time and resources to the handful of states that are "in play" so we have a system where Iowa, NH, and SC pick the nominees, and FL, OH, PA, and VA pick the president. Great system. Most states you can call the result weeks in advance, so why would people even bother to vote? The answer is, they don't. Thank god for the electoral college or the libtards of the world would have this place being France or focking Spain years ago. Actually, if there were no EC, we would have had a Gore presidency rather than Bush, and we would be much better off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted January 23, 2012 And to all you focktards who get all worked up multi quote and write long paragraphs for retorts all I can say is .. I can laugh but I'm sure your parents are crying Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
