James Carville Nails It

[drobeski 3,061]

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.

 

 

 

Actually, if there were no EC, we would have had a Gore presidency rather than Bush, and we would be much better off.

Better off as in even deeper in debt and weaker militarily ? I know you libtards love that whole communism thing but hate the break the news to you, most americans don't

[mobb_deep 920]

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

 

Yah, because who wants to bother having spirited debates, about the direction of our country? We might actually, I dunno, learn something from another!? Let's just go from thread to thread and regurgitate one liners. Calling one another corky and libtards over and over is good reading! You're better than that man. You obviously care about this crap, or why would you waste your time? You would have to be a complete f'ing loser to spend so much time on something, for no other purpose than internet trolling (and I love trolling just as much as the next guy).

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Better off as in even deeper in debt and weaker militarily ? I know you libtards love that whole communism thing but hate the break the news to you, most americans don't

 

Seriously? Gore was Clinton's vp. Coming off their term, things were good.

 

Then eight years later we have two stupid unecessary wars, and are in way way more debt than we were when Bush took office.

 

Even if Gore did spend as much as Bush, at least he would have spent it on OUR country instead of blowing up and rebuilding other people's.

 

So yes, we would have been much better off with Gore.

[drobeski 3,061]

Yah, because who wants to bother having spirited debates, about the direction of our country? We might actually, I dunno, learn something from another!? Let's just go from thread to thread and regurgitate one liners. Calling one another corky and libtards over and over is good reading! You're better than that man. You obviously care about this crap, or why would you waste your time? You would have to be a complete f'ing loser to spend so much time on something, for no other purpose than internet trolling (and I love trolling just as much as the next guy).

You started it ?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

. 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?

So, who is your "independent" guy you are supporting?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

 

 

Actually, if there were no EC, we would have had a Gore presidency rather than Bush, and we would be much better off.

 

 

Plus, we would be snow skiing in Miami Beach right now.

[Reality 3,121]

Seriously? Gore was Clinton's vp. Coming off their term, things were good.

 

 

 

Myth, glad you were taken in by it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Seriously? Gore was Clinton's vp. Coming off their term, things were good.

 

If by "good" you mean spiraling into a recession, you are correct.

 

If by "good" you mean Al Quada had 8 years of free reign to plan 9/11, you are correct. (that is just for FeelingMn)

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Myth, glad you were taken in by it.

 

Yeah. The strongest economy our nation's ever had, no wars... man those days blew.

 

If by "good" you mean spiraling into a recession, you are correct.

 

If by "good" you mean Al Quada had 8 years of free reign to plan 9/11, you are correct. (that is just for FeelingMn)

 

Actually, Clinton warned Bush about OBL, but whatever. And I'm sure it took AQ 8 years to mastermind the incredibly complex plan of sneaking a box cutter onto an airplane.

 

 

You guys are really too much.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Actually, Clinton warned Bush about OBL, but whatever.

Actually, OBL was pretty much common knowledge. What with all the terrorist attacks he perpetrated during the Clinton years. But it was nice of Slick to tell Bush he was passing that problem off to him.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

You guys are really too much.

 

You can't reason with them. They insist on disbelieving unequivocal facts ("the economy wasn't really that great at the end of the 90s") and arguing proven falsehoods ("there were WMDs in Iraq"). What are you gonna do?

[Reality 3,121]

You guys are really too much.

 

You are pure comedy.

 

The country was limping into recession as Clinton left office. Only a true focking idiot ever believed in mythical surpluses projected decades down the road.

 

Gratz.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

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.

 

That's my argument. Thanks for seeing it.

 

And your assertion that voter turnout would increase is wrong under a PV. It would deter voter turnout in smaller states when they realize that their vote doesn't count for shat. Voter turnout is already at only 50% on a good election cycle for president. They already feel their vote doesn't count for much. Voter turnout in larger states would increase when they realize the power they have on the election process whilst understanding the decreasing voter turnout for the states that don't matter anymore in a populist vote. The money and media would focus highly on the larger states by ignoring the voices that matter in the smaller states giving absolute power to the big states. When the media declares or popular poles declare a month before the election that candidate A has a 5 point advantage over candidate B, what's my incentive to vote when I'm for candidate B? I can't think of a better way to rig elections than to have the media and polls bought for by the two parties be in charge of reporting on what the outcome will probably be based on those polls and reporting.

 

Again.......How many elections have been decided by a President who won the EC and lost the PV? I believe it's five and the first four happend in the 1800's. Lincoln being one of them.

[nikki2200 4]

That's my argument. Thanks for seeing it.

 

And your assertion that voter turnout would increase is wrong under a PV. It would deter voter turnout in smaller states when they realize that their vote doesn't count for shat. Voter turnout is already at only 50% on a good election cycle for president. They already feel their vote doesn't count for much. Voter turnout in larger states would increase when they realize the power they have on the election process whilst understanding the decreasing voter turnout for the states that don't matter anymore in a populist vote. The money and media would focus highly on the larger states by ignoring the voices that matter in the smaller states giving absolute power to the big states. When the media declares or popular poles declare a month before the election that candidate A has a 5 point advantage over candidate B, what's my incentive to vote when I'm for candidate B? I can't think of a better way to rig elections than to have the media and polls bought for by the two parties be in charge of reporting on what the outcome will probably be based on those polls and reporting.

 

Again.......How many elections have been decided by a President who won the EC and lost the PV? I believe it's five and the first four happend in the 1800's. Lincoln being one of them.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. If we went by the popular vote every single person in the entire country's vote would count equally. Why would it matter how big your state is? And how exactly would certain states not matter anymore if we went to a popular vote. The concept is for every one eligible person in the US, they get one vote. What state you live in is totally taken out of the mix. :confused:

[IGotWorms 4,060]

I have no idea what you are talking about. If we went by the popular vote every single person in the entire country's vote would count equally. Why would it matter how big your state is? And how exactly would certain states not matter anymore if we went to a popular vote. The concept is for every one eligible person in the US, they get one vote. What state you live in is totally taken out of the mix. :confused:

 

There are two reasons, as Bunny has already said.

 

First, the electoral college provides a campaign outline for the candidates. They know what handful of states are likely to swing the election so they can plan their campaign activities accordingly. Imagine if there was no electoral college. Where would the candidates spend their time? Would they be out there campaigning in rural Ohio, Colorado, or Wisconsin? No, they would would spend all their time in the states with the most people. California and New York, probably a handful of other large states but for the most part, if you don't live in a huge population center campaigns wouldn't give a d@mn about you.

 

Second, small states are given slightly more power than they would otherwise have through the electoral college. Not a lot, but enough that it shifts the balance of power slightly away from the large states. If New York and California dictated national policy every single election, then how would the rest of the country have any say in the presidency?

 

It's basically the same reason every state has two Senators regardless of the state's population, although obviously the electoral college does not have nearly the same effect.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

I have no idea what you are talking about. If we went by the popular vote every single person in the entire country's vote would count equally. Why would it matter how big your state is? And how exactly would certain states not matter anymore if we went to a popular vote. The concept is for every one eligible person in the US, they get one vote. What state you live in is totally taken out of the mix. :confused:

 

 

The majority of the people who vote for president have the attention span of a hooker on meth. 20% of people who vote are considered the base when dividing them up between both parties. The rest are moderates and independents. The other dumdasses don't vote at all. The candidates and media would focus on the states where they get the most exposure and ignore the rest. That means states with the lowest amount of voters get ignored. Do you want the census figures from decade to decade to determine where candidates go or have a structured campaign that allows all voters from every state to be heard? Last time I checked, states have rights too.

[shovelheadt 71]

Seems a lot of people share the same opinion of this growing train wreck.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/opinion/carville-begala-gingrich/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Did anyone see Ann Coulter on the O'Reily factor last night? She HATES Gingrich and did a pretty good job explaining why a Gingrich victory leads straight to an Obama victory in November.

 

And I think SHE surely "understands republicans"

 

And shovel, loved the link, thought I'd post a pertinant part..

 

(CNN) -- Our esteemed CNN colleague Ari Fleischer says we don't understand Republicans.

 

Guilty.

 

We raise our children by the golden rule, and don't understand Republicans who boo it.

 

 

James CarvilleWe salute gay soldiers and don't understand Republicans who boo them.

 

We hear about someone who's sick and lacks health insurance, and we pray, "Let him live," and don't understand Republicans who yell, "Let him die!"

 

We are proud to have helped President Clinton, whose policies balanced the budget, created 23 million jobs and lifted millions out of poverty, and we don't understand Republicans who inherited those blessings and gave us three wars, three tax cuts for the rich and a massive deficit. Indeed, we owe Mr. Fleischer's Republican Party and the Republican president he served a debt we can never repay.

 

Still, we do not back off an inch from our analysis that Republican elites are panic-stricken by the prospect of Newt Gingrich being their nominee. And we draw this conclusion from listening to people who understand the GOP far better than we:

 

Former Rep. Susan Molinari, who served with Gingrich in the House, has made an ad for Mitt Romney in which she rips her former colleague for "leadership by chaos." Molinari knows Newt well, as she was the keynote speaker at the 1996 Republican convention. Surely, she must know something about the Republican Party. When asked whether she would support Gingrich if he defeated her candidate for the nomination, she demurred, saying, "It would be very difficult for me to support Newt Gingrich for president."

 

Gingrich releases Freddie Mac info

 

Romney, Gingrich ratchet up attacks New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie presumably understands the GOP. A strong Romney supporter, Christie has excoriated Gingrich. "He was run out of the speakership by his own party," said Christie. "This is a guy who has had a very difficult political career at times and has been an embarrassment to the party."

 

Jim Talent, former senator from Missouri and another former Gingrich colleague, also supports Romney, and attacks Newt lustily. "He is not a reliable and trustworthy conservative," Talent says, "because he is not a reliable and trustworthy leader." Ouch.

 

Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, who worked closely with Gingrich when Newt was a top GOP leader in the House, has also thrown in his lot with Romney -- and has also volunteered to swing the hatchet. Sununu basically called Newt nuts, telling CNN, "You can't have somebody that's really as irrational and perceives himself as Winston Churchill or the equivalent of Margaret Thatcher or Charles de Gaulle."

 

Ari's White House colleague during the Bush years and current CNN colleague, David Frum, wrote Monday, "Over a political career of nearly 40 years, Gingrich has convinced almost everybody who has ever worked closely with him that he cannot and should not be trusted with executive power."And if we may engage in speculation, then we would say that the closer you are to Gingrich, the more likely you are to be a Republican and the less likely you are to vote for him. Just recently, columnist George Will wrote in The Washington Post, "Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive."

 

And THOSE are Republicans!

[shovelheadt 71]

Did anyone see Ann Coulter on the O'Reily factor last night? She HATES Gingrich and did a pretty good job explaining why a Gingrich victory leads straight to an Obama victory in November.

 

And I think SHE surely "understands republicans"

 

And shovel, loved the link, thought I'd post a pertinant part..

And THOSE are Republicans!

 

Thanks for cropping that for me. Gonna be downright comical to see the spin on that.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

Seems a lot of people share the same opinion of this growing train wreck.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_c1

 

 

I think CNN is still pissed at Newt for questioning John King at the debate about his affairs. King got owned and CNN is showing their lack journalistic professionalism by going after Newt. Since the incident, everyone on air that has commented on it calls it an "attack", not a response:overhead:.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Well it's interesting because you have all this money going to a pro -Newt superpac. But what that superpac does is tear down Romney.

 

So you clearly have wealthy establishment type backers who want to make sure Romney doesn't get the nomination.

 

But the "establishment" doesn't seem enamored with Newt either : they think Newt will get them killed in the election.

 

Maybe they are just using Newt to stop Romney and prolong the nomination battle. This would eventually lead to a brokered convention, as I have been guessing will happen for some time now. At that point some white knight comes in that most Republicans can get behind. A Chris Christie or Jeb Bush, if you will.

 

Don't say I didn't call it.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I think CNN is still pissed at Newt for questioning John King at the debate about his affairs. King got owned and CNN is showing their lack journalistic professionalism by going after Newt. Since the incident, everyone on air that has commented on it calls it an "attack", not a response:overhead:.

 

Someone I saw on TV last night, on the "Fair and Balanced" network said that King is a "fair and good reporter" and possibly the "only one they have over there [at CNN]."

 

She then went on to say that Gingrich is "exploiting a real issue in his ridiculous blasting of the liberal media" in this absurd cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That person is Ann Coulter btw, just to show there is no liberal bias there. O'Reily of course sputtered that, while the question had to be asked, it should have been somewhere in the middle of the debate, not right on top.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Did anyone see Ann Coulter on the O'Reily factor last night?

 

 

Big Coulter fan, are ya?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

That person is Ann Coulter btw,

Fan, or obsessed?

 

That's really unusual for a libtard to be touting Coulter so much.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Big Coulter fan, are ya?

 

 

Fan, or obsessed?

 

That's really unusual for a libtard to be touting Coulter so much.

 

No, Actually I think she is a batsh!t crazy hag. But I find it funny that even the most over the top republican hag hates Gingrich and thinks he is acting like a b!tch. I also find it funny any time anyone hands Bill O'riely his ass.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I also find it funny any time anyone hands Bill O'riely his ass.

 

Not only a Coulter fan, but a regular O'Reilly watcher.

 

Better watch out, you will end up losing your Libtard Card.

[MDC 7,590]

Newt can't beat Obummer but neither can Romney. The establishment wants Mitt because he'd at least run a competitive campaign, but the base doesn't like him. The base does like Newt, but the establishment knows he'd go down in flames like the Hindenburgh. In the end they'll foist Mitt on the party and he'll lose nearly every toss up state anyway. What they really need is another 4 years in the wilderness and much better candidates.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Newt can't beat Obummer but neither can Romney. The establishment wants Mitt because he'd at least run a competitive campaign, but the base doesn't like him. The base does like Newt, but the establishment knows he'd go down in flames like the Hindenburgh. In the end they'll foist Mitt on the party and he'll lose nearly every toss up state anyway. What they really need is another 4 years in the wilderness and much better candidates.

 

This they will get, at least as far as the white house is concerned. None of these candidates will beat Obama.

 

The only thing interesting about November is what happens to Congress. Personally, I'm hoping enough people noticed what a butthurt bunch of children the Republicans have been and the dems make up some ground so something can actually get done.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm hoping enough people noticed what a butthurt bunch of children the Republicans have been and the dems make up some ground so something can actually get done.

Yeah, passing the first budget since Obama took office and sending it to Do-Nothing Harry, passing over half a dozen jobs bills and sending them to Do-Nothing Harry, only to see them never brought up for a vote....................yep, children.

 

Try getting some info from someplace other than Harry Ried's website, Rube.

[FeelingMN 273]

If by "good" you mean Al Quada had 8 years of free reign to plan 9/11, you are correct. (that is just for FeelingMn)

 

Dude is referencing me in threads where I've yet to post. Looks like I got into somebody's head.

 

 

Bwaaahhhaaaahhaaahhaahhaaa

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Dude is referencing me in threads where I've yet to post. Looks like I got into somebody's head.

 

 

Bwaaahhhaaaahhaaahhaahhaaa

 

You might be in his head, but I'm so far up his ass he even dedicated his sig line to me.

[Reality 3,121]

You might be in his head, but I'm so far up his ass he even dedicated his sig line to me.

 

It's Friday already?

[SUXBNME 1,565]

Did anyone see Ann Coulter on the O'Reily factor last night?

I saw her on 'The Five' last night, (I think..I was kinda buzzed)

But either way, you are correct, she HATES Gingrich.

I wonder if she was the one that was supposed to be the third wheel in Newts alleged 'open marriage' policy ?

 

Did you get a load of the 70's hair on that woman? Please tell me that it's not gonna come back in style anytime soon

[IGotWorms 4,060]

I wonder if she was the one that was supposed to be the third wheel in Newts alleged 'open marriage' policy ?

 

The third wheel was Newt's current wife, Callista. He was banging her for six years before he split with wife #2. Everyone knows this.

[phillybear 366]

Big Coulter fan, are ya?

 

I think she is very entertaining. She pulls no punches, makes bombastic declarations, a functioning alcoholic, and will never apologize. She called John Edwards a faggut. The media was outraged. Coulter stuck to her guns, and responded by saying look at him, he looks like a faggut. The story went away. She is a hero of free speech activists everywhere. And who wouldn't want to yank on that hair as you donkey punched her until you broke your wrist.

[phillybear 366]

This they will get, at least as far as the white house is concerned. None of these candidates will beat Obama.

 

The only thing interesting about November is what happens to Congress. Personally, I'm hoping enough people noticed what a butthurt bunch of children the Republicans have been and the dems make up some ground so something can actually get done.

 

Obama is done. He has no chance of re-election, no matter who his opponent is. Just doesn't matter. In case by some illegal stuff this doesn't happen...

 

The Republicans will easily win control of the Senate, with all the key competitive races have the Dems the incumbents. The Republicans will keep control of the Congress. Obama will continue to ignore the Republicans. Since Harry Reid will be run out of his position, he will no longer will be able to kill any bill sent over to him. Sooo......Obama will set records for amount of vetoes by a President. Gridlock for 4 more years, and when you consider the historical damage the 2 years of super majority Democratic rule in this country and what they "got done", we will be better off.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You might be in his head, but I'm so far up his ass he even dedicated his sig line to me.

Yeah, it took all of 2 minutes to permanently display your hatred of the United States of America.

[KSB2424 3,148]

Well it's interesting because you have all this money going to a pro -Newt superpac. But what that superpac does is tear down Romney.

 

So you clearly have wealthy establishment type backers who want to make sure Romney doesn't get the nomination.

Doesn't Romney have a Super PAC too? Who went after Newt HARD in Iowa? Are those people not wealthy backers who don't want Newt to get the nomination?

 

So what's your point?

[FeelingMN 273]

Al Quada had 8 years of free reign to plan 9/11

 

 

Yeah, it took all of 2 minutes to permanently display your hatred of the United States of America.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

If by "good" you mean Al Quada had 8 years of free reign to plan 9/11, you are correct. (that is just for FeelingMn)

 

 

You sure like editing posts, don't ya.