or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How to lose an election
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How to lose an election - Page 2

post #41 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Oh sweet jebus, he wants to make it akin to a civil rights issue?

Although, I have to admit, I always enjoy the "now I imagine I'm hoisting you on your own petard" gambit pursued to the gates of madness hugely entertaining.

trumptman: The Harold Ickes of Republicans.
post #42 of 123
I was gonna say that he sounded like a Hillary supporter.
post #43 of 123
ShawnJ:

I know that things do not have to be uniform to meet federal election law, that's not what I meant. What I meant (and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear) that things have to be uniform or else they will be inherently unfair, which is only something worth caring about when it comes to elections under federal election law.

Fairness doesn't really matter in ungoverned elections.
Fairness matters a great deal in governed elections.

Even if a hybrid system did arise at the state level, you can bet your ass that civil rights challenges would start flooding the federal court system.

I hope that's clearer.


trumpt:

Quote:
There are dozens of lawsuits related to party elections this year and it isn't even related to just Florida and Michigan.

You let me know when they go anywhere. I could file a lawsuit against virtually anyone for virtually any reason.

Quote:
Last I checked these elections were still run by the respective secretaries of state, etc. Are you going to seriously suggest for example that party primaries are not subject to the Civil Rights voting act?

Results are certified by the official state apparatus, but they are not subject to the same laws. That doesn't mean that they are subject to no laws at all, but they are not the same.

I'm assuming you meant the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when you say "Civil Rights voting act". Also, I think it's pretty amusing that you act so outraged about it when I never even brought it up. ("SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU LIKE TO BURN BABIES ALIVE GOOD SIR!!!?!?!?!?!")

Primary elections must be fair to some extent. They cannot discriminate based on race, etc..., but they are not a matter of fundamental right. The DNC could decide tomorrow to do away with all election ideas and just select its candidate from within its own ranks using a committee of powerful Democrats. That would be political suicide and it would be challenged in the courts, but it is within their rights to do so (as they have done in the past).

If it wasn't, do you really think they could get away with the Michigan compromise they pulled yesterday, in which the Rules & Bylaws committee used subjective data to allocate Michigan's delegates at the August convention?

Quote:
There is nothing that can legally prevent California from changing their system. You claim that the feds will step in because it won't be a party matter. That is a lie.

California could change its system in a legal sense, but it probably wouldn't stand legal challenges. That's how the legal process works.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #44 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I was gonna say that he sounded like a Hillary supporter.

Oh, I fully expect Trumpt to be a Hillary supporter of expedience, as long as her arguments are perceived as sowing chaos within the party and damaging Obama's chances in the fall. I can hear him cackling from here.

Where it gets good is where he conflates Hillary's arguments with the California ballot initiative with reflexive strawman gobbledy-gook:

"I thought every vote should count like in Florida 2000 but I guess not in Florida 2008 or Michigan or in California where, would but you profoundly hypocritical Democrats show even a trace of the consistency you claim to aspire to you would also support a fairly outrageous procedural move by the Republicans to guarantee their victory in the general election."

Classic.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #45 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You know very well that it's screwing over the dominant party in one state.

How is getting a number of electors proportional to the number of votes you received being screwed over? How is allocating electors by Congressional district and if your district votes for X for president, you have that elector vote for X?

Quote:
It's not a civil rights issue, it's just simply not going to happen unless both parties, in different states, have an agreement that ensures neither side gets screwed.

Apparently it isn't a civil rights issue for YOU. I'm personally a bit tired of my vote not counting due to the coast leaning so far in one direction. It isn't about a side being screwed, it is about what is right.

Quote:
At the current time, the Democrats are supporting an approach that has just such an agreement, and Republicans are not, i.e., Republicans see it as a way to game the system and Democrats see it as a way to genuinely reform the system.

Apparently you haven't read your approach very carefully. It is just winner take all under another name.

States joining the compact will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner until the compact has been joined by states representing a controlling majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 electoral votes). At that point, all of the electoral votes of the member states would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. With the national popular vote winner sure to have a decisive majority in the Electoral College, he or she would automatically win the Electoral College and therefore the presidency.

Your compact says nothing about representational electors and voting. What it does is simply rename winner take all and apply it at the national level. As an example using this compact George Bush would have claimed all of California's electoral votes in 2004 even though he lost the state.

I also love the concept whereby having to do nothing until everyone agrees to do something is "real reform" whereas actually doing something is... wrong.

Let me run your little compact through say... Florida 2000. Think on that with the terms.. secretary of state.....must report to other states by a specific deadline....finally...the compact member states would give their electoral votes to the candidate with the greatest number of popular votes, even if no candidate has an absolute majority.

This would be hilarious to imagine on a national level. I can imagine the fun in future elections with Democrats pissing and moaning about how they were cheated out of an election due to the electoral votes of states the Republican candidate didn't even win, being forced to go for him due to a majority of the votes being won in those 30 states.. where we know they must cheat, and rig the machines, and we could have proven it except for the due date...etc.

This reminds me exactly of the "reforms" all Democrats wanted right after 2000 with no more paper ballots, all electronic voting and then four years later screaming that anybody who didn't want a paper trail was an idiot.

The humor makes me spit milk. Bush tricked them into Iraq. Republicans tricked them into electronic voting machines. I have no doubt when a Republican wins getting 44-45% of the vote and has states turning over electors that the candidate didn't even win... oh the hysterics there will have me slapping my knee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Murdoch knows that if a Democrat is elected president, he will have to reorganize his media outlets for it. Believe me, if a Democrat gets elected, Fox News will change overnight. They have contingency plans, believe me. Hannity and O'Reilly will be booted out and Rivera and Donahue will take there place (or talking heads of that liberal slant).

I had read of this months ago, I just can't find the link right now...\

Ah, Time magazine mused this subject in March 2008...

Fox on the Run


Dude, enjoy the dreams! I've heard that Time is going to ponder this reorganization a little more right after they finish their latest round of layoffs and right after they find the space from announcing all things Murdock as number one in ratings.

I don't care where Fox ranks ratings-wise but to suggest it would bring about their demise is just a wet dream. I've heard Rush Limbaugh was just booted off the air and replaced with Randy Rhoads hoping to bring up the ratings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I was gonna say that he sounded like a Hillary supporter.

Dude I am a Hillary supporter. I'm a white, middle aged female feminist!

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

ShawnJ:
trumpt:

Primary elections must be fair to some extent. They cannot discriminate based on race, etc..., but they are not a matter of fundamental right. The DNC could decide tomorrow to do away with all election ideas and just select its candidate from within its own ranks using a committee of powerful Democrats. That would be political suicide and it would be challenged in the courts, but it is within their rights to do so (as they have done in the past).

If it wasn't, do you really think they could get away with the Michigan compromise they pulled yesterday, in which the Rules & Bylaws committee used subjective data to allocate Michigan's delegates at the August convention?



California could change its system in a legal sense, but it probably wouldn't stand legal challenges. That's how the legal process works.

Grove dude... you just don't get it.

You seem to believe that there is some magical foundation for insuring the electors are decided by popular vote. There isn't. The basis for it isn't quite as recent as the party changes with regard to voting, but it was only 2000 when the Florida legislature was going to determine how its 25 electoral votes were going to go to insure they would be included in the electoral college. Just do some reading. States are free to determine how their electoral votes are determined JUST LIKE PARTIES.

Here, let me help you.

Another method of choosing electors is selection by the state legislature. It was used by a majority of the states in both 1792 and 1800, and half of the states in 1812. One of the reasons that most United States history textbooks don't start reporting the popular vote until the election of 1824 is because more than a quarter of all the states used legislative choice in all prior elections; there simply was no popular vote in those states. Even in 1824, when Andrew Jackson famously accused John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay of a corrupt bargain because he lost in spite of having pluralities of both the popular and electoral votes, a full quarter of the states (6 of 24) did not hold popular elections for President and Vice President; instead, those six state legislatures choose the electors that year. By the following election, only Delaware and South Carolina continued to use legislative choice. Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832). South Carolina held on to legislative choice until it became the first state to secede in December 1860.

Legislative appointment made three more appearances on the electoral stage: first, in 1864, Nevada, having been made a state only a few days previously, had no choice but to appoint. Then, in 1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections. Finally, in 1876, the legislature of the newly admitted state of Colorado used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold an election. It was also a possibility in the 2000 election. Had the recounts continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal deadline for choosing electors.

The Constitution gives the power to the state legislatures to decide how electors are chosen, and it is easier and cheaper for a state legislature to simply appoint a slate of electors than to create a legislative framework for holding elections to determine the electors. As noted above, the two situations in which legislative choice has been used since the Civil War have both been because there was not enough time or money to prepare for an election. However, appointment by state legislature has a serious flaw: legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. In fact, this is precisely what happened in 1789, when New York failed to appoint any electors.


All that is different is the name of the club. The game is the same. The legislature can pull names out of a hat if it wants to do so. It is legal and would withstand EVERY legal challenge. The very compact BRussell is discussing has the legislatures agreeing by compact to award all the electoral votes of their states for the winner of the popular vote, even if that candidate lost in their state, heck even if that candidate didn't record a single VOTE in that state. You are simply wrong on this in the worst possible way.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #46 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

How is getting a number of electors proportional to the number of votes you received being screwed over? How is allocating electors by Congressional district and if your district votes for X for president, you have that elector vote for X?



Apparently it isn't a civil rights issue for YOU. I'm personally a bit tired of my vote not counting due to the coast leaning so far in one direction. It isn't about a side being screwed, it is about what is right.

Apparently Republicans in Colorado thought they were getting screwed over when Democrats proposed the same thing a few years ago.

And that's really the problem: When it's done in one state, the party that usually wins that state loses the advantage of winer-take-all. That's why - short of a constitutional amendment - multiple states getting together to reform the system is the only way that will work.

But you know that, you're just being "Icke."

Quote:
Apparently you haven't read your approach very carefully. It is just winner take all under another name.

I know what it is. You complained about your vote not counting, and how proportional allocation would make it more fair. Well then why not just go all the way towards fairness and have the ultimate proportional allocation -one vote allocated for each voter? I'd also be fine with some type of proportional system - but again, it's not going to happen unless multiple states like TX and CA do it at the same time.
post #47 of 123
trumptman:

Quote:
How is getting a number of electors proportional to the number of votes you received being screwed over? How is allocating electors by Congressional district and if your district votes for X for president, you have that elector vote for X?

You're screwed because it's a national election, not a local election.

The only truly fair way to run a national election is national popular vote.

Quote:
Apparently it isn't a civil rights issue for YOU. I'm personally a bit tired of my vote not counting due to the coast leaning so far in one direction. It isn't about a side being screwed, it is about what is right.

This is what I find so infuriating about your particular brand of dull devil's advocacy. You understand completely what he means when he talks about people being screwed but you play dumb in a very sophomoric way and cap it all off with an argument so lame it needs to be shot on the track in front of a crowd full of spectators ("it is about what is right").

Quote:
The legislature can pull names out of a hat if it wants to do so. It is legal and would withstand EVERY legal challenge.

What's funny about this is that you have already referenced a piece of legislation that contradicts the argument you just made (Voting Rights Act). The state legislatures could certainly pass the legislation, but it would not necessarily withstand legal challenges. And using CAPITAL LETTERS does not make your weak argument strong. OK?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #48 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Apparently Republicans in Colorado thought they were getting screwed over when Democrats proposed the same thing a few years ago.

Oh I'm sure you just thought those Republicans were thwarting the will of the people.

Quote:
And that's really the problem: When it's done in one state, the party that usually wins that state loses the advantage of winer-take-all. That's why - short of a constitutional amendment - multiple states getting together to reform the system is the only way that will work.

Well I cannot force a constitutional convention nor can I force both houses at the federal level to meet and vote. All I can control is what happens within my state and since that is what I can control, that is what I will work to change.

Quote:
But you know that, you're just being "Icke."

I love how Democrats are now naming other Democrats as pejoratives. What other Democrats can you insult me by calling me?

Quote:
I know what it is. You complained about your vote not counting, and how proportional allocation would make it more fair. Well then why not just go all the way towards fairness and have the ultimate proportional allocation -one vote allocated for each voter? I'd also be fine with some type of proportional system - but again, it's not going to happen unless multiple states like TX and CA do it at the same time.

If given the power or opportunity to make change in that fashion, I can support it. If both houses pass it and send it out to the states, I will vote for it. I can't make that happen though. You note the gridlock yourself and how no one will move until someone moves. I say be the one that makes that move and watch the others quickly jump to catch up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:



You're screwed because it's a national election, not a local election.

The only truly fair way to run a national election is national popular vote.

Perhaps you should speak to the framers about that. In the meantime I will work to change that which I can.

Quote:
This is what I find so infuriating about your particular brand of dull devil's advocacy. You understand completely what he means when he talks about people being screwed but you play dumb in a very sophomoric way and cap it all off with an argument so lame it needs to be shot on the track in front of a crowd full of spectators ("it is about what is right").

What's funny about this is that you have already referenced a piece of legislation that contradicts the argument you just made (Voting Rights Act). The state legislatures could certainly pass the legislation, but it would not necessarily withstand legal challenges. And using CAPITAL LETTERS does not make your weak argument strong. OK?

Blah..blah..blah..blah... I get it and so does everyone reading. You are wrong so now it is time for the ad-homs via colorful adjectives. Sophmoric, dull, devil's, weak...etc.....

Perhaps you should read up on appeals to ridicule and note that you are guilty as charged.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 123
You have argued that state legislatures can do whatever they want. You are wrong, and I can show you that you are wrong by mentioning the very piece of legislation you brought up yourself; the Voting Rights Act.

A proportional/winner-take-all hybrid system would doubtless face civil rights challenges, especially if it were done in such a way as to blatantly-favor one party over another. Do you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge this?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #50 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

You have argued that state legislatures can do whatever they want. You are wrong, and I can show you that you are wrong by mentioning the very piece of legislation you brought up yourself; the Voting Rights Act.

A proportional/winner-take-all hybrid system would doubtless face civil rights challenges, especially if it were done in such a way as to blatantly-favor one party over another. Do you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge this?

You are right groverat!! State legislatures can be challenged using the Voting Rights Act on an issue where an election isn't even required. I've also heard they can challenge presidential assignment of ambassadors because that doesn't require a ballot either.

Stop threatening to show me something and just do it. Show how the Voting Rights Act can be used to force state legislatures to select their electors via an election whereby the results must result in winner take all. Why don't you also show how the two states who do not do that haven't been sued out of existence.

It doesn't take any honesty from anyone to note that whenever a system changes, there will likely be challenges to that change. Having lived in California since 1977, I can tell you that pretty much every change is met with a legal challenge.

Again, I find the pejorative "blatantly favor" to be quite humorous.

How to lose an election.... I think the Democrats right here in this thread are pointing the way. Words lose their meaning. Lawsuits can ignore history, word definitions, and anything else that stands in the way of power. Having your vote count is "blatantly favoring" the party that doesn't get to suffer under winner-take all.

Obama is the uniter of a nation... but not the Democratic Party. He is a racial healer, who had to leave a church of hateful rhetoric by the host and guest speakers. Disagreeing with Hillary when you are a Republican is misogyny but calling her a bitch when you are a Democrat isn't anything but a disagreement.

Please keep feeding the fire.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Oh I'm sure you just thought those Republicans were thwarting the will of the people.

I thought there was a thread about this in the past, so I found it. It's interesting to look at people's perceptions of it when Colorado wanted to do it. You may want to take particular note of groverat's response.

But just to be clear: I'm not opposed to CA doing whatever they want. I wish it wasn't winner-take-all in my (Republican) state. I'm just saying it won't happen unless Democrats in Democratic states get some guarantee that Republicans in Republican states will do the same (and vice versa).

And reading that thread reminds me of why proportional allocation is actually not mathematically a very good idea - it doesn't solve most of the problems associated with the electoral college (popular vote vs. electoral vote deviation, state size representation problems, etc.) and it introduces new ones, like that a third party could easily throw an election to congress.
post #52 of 123
On a personal note, I'm really glad someone's vote doesn't count in the general election.

On a personal note, I am really unhappy that my vote doesn't count in the general election.

Either do away with the EC entirely or keep it as it is, winner take all.

This parochial discussion about one state, and one state only, is fallacious from the get go.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #53 of 123
trumptman:

Quote:
Show how the Voting Rights Act can be used to force state legislatures to select their electors via an election whereby the results must result in winner take all. Why don't you also show how the two states who do not do that haven't been sued out of existence.

I won't because that's not what I argued.

I am merely arguing that an attempt to create a hybrid system that favored one party over another would result in major legal challenges. Only a wholesale shift in which all or most states participated at once would go through without a tidal wave of lawsuits resulting.


BRussell:

Quote:
I thought there was a thread about this in the past, so I found it. It's interesting to look at people's perceptions of it when Colorado wanted to do it. You may want to take particular note of groverat's response.

Proportional representation is a fantastic idea. It is far better than what we currently have.
You just can't do it one state at a time and expect it to be fair.

I don't see any contradiction between my statements in this thread and my statements 4 years ago. (Christ it's been a long time.)
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #54 of 123
My vote has never counted in a national election.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #55 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

My vote has never counted in a national election.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #56 of 123
My vote counts twice!

(shhhh)
post #57 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

My vote counts twice!

(shhhh)

Lemme guess... a flat in Manhattan and a canal lot in Palm Beach?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #58 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


think about it jube...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #59 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Most Democrats are plenty excited about Obama.

Businesses everywhere should be terrified of what he has in store for us. Quotes taken from his web site...

Quote:
“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.”
— Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007

What does that mean, exactly? Will businesses NOT be free to hire, and more importantly, FIRE when needed?

Quote:
Support Job Creation: Barack Obama believes we need to double federal funding for basic research and make the research and development tax credit permanent to help create high-paying, secure jobs. Obama will also make long-term investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths - our ingenuity and entrepreneurialism - to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy.

Uh, oh. More worrisome talk... "double federal funding" and "secure jobs." This is the kind of stuff that gets us deeper into trouble. Get government OUT of the business of interfering with businesses.

Quote:
Invest in U.S. Manufacturing: The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan will invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. Obama will also provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers.

It's precisely because of government mandates that our auto industries have become "welfare queens" crying to our government for bailouts and pumping out products without customers... anyone familiar with SUVs?

Quote:
Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.

I put no trust in our government to provide leading edge anything. The quicker government gets it's hands off business and the economy, the sooner the US is able to recover in a way that makes lasting sense.

And it goes on and on... Obama wants the government to become larger than ever! A huge mistake. He's already as much an 'insider' as the other tools of the devil , the Clintons.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #60 of 123
love capitalism, distrust the capitalist...

profit at the expense of society may appear to be economically sound but it isn't sustainable...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #61 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

trumptman:

I won't because that's not what I argued.

I am merely arguing that an attempt to create a hybrid system that favored one party over another would result in major legal challenges. Only a wholesale shift in which all or most states participated at once would go through without a tidal wave of lawsuits resulting.

Your reply is nonsense. There is nothing which binds how one state selects their electors to how another state selects their electors. Any legal challenges would be without foundation and if dealt with properly would be tossed. Here is what you typed.

Quote:
You have argued that state legislatures can do whatever they want. You are wrong, and I can show you that you are wrong by mentioning the very piece of legislation you brought up yourself; the Voting Rights Act.

Show me how I am wrong in my assertion that state legislatures can select electors in the fashion they desire. Show me how say, Texas could sue California and force California to NOT select their electors via congressional districts until Texas decides to do the same and do it using the Voting Rights Act.

Quote:
Proportional representation is a fantastic idea. It is far better than what we currently have.
You just can't do it one state at a time and expect it to be fair.

Sadly for you, what groverat thinks is "fair" is not our Constitution. You can do it one state at a time and it will survive legal challenges. Article Two is as clear as day on this matter.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #62 of 123
... even though it's allowed for in our constitution, since it's will not affect this fall's general election. Oh, and since when hasn't the EC been "gamed" to begin with?

In fact, in the 2004 general election only about 14% of VAP were necessary to put GWB's over the top EC wise.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #63 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akumulator View Post

That just shows that it's only about winning and not what you stand for.

You could make the same argument for someone supports Hillary and then switches to support Obama because he's a Democrat.

Quote:

That lady is probably only supporting Hillary because she's a woman.

You don't know that, and it's rather sexist of you. She may simply agree with McCain more than Obama.

Quote:
If she votes for McCain then she doesn't care about any issues or what's best for the country... she's just old and bitter.

That's silly. She doesn't like Obama and probably thinks McCain is a better option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hillary is just that. Annoying!

We agree there!

Quote:

She's being just as bad as dubbya is with his party.

I don't know about that one. W is backing off McCain due to his own unpopularity. I'd like to hear more about why you made that statement.

Quote:

Only cares for herself. Well much to SDW and other's here surprise this won't make any difference in the end. They think that Hillary's supporters will not vote or worse vote for McCain. Which is just horse shit! Good luck with that one.

In view of what's happening elsewhere ( McClellan etc. ) I'm sure they would love anything like this to be true.

That's your argument..."it's horse shit?" The thing is, that statement flies in the face of the available evidence. We have two types of evidence, the first of which is polling data. That evidence suggests that a statistically significant number of Democrats won't vote for Obama (see exit polls, for example). It suggests a statistically significant number of Hillary supporters may cross for McCain. The second type of evidence is anecdotal, like the video I linked to. Dismissing that person as a lone nutcase puzzles me. In some ways she is exactly the kind of voter I've been talking about. Older, white, Hillary supporter. My bet is there are a lot of "her" out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yup! They are.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...s-gop-anxiety/


Obama campaign e-mail cites GOP anxiety


" In an e-mail titled "Democrats Win Landslide Victory," Republican former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist wrote "I have a real fear of waking up to this headline after the elections this fall," describing concerns among GOP officials over Obama's campaign infrastructure.

"In key states, news accounts indicate Democrats are outpacing Republicans registering voters. We also know Barack Obama's campaign is utilizing the Internet to raise record amounts of money to support his campaign and Democrats nationally," Frist wrote. " all in the hope that new voters and record resources will produce a Democrat landslide victory this fall."


What is your point here...that the GOP is a clusterfuck? Well, obviously! This election should have been a cakewalk for the Dems. They will still do well in the Congressional races, but they are pissing away the presidency even as we speak. They must now nominate a candidate that cannot win, or alienate half the party by nominating one that can. Well done.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #64 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sadly for you, what groverat thinks is "fair" is not our Constitution. You can do it one state at a time and it will survive legal challenges. Article Two is as clear as day on this matter.

Although Bush v. Gore has no precedential value, it's still a general indicator of how the court would view election challenges. And the court hasn't gotten any more sympathetic to Democrats since then. I think you'd need to be a Republican raising Groverat's claims to have any success.

post #65 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You could make the same argument for someone supports Hillary and then switches to support Obama because he's a Democrat.



You don't know that, and it's rather sexist of you. She may simply agree with McCain more than Obama.



That's silly. She doesn't like Obama and probably thinks McCain is a better option.



We agree there!



I don't know about that one. W is backing off McCain due to his own unpopularity. I'd like to hear more about why you made that statement.



That's your argument..."it's horse shit?" The thing is, that statement flies in the face of the available evidence. We have two types of evidence, the first of which is polling data. That evidence suggests that a statistically significant number of Democrats won't vote for Obama (see exit polls, for example). It suggests a statistically significant number of Hillary supporters may cross for McCain. The second type of evidence is anecdotal, like the video I linked to. Dismissing that person as a lone nutcase puzzles me. In some ways she is exactly the kind of voter I've been talking about. Older, white, Hillary supporter. My bet is there are a lot of "her" out there.




What is your point here...that the GOP is a clusterfuck? Well, obviously! This election should have been a cakewalk for the Dems. They will still do well in the Congressional races, but they are pissing away the presidency even as we speak. They must now nominate a candidate that cannot win, or alienate half the party by nominating one that can. Well done.


Keep wishing for save SDW!

I think once we get closer to the election it will become clear that you are mistaken in your estimate of who democrats will vote for. It won't be McCain.

Do you really think that democrats would rather vote for a guy that shares policies with George Bush than their opponent in the democratic primarys?

Why sour grapes?

" I don't know about that one. W is backing off McCain due to his own unpopularity. "

More liike McCain is backing away from W!

And the reason I made the comparison between Hillary and W is because they both obviously care more for their own agenda than they do for their party.


Once again it was pretty clear that lady in the video was a nut case. So she's what you're basing your argument on?

" must now nominate a candidate that cannot win "

You keep saying this. Tell us again why SDW.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #66 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Although Bush v. Gore has no precedential value...

And no presidential value either!
post #67 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And no presidential value either!

Zing!
post #68 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Although Bush v. Gore has no precedential value

That's actually a really good point. Didn't the BvG decision explicitly state that that decision was bound only to that one particular case and no others?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #69 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

That's actually a really good point. Didn't the BvG decision explicitly state that that decision was bound only to that one particular case and no others?

Yep.

\
post #70 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

love capitalism, distrust the capitalist...

profit at the expense of society may appear to be economically sound but it isn't sustainable...

I guess it depends on who you're distrusting. I'm in favor of both small and big businesses as long as they fulfill the need to provide competitive products or services to customers, they will carry on and exist. It's government's job to open up our markets, make sure there is more competition, not less. Fraud, collusion, theft, environmental damage are some of the things that need to be stopped.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #71 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Keep wishing for save SDW!

Why is that when I post something on the election, it's wishful thinking...whereas your posts are "just what's going to happen?" It doesn't make sense considering you've offered NO DATA or even anecdotal evidence in support of your position.

Quote:

I think once we get closer to the election it will become clear that you are mistaken in your estimate of who democrats will vote for. It won't be McCain.

You know what they say about a stopped clock. You may end up being right, but it's not what any reasonable person would predict based on what we know right now.

Quote:

Do you really think that democrats would rather vote for a guy that shares policies with George Bush than their opponent in the democratic primarys?

First, he's not the same as Bush. He's opposed Bush on several things, actually. Beyond that, no..most Democrats won't vote for him. That's obvious. But "most" don't have to. 10% of Hillary supporters in key swing states would be enough. That's exactly what the data is showing, if not more. I already posted data showing 12% of OREGON Democrats (a liberal state no less) say they won't vote for Obama. Now, they could change their minds. But if the numbers are 12% in a very liberal state (as you know), imagine what the number is in PA, OH, etc? It's not lower.

Quote:

Why sour grapes?

It's incomprehensible why you would accuse me of that. If the data showed vast support for Obama among Hillary supporters, my opinion would be different. I'm just looking at it objectively.

Quote:
" I don't know about that one. W is backing off McCain due to his own unpopularity. "

More liike McCain is backing away from W!

True. I just meant Bush was complying.

Quote:

And the reason I made the comparison between Hillary and W is because they both obviously care more for their own agenda than they do for their party.

Please cite examples wrt Bush. Let me guess...Iraq? If he altered course you'd probably call him weak and say the decision was politically motivated.

Quote:


Once again it was pretty clear that lady in the video was a nut case. So she's what you're basing your argument on?

" must now nominate a candidate that cannot win "

You keep saying this. Tell us again why SDW.

I already have, several times. You keep disagreeing and calling me delusional. You've provided no data whatsoever to support your argument. If you feel I'm wrong about a portion of Dems crossing for McCain or staying home, then you'll need more than "You're full of shit, SDW."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #72 of 123
It shouldn't be controversial to suggest that there will be crossover votes for McCain. There will also be crossover votes for Obama/Clinton. No matter how core the Democratic or Republican constituency there are always some who don't follow the group. Bush got 11% of the Democratic vote in 2004 and that was AFTER starting the war in Iraq and also AFTER having "cheated" to win in 2000 by Democratic reasoning. I have no doubt McCain could improve on that especially with large segments of the party claiming they will stay home or vote for someone other than the nominee. We aren't talking about anything near a majority of those who are dissatisfied. McCain could go from 11% to 14-15% and it would be sizeable.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #73 of 123
trumptman:

Quote:
There is nothing which binds how one state selects their electors to how another state selects their electors. Any legal challenges would be without foundation and if dealt with properly would be tossed. Here is what you typed.

They are all bound as part of the electoral process.

Quote:
Show me how I am wrong in my assertion that state legislatures can select electors in the fashion they desire. Show me how say, Texas could sue California and force California to NOT select their electors via congressional districts until Texas decides to do the same and do it using the Voting Rights Act.

Texas wouldn't sue California. Citizens in California would sue California. It isn't about states fighting states, it's about a state's citizens raising legal challenges about the Constitutionality of the state's laws.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #74 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Why is that when I post something on the election, it's wishful thinking...whereas your posts are "just what's going to happen?" It doesn't make sense considering you've offered NO DATA or even anecdotal evidence in support of your position.



You know what they say about a stopped clock. You may end up being right, but it's not what any reasonable person would predict based on what we know right now.



First, he's not the same as Bush. He's opposed Bush on several things, actually. Beyond that, no..most Democrats won't vote for him. That's obvious. But "most" don't have to. 10% of Hillary supporters in key swing states would be enough. That's exactly what the data is showing, if not more. I already posted data showing 12% of OREGON Democrats (a liberal state no less) say they won't vote for Obama. Now, they could change their minds. But if the numbers are 12% in a very liberal state (as you know), imagine what the number is in PA, OH, etc? It's not lower.



It's incomprehensible why you would accuse me of that. If the data showed vast support for Obama among Hillary supporters, my opinion would be different. I'm just looking at it objectively.



True. I just meant Bush was complying.



Please cite examples wrt Bush. Let me guess...Iraq? If he altered course you'd probably call him weak and say the decision was politically motivated.



I already have, several times. You keep disagreeing and calling me delusional. You've provided no data whatsoever to support your argument. If you feel I'm wrong about a portion of Dems crossing for McCain or staying home, then you'll need more than "You're full of shit, SDW."


Look I'll make it easy for you.

Party terms in office are cyclical. Guess who's term it is now ( pun intended ).

Nobody likes the republicans now and they haven't for a long time. You know the reasons so I really don't have to site them. It's mainly Bush's fault but others have played a role. Bush has really made a mess of it for his own party. That's why I say he only cares for himself in this regard. Although that attitude extends to all of us. The selfish bastard.

As we go into the summer and fall there will undoubtedly be more embarrassing things that come up about the Bush administration that fuel this dislike.

The idea that all of these people who support Hillary are just not going to vote or vote McCain out of spite because their candidate didn't win is just wildly stupid! Democrats know they have a chance to dominate the government in washington for the first time in a long time. Do you really think that they'd throw that away for spite?

McCain doesn't share all of Bush's views but he shares enough and he is in favor of staying " A hundred if necessary " years in Iraq. Most aren't in favor of this.
And that's putting it mildly.

So even though Bush isn't running he'll play a significant role in this election ( whether he wants to or not ) .

A lot of people like Obama. He's like the new Kennedy for our times. He just seems to have a kind of magic when comes to bringing in the votes. Also as I've pointed out he stands for change. Something that most people out there see as a trend. McCain ain't it.

The thing I worry most about is assasination attempts ( just like Kennedy ). Funny the nut cases mostly go after the good guys and seldom the bad.

Also the republicans are worried. It's like the herd sensing the wind has changed. Even you who has to stoop to correcting my spelling.

So all in all even though the democrats are doing stupid things right now ( mostly due to Hillary ) it won't matter in the long run. They talk like they'll be mad over Hillary now. But that's in the heat of the primaries. Later it'll fall around party lines. Even if Hillary keeps pushing until the convention.

Don't believe me? Just keep watching.

Oh! I almost forgot! " Beyond that, no..most Democrats won't vote for him "

That deserves a :
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

profit at the expense of society may appear to be economically sound but it isn't sustainable...

This sounds fine as far as platitudes go, but it's also meaningless. I'm not even sure a company can exist... Unless a company provides what their customer wants, they cannot continue.

All companies that employ protectionism or other such methods to "corner" their market are eventually ruined. Even the oil companies will fall eventually.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #76 of 123
Clinton plans New York speech

Quote:
Hillary Rodham Clinton will give her post-primary speech in New York Tuesday night, a rare departure from the campaign trail.

Staffers who have worked for her on he ground in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana have been invited to attend the event or go home for further instructions, campaign aides said. The New York senator had no other events Tuesday. She planned to address AIPAC Wednesday in Washington.

But she is under increasing pressure to cede the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama after the final primaries. There was a sense of denouement in the campaign. She planned to rally with husband and former President Clinton and their daughter Chelsea in South Dakota Monday night—a reunion usually reserved for election nights.

"Post-primary speech" = "exit speech"

Even Bill has given up.

Quote:
Former president Bill Clinton dropped a hint Monday that the end might be nigh for his wife Hillary's dogged campaign for the Democratic White House nomination, according to reports.

"I want to say also that this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind," the former president told Clinton supporters in South Dakota, ABC and NBC reported on their news websites.

"I thought I was out of politics, till Hillary decided to run. But it has been one of the greatest honors of my life to go around and campaign for her for president," he added at the start of his stump speech.

Other reports suggested that in the face of her rival Barack Obama's overwhelming lead, the New York senator is taking stock of whether to fight on beyond Tuesday's final primaries.

The former first lady's campaign announced that she would hold an election night "celebration" in her home state of New York, not in the final voting states of Montana or South Dakota.

"celebration" = "Pity party"
post #77 of 123
Thread Starter 
Time to buy some extra handkerchiefs.

Hillary needs a few.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #78 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Hillary needs a few.

What a numbnut she is.
post #79 of 123

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #80 of 123
One of my favorite lines from Rambo...

"It's over Johnny. IT'S OVER!"

"Nothing is Over!"

Get ready for First Blood part III Hillary goes to Afghanistan landing under snipper fire to find bin Laden and bring him to justice. Bill gets his law license back and prosecutes bin Laden in NY federal court.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How to lose an election