Well, I think it's going to be Perry vs. Romney

[Unkotare]

I'd like to have a beer with Rick Perry. Mitt Romney doesn't even drink beer, because his cult forbids him from doing so.

Romney is stiff and robotic and comes off like one of those boring corporate types who can tell you all about annueities and loss ratios and stuff, but he's never gotten dirt under his fingernails in his life.

As I said (and the above post demonstrates very clearly), all you've got is your filthy bigotry and lefty class warfare bullshit.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yeah, that's the way to win people over to your guy. Scream at them that they are "bigots" .

You ARE a bigot. You have demonstrated it beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you really think I want to "win over" some flaming lefty democat who is a shameless, filthy bigot? You just need to know what you are and anyone reading needs to know it.

If you have nothing left but repeating the talking points you were given before starting your 'assignment' on this forum, then STFU because it's getting old.

Actually, you guys have to win me over. Didn't vote for Obama, but if Romney is the candidate, I might. I just dislike Mormons that much. And even if he wasn't running about with Magic Underwear, there's so much about the man that is contemptable.

Romney will lose because 18% of REPUBLICANS are "bigots" by your definition. And your doing this for what? Seriously, assuming you aren't a Latter Day Zombie yourself, (which is doubtful, given how upset you are getting), what do you guys really gain by supporting ROmney, a guy who is by most definitions a RINO, who supported gay rights, abortion rights, a big government health care plan, etc.

(On views, Romney is probably closer to my viewpoint than Perry is, but the LDS is the deal-killer for me.)

 

[Auxous]

the right will never discuss facts

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYjBQKIOb-w]David Bowie - Heroes (live) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Auxous]

Not one Bowery can challenger me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not one Bowery can challenger me.

We should I pick on the mentally challenged

 

[Missourian]

I've educated myself. It's a PROFOUNDLY stupid system and when I go to other countries on business, I frequently find myself explaining the stupidity of it to non-Americans.

Al Gore got more votes. Didn't vote for him, but the fact is, he got more votes. Probably got more votes in Florida, too.

Four times in our history has some clown said, "I won the electoral college, even though I lost the popular vote!"

In all those cases, they were pretty awful presidents who did real damage.

We really need to scrap this system.

If it weren't for the electoral college, the Eastern states would decide every election.

We are the United States for a reason...we are states that are united.

The electoral college ensures that each state has a say in deciding who will lead the country.

Actually, it does the opposite of that. In a close election, a lot of states are ignored.

I live in Illinois. IN 2008, neither candidate spent any real time or money here. They both figured it was Obama's home state, and he was going to win it with ease. They didn't spend a lot of time in NY, TX, CA either. All the money got spent in places like Iowa, Florida, Virginia, etc.

In fact, the only states that counted were the "swing states", not the states that were clearly blue or red. So the actual election was only fought in about 10 states last time.

But beyond that, on the very principle, the guy who gets the most votes should win. That's only reasonable and fair. A situation where a guy got a half a million votes less, but only won because his brother was governor of a key state and pulled all sorts of shennanigans to eek out a razor thin win, well, that's nuts.

This reply actual cements the underpinnings of the electoral college.

You are exactly right...candidate often consider a state decided.

They focus their campaigns on undecided states.

And that's the point.

The state of New Hampshire (pop. 1,321,672) is just as important as the state of California (pop. 36,580,371) in a close presidential election.

The electoral college protects the voice of the smaller states from being completely drowned out by a few large states.

Or the Midwest states being overwhelmed by the Eastern states.

If we had a unitary government system, a popular vote would be the order of the day...but we do not.

The United States was designed to be a federal government system.

A federal government system is the common government of a federation...in our case a federation of states.

Understanding that will go a long way to explaining our system to your colleagues overseas.

They live under a unitary government...you do not.

 

[JoeB131]

This reply actual cements the underpinnings of the electoral college.

You are exactly right...candidate often consider a state decided.

They focus their campaigns on undecided states.

And that's the point.

The state of New Hampshire (pop. 1,321,672) is just as important as the state of California (pop. 36,580,371) in a close presidential election.

The electoral college protects the voice of the smaller states from being completely drowned out by a few large states.

Or the Midwest states being overwhelmed by the Eastern states.

If we had a unitary government system, a popular vote would be the order of the day...but we do not.

The United States was designed to be a federal government system.

A federal government system is the common government of a federation...in our case a federation of states.

Understanding that will go a long way to explaining our system to your colleagues overseas.

They live under a unitary government...you do not.

but that's the problem. There is no real interest in those decided states or their voters. Therefore because California is "Decided", they aren't trying to get those votes of the 36 million people because that state has been pretty reliably Blue since 1992. So those 36 million get ignored while all this attention is lavished upon the 1.3 million in NH.

One man, one vote. that means they are going out and fighting for every vote in every state.

Incidently, even the founding fathers expected most elections to be decided in the House. They specifically designed the system to throw most elections there, until they realized how cumbersome that was after the 1800 election when Aaron Burr tried to usurp Thomas Jefferson's victory.

Every time the EC has produced a result opposite of what the will of the voters was, it was turmoil.

John Quincy Adams was accused of having been elected in a "Corrupt Deal" when Andrew Jackson's victory was ignored by the House after the election was thrown there in 1824.

Rutherford B. Hayes was called "His Fraudelancy" after a commission appointed to sort out disputed state victories in 1876 gave him the presidency after John Tilden won the popular vote.

Benjamin Harrison won in 1888, despite losing the electoral vote. The voters threw him out in 1892 and put Grover Cleveland back in.

And in 2000, you had George W. Bush, whose presidency was never accepted by half the country after the Supreme Court decided the election in his favor.

It's a bad system, and it should be scrapped.

 

[Missourian]

This reply actual cements the underpinnings of the electoral college.

You are exactly right...candidate often consider a state decided.

They focus their campaigns on undecided states.

And that's the point.

The state of New Hampshire (pop. 1,321,672) is just as important as the state of California (pop. 36,580,371) in a close presidential election.

The electoral college protects the voice of the smaller states from being completely drowned out by a few large states.

Or the Midwest states being overwhelmed by the Eastern states.

If we had a unitary government system, a popular vote would be the order of the day...but we do not.

The United States was designed to be a federal government system.

A federal government system is the common government of a federation...in our case a federation of states.

Understanding that will go a long way to explaining our system to your colleagues overseas.

They live under a unitary government...you do not.

but that's the problem. There is no real interest in those decided states or their voters. Therefore because California is "Decided", they aren't trying to get those votes of the 36 million people because that state has been pretty reliably Blue since 1992. So those 36 million get ignored while all this attention is lavished upon the 1.3 million in NH.

One man, one vote. that means they are going out and fighting for every vote in every state.

Incidently, even the founding fathers expected most elections to be decided in the House. They specifically designed the system to throw most elections there, until they realized how cumbersome that was after the 1800 election when Aaron Burr tried to usurp Thomas Jefferson's victory.

Every time the EC has produced a result opposite of what the will of the voters was, it was turmoil.

John Quincy Adams was accused of having been elected in a "Corrupt Deal" when Andrew Jackson's victory was ignored by the House after the election was thrown there in 1824.

Rutherford B. Hayes was called "His Fraudelancy" after a commission appointed to sort out disputed state victories in 1876 gave him the presidency after John Tilden won the popular vote.

Benjamin Harrison won in 1888, despite losing the electoral vote. The voters threw him out in 1892 and put Grover Cleveland back in.

And in 2000, you had George W. Bush, whose presidency was never accepted by half the country after the Supreme Court decided the election in his favor.

It's a bad system, and it should be scrapped.

Barack Obama Campaign Events, by State 2008

• Alabama (5 events)
• Arizona (4 events)
• Arkansas (1 event)
• California (40 events)
• Colorado (17 events)
• Connecticut (6 events)
• Delaware (4 events)
• District of Columbia (37 events)
• Florida (44 events)
• Georgia (9 events)
• Hawaii (4 events)
• Idaho (1 event)
• Illinois (43 events)
• Indiana (34 events)
• Iowa (178 events)
• Kansas (1 event)
• Kentucky (4 events)

• Louisiana (5 events)
• Maine (2 events)
• Maryland (6 events)
• Massachusetts (9 events)
• Michigan (21 events)
• Minnesota (6 events)
• Mississippi (4 events)
• Missouri (21 events)
• Montana (11 events)
• Nebraska (5 events)
• Nevada (39 events)
• New Hampshire (80 events)
• New Jersey (6 events)
• New Mexico (7 events)
• New York (25 events)
• North Carolina (33 events)
• North Dakota (2 events)

• Ohio (47 events)
• Oklahoma (1 event)
• Oregon (10 events)
• Pennsylvania (45 events)
• Puerto Rico (2 events)
• Rhode Island (2 events)
• South Carolina (45 events)
• South Dakota (6 events)
• Tennessee (4 events)
• Texas (38 events)
• U.S. Virgin Islands (1 event)
• Utah (3 events)
• Virginia (30 events)
• Washington (6 events)
• West Virginia (3 events)
• Wisconsin (21 events)
• Wyoming (7 events)

© 2011 The Washington Post Company


Barack Obama Campaign Events, by State | 2008 Campaign Tracker | washingtonpost.com

Looks like the populous states got their fair share of campaigning.


The decided state of Illinois got 43 visits...

One less visit than the swing state of Florida...

...3 less than Ohio.

23 more than Missouri.

The decided state of Texas got 38 visits.

And the decided state of California hosted 40 campaign events.

Everyone got attention...the only disproportionate amounts went to Iowa and New Hampshire...due only to the importance of their early primaries.




​

 

[IndependntLogic]

I prefer Perry to Romney, but he aint that great IMO. If Romney is the nomination, I will vote third party.

I respect your willingness to stick by your guns. So question: Why would you vote 3rd party if Romney is on but not if Perry is?

 

[JoeB131]

Missourian- Florida got more events than California did... even though it has half the amount of people.

That was my point.

New Hampshire got more events than anyone. WHy do we let this little state have so much influence?

By the time NH and Iowa are done, the GOP feild is going to be whittled down to Romney and Perry. Well, what if I liked Herman Cain or John Huntsman?

That's a problem with the nominating process, which is even more screwed up than the electoral college system.

I kind of like the system the French have. You have a primary election, eveyrone gets to run, then you get down to the top two vote getters if no one gets over 50%.

 

[dblack]

I'm mostly curious how the Tea Party will respond if either one of these yahoos are nominated. My hope is that the libertarians among them would finally get it through their heads that the Repubs don't give rat's ass about freedom, and only like government to be limited when they're not in charge.

 

[Greenbeard]

Looks like the populous states got their fair share of campaigning.

It doesn't make sense to consider those numbers without context. For example, citing the number of appearances in Illinois without noting that Obama was a sitting U.S. Senator from Illinois and his campaign was based in Chicago (where all but three of those appearances--including his campaign kickoff in Springfield--took place) would be a significant omission.

Similarly, a state like Texas was not a decided state in the context of the numbers you posted, which stretch back into 2007. Texas had a close primary between Clinton and Obama, which is why he appeared there so frequently. You'll note that he doesn't host a single campaign event in the state after March 4, the date of the primary.

If anything, those kinds of numbers support the (obvious) point that contested states get attention. They just serve as a reminder that it may be worth considering the primaries, as well, since a long drawn out primary like the Democrats had in 2008 will result in more visits to states that won't get attention in the general election--particularly under the Democratic system for awarding convention delegates, which is proportional instead of winner-take-all and thus rewards candidates for a good showing even if they ultimately lose the primary (a fact that somehow escaped the Clinton campaign, sealing its fate).

Is a primary event or campaign on par with a general election visit to a state? If yes, then it's worth considering those primary appearances in states that are contested in the primary but not in the general. If not, then that list of campaign appearances should include only campaign events that took place during the general election (so, probably from late August--when Obama received the nomination--on).

 

[Toro]

As a foreigner, I find it odd that a few states continuously have such a disproportional effect on the Presidential elections. Why not rotate which states get to go first every four years?

 

[elvis]

As a foreigner, I find it odd that a few states continuously have such a disproportional effect on the Presidential elections. Why not rotate which states get to go first every four years?

Yeah. I think this time, whoever wins iowa wins the nomination.

 

[Greenbeard]

As a foreigner, I find it odd that a few states continuously have such a disproportional effect on the Presidential elections. Why not rotate which states get to go first every four years?

The sheer cunning and guile of Iowa and New Hampshire's state legislatures, perhaps:

Traditionally New Hampshire and Iowa have coordinated to protect their early-voting status — with the support of the national parties, and presidential candidates eager for their votes — but with each presidential-election cycle, the pressure has grown from other states coveting candidates’ attention to them and their issues. By law, Iowa’s party caucuses must be eight days before New Hampshire’s primaries, and New Hampshire, by law, requires its primaries to be a week before any state’s similar contest.​

More states need to pass laws declaring their primaries must be before New Hampshire's, creating a paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGD1lPIj54M]Conundrum[/ame]

 

[Missourian]

Missourian- Florida got more events than California did... even though it has half the amount of people.

Let's stay on topic.


Illinois received 1 less event than Florida, even though in only has 2/3rd the amount of people.

So what's your point.

Obama campaigned everywhere...he ignored no one.

He campaigned as much in California, New York, Illinois, as he did in Ohio and Florida.

That in itself invalidates your argument.

 

[SFC Ollie]

In 1992, Marvin Simkin wrote in Los Angeles Times,

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.




I think I would rather keep the Electoral college.........

 

[EriktheRed]

In 1992, Marvin Simkin wrote in Los Angeles Times,

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.




I think I would rather keep the Electoral college.........

Wouldn't it just be a total pisser if Pres. Obama won re-election like Shrub won his first one?

 

[SFC Ollie]

In 1992, Marvin Simkin wrote in Los Angeles Times,

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.




I think I would rather keep the Electoral college.........

Wouldn't it just be a total pisser if Pres. Obama won re-election like Shrub won his first one?

Yes it would be. but it would be legal......... I don't know if we could survive another term of Obamanomics.

 

[elvis]

In 1992, Marvin Simkin wrote in Los Angeles Times,

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.




I think I would rather keep the Electoral college.........

Wouldn't it just be a total pisser if Pres. Obama won re-election like Shrub won his first one?

I haven't looked, but is a 269-269 tie possible this time around, with the new census? It did in 2008. It even had a good chance of happening before the meltdown.