RomneyRyan 2012!

[GGT]

Utter, utter left-wing drivel and nonsense. A good CEO needs good people working with him and needs to be able to inspire his team and get them bringing in good results, not just act like a dictator. Any CEO who acted as described would not get results.

Romney may have been a great CEO in financial arena, but after six years of running for POTUS he didn't seem to learn the kind of managerial skills that work in the political arena. See his Orca Project.

Total and utter bullshit and spin. The 47% remark showed absolute rationality and clarity of thought - its not an election-winning position to just talk about tax cuts when they don't affect people. It was blown up out of context so of course he backpedalled. The truth is that if Romney had said the opposite to the 47% remark - that cutting taxes was all he needed to talk about - you'd hate him no less.

No, Romney's 47% remark revealed a few things, take your pick:
He'll say whatever a particular audience wants to hear (especially to top 1% income group at $50,000/plate fundraiser who want lower taxes)
Insulting half the population as entitlement "takers" who just want "free stuff" from the government
An underlying disdain for middle income workers, military vets, retirees/elderly, and poor children (who don't pay federal income tax)
His insinuation that 'regular voters' just don't understand our budget problems or deficit spending (or taxation)
A remarkably deaf ear to identity politics, or understanding the general electorate
Surrounding himself with either bad campaign advisors, or ignoring advise from good ones

[Dreadnaught]

Hey, y'all know Obama narrowly won, right?

[Nessus]

He only got what, nearly a hundred EC votes more

Narrow as the eye of a needle

[Steely Glint]

He won the popular vote by 3 million, about what Bush got over Kerry, which is a comfortable margin but hardly an epic ass kicking.

[Nessus]

The popular vote isn't what governs America

See Bush v Gore

[Steely Glint]

I know that, but when you're talking demographic trends and stuff, the popular vote is more relevent.

[Nessus]

For the Houses, sure, but I sincerely doubt the EC is going down anytime soon for the prez race

[Steely Glint]

Congressional districts are gerrmandered all to fuck, and the senate is one state one vote, so I dunno about that.

[Loki]

He won the popular vote by 3 million, about what Bush got over Kerry, which is a comfortable margin but hardly an epic ass kicking.

If he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, he'd still be president (due to the Electoral College), so the margin isn't as small as you suggest.

I know that, but when you're talking demographic trends and stuff, the popular vote is more relevent.

No, what matters are the demographic trends in a handful of states. What's been happening is that Republican states have become much more conservative, but that doesn't help a Republican win electoral votes.

[Dreadnaught]

Obama is also the first president to win a second term with fewer popular votes than he won the first time around. Oh well, Obama still won.

[Steely Glint]

Do you support the electoral college, if so why?

[Loki]

Do you support the electoral college, if so why?

Give me a reason why small states would ever vote to get rid of it.

[GGT]

Congressional districts are gerrmandered all to fuck, and the senate is one state one vote, so I dunno about that.

Very true about the congressional gerrymandering. (Each state has two US Senators)

[Steely Glint]

Because small states are mainly republican, and you just presented a scenario where Obama could have lost the popular vote by 3 million and still been president. If such a thing had happened, there'd be outrage, and strong movement to ditch the thing in favour of electing presidents via popular vote.

[Loki]

Because small states are mainly republican, and you just presented a scenario where Obama could have lost the popular vote by 3 million and still been president. If such a thing had happened, there'd be outrage, and strong movement to ditch the thing in favour of electing presidents via popular vote.

Individual states care more about their own influence than they do about some abstract idea of demographic trends (plus who's to say those trends won't favor their party in the future?). To put it simply, there's no way 3/4 of the states sign off on any changes.

There's outrage every time and it dies down pretty quickly.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/pre...tes-per-capita

[Dreadnaught]

Do you support the electoral college, if so why?

Not really relevant to the point I was making, but since you asked, I generally support it. Or at least I don't see it as some kind of pure evil. After all, the electoral votes are distributed along a rough demographic framework (states with more people get more electoral college votes).

But, for a country that is as geographically large and disbursed as ours, I don't think it's healthy to vest all political power in the population-dense urban areas.

Without the electoral college, our presidential election (which is our one truly national election) would probably comprise of the candidates sticking to large population centers hunting for just enough votes to scrape past 50%. Those are already the places they go for most of their money. They should have to do more than stick to large urban centers to win elections.

On a separate note, I think the electoral college should also remind people that our country is a federation of states and those states (and their people) are the ones who are electing the president.

But this doesn't mean I'm a gung-ho supporter of the electoral college. I'm merely comfortable with it.

[Loki]

You don't have a problem with your vote counting 1/4 as much as oldmunchkin's vote (ignoring the issue of battleground states)?

[Steely Glint]

I was actually asking Loki. He still hasn't answered.

[Loki]

I was actually asking Loki. He still hasn't answered.

No, I think it's a stupid, undemocratic system, but a system that has no chance of being changed for the foreseeable future.

[Steely Glint]

We agree on something, then.

[GGT]

Obama won both the popular and electoral college vote. He is, indeed, POTUS for a second term, and entirely "legitimate" leader of the USA. *Note: that means united states operating as a Union, a democratic Republic.*

Republicans need to stop the nonsense that eminates from their crazy fringe "base", and stop giving credence to loons like Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox and Friends, and even Karl Rove.

[Loki]

A president that loses the popular vote is no less legitimate than one who wins it. The point of an election is to win according to the rules that do exist, not ones that might exist or should exist.

[Nessus]

A president that loses the popular vote is no less legitimate than one who wins it. The point of an election is to win according to the rules that do exist, not ones that might exist or should exist.

Exactly. Whereby the victory was nowhere near narrow.

[Loki]

To think of it another way, it's quite obvious that if the president was elected according to the popular vote, the candidates would campaign differently, which would change the results of the popular vote.

Exactly. Whereby the victory was nowhere near narrow.

I don't think the narrowness matters either. Either you win or you lose (I suppose it might matter if you win 49 states like Reagan did). If the goal was to maximize the number of electoral votes, the campaigns would be operated differently.

[Steely Glint]

Without the electoral college, our presidential election (which is our one truly national election) would probably comprise of the candidates sticking to large population centers hunting for just enough votes to scrape past 50%.

Large population centres tend to go democratic anyway. I think we'd see broadly what we see now, candidates would focus their energy on areas where they think there are most undecided voters.

[Loki]

Exactly. There would be some merit to campaigning in New York and LA (due to large populations), but that would be outweighed by the few undecided in those areas. Campaigning would switch from battleground states to battleground cities/towns. If anything, the current system encourages candidates to mainly campaign in large cities in key states.

[Flixy]

Obama is also the first president to win a second term with fewer popular votes than he won the first time around. Oh well, Obama still won.

Isn't that because turnout is lower all over? As I understand it, Romney also got a few million votes fewer than McCain as well.

Not really relevant to the point I was making, but since you asked, I generally support it. Or at least I don't see it as some kind of pure evil. After all, the electoral votes are distributed along a rough demographic framework (states with more people get more electoral college votes).

But, for a country that is as geographically large and disbursed as ours, I don't think it's healthy to vest all political power in the population-dense urban areas.

Without the electoral college, our presidential election (which is our one truly national election) would probably comprise of the candidates sticking to large population centers hunting for just enough votes to scrape past 50%. Those are already the places they go for most of their money. They should have to do more than stick to large urban centers to win elections.

On a separate note, I think the electoral college should also remind people that our country is a federation of states and those states (and their people) are the ones who are electing the president.

But this doesn't mean I'm a gung-ho supporter of the electoral college. I'm merely comfortable with it.

While I understand your problems with sticking to the large population centers, do you think that's better or worse than simply sticking to a few states? Aside from the fact that a Wyoming vote has almost four times the EC vote power, that's even before you look at states that are simply irrelevant because they aren't in play. I think that for a presidential election, your system is very undemocratic. I do think for a country as geographically large and disbursed as yours, you don't want to get rid of senators by state and representatives by region (which would also make decrease vesting the political power in the population-dense areas - congress is also important). But for a president? He's supposed to represent the entire country. One person, one vote, and all that.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yes, I read that. That's not an answer to my question, though. Because your answer actually amounts to: "He lost the vote because he had to raise money and thus could not spend enough time with potential voters."

In essence I'd have to conclude that money does buy you the election.

He lost because he wasn't a great candidate. The election was Obama's to lose, not Romney's to win. If one believes/accepts the premises of that article's writer (which I rather conclude you do, that money is a pretty major factor, that Obama was at significant risk losing control of the country to the Republican machine, etc) then the conclusion to reach is that Romney lost because he chose to focus on a necessary but insufficient condition, money, at the expense of campaigning in battleground states which is a necessary and possibly sufficient condition. The perception that money buys the winner the election can be a self-fulfilling prophecy for the loser.

[Dreadnaught]

You don't have a problem with your vote counting 1/4 as much as oldmunchkin's vote (ignoring the issue of battleground states)?

Isn't that because turnout is lower all over? As I understand it, Romney also got a few million votes fewer than McCain as well.

While I understand your problems with sticking to the large population centers, do you think that's better or worse than simply sticking to a few states? Aside from the fact that a Wyoming vote has almost four times the EC vote power, that's even before you look at states that are simply irrelevant because they aren't in play. I think that for a presidential election, your system is very undemocratic. I do think for a country as geographically large and disbursed as yours, you don't want to get rid of senators by state and representatives by region (which would also make decrease vesting the political power in the population-dense areas - congress is also important). But for a president? He's supposed to represent the entire country. One person, one vote, and all that.

Historically most presidents who win re-election have always increased their margin of victory.

But no, I don't really see a problem with Munchkin's vote "counting for more" because I just don't see it in terms of that raw math. After all, I live in an area where I can influence far more people at once, who in turn control more electoral votes. But I prefer not to think of the electoral college as some kind of state vs. state competition.

Large population centres tend to go democratic anyway. I think we'd see broadly what we see now, candidates would focus their energy on areas where they think there are most undecided voters.

That's a very Lewkian assumption there (IE that dense concentrations of people = socialism). Obama either didn't win some cities or had varying margins. But you're right that we would broadly see what we see now, which is why I'm fine with the status quo.

Obama won both the popular and electoral college vote. He is, indeed, POTUS for a second term, and entirely "legitimate" leader of the USA. *Note: that means united states operating as a Union, a democratic Republic.*

Republicans need to stop the nonsense that eminates from their crazy fringe "base", and stop giving credence to loons like Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox and Friends, and even Karl Rove.

Who is saying this? Or are strawmen just being noisy?

[Loki]

Historically most presidents who win re-election have always increased their margin of victory.

But no, I don't really see a problem with Munchkin's vote "counting for more" because I just don't see it in terms of that raw math. After all, I live in an area where I can influence far more people at once, who in turn control more electoral votes. But I prefer not to think of the electoral college as some kind of state vs. state competition.

It's a nice talking point, but so what? Obama won and it wouldn't make the slightest difference if he won with a larger share of the vote.

Democracy is defined by relative worth of everyone's vote, not but everyone's ability to influence people. If your criterion for democracy is "the ability to influence an equal amount of people", then you should kind of want money banned from politics. Adelson can influence far more people than some guy living in a project.