RockRaines

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) I agree states should get more rights. But that is from Congress, not from the President. And unfortunately no one in Federal Congress wants to give up their power. Id love for congress to vote that guns, drugs, etc were all state rights. But thats not going to change, regardless of how the President is voted. I wouldn't mind this either. I think some states rights should supersede some of the national laws i.e. marijuana, gay marriage etc.

Good debates BTW guys, civil and informative.

Ugh just watched Akin's concession speech. So anyone who didnt vote for him doesnt appreciate god, their family, and America.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) i think turnout may go up in the first year of a popular vote, but then people will realize that if they live in a small state, the issues that matter specifically to them will stop getting addressed and they'll become apathetic. that's my belief, however, as you pointed out... i'm not technically an expert... just my dad. who i've known and spoken with in detail for the last 26 years of my life. Ok maybe not those first few years. Thats a pretty big reach considering you are assuming EVERY single person in those "small states" cares about exactly the same thing and that those particular things would be ignored for some reason because nobody else in the country cares about them. Also local government would still be in effect for areas that have really specific issues as part of our checks and balances. I just dont see a scenario where a larger population of people's votes will actually count and somehow they become disillusioned because they dont get much attention from candidates. Yesterday only a subset of 5 states mattered, there is a TON of room to improve upon that.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) EXACTLY - and if they can get MORE people together in NYC than they can in Wyoming, they'll pander their positions to fit the needs of that larger group! what's hard to grasp about this? Nothing is hard to grasp about that, of course it would make sense to spend more time in front of more people, whats the problem with that? They still cannot ignore large portions of the country since everyone's vote counts the same instead of taking down a state you've never visited because its a traditional red or blue state. Romney spent how much time in Chicago? Traditional "red" or "blue" areas would actually get attention from both candidates which would be very positive.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) ok... but the states with increased influence because of high populations means that that's where the candidates will spend more time, correct? Well, I think a basic premise is that candidates will spend the most time in front of the most people they can get together in one area, yes. Since every vote counts as 1 the more people you convince to vote for you the liklier you will win. Pretty basic premise there. If they can get a million people on a webcast they will do that too. I;m not sure why you keep focusing on the state thing. 1 vote is 1 vote. They would need to touch as many people as they can if they want to be successful because a vote in North Dakota is exactly the same value as a vote in NYC.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) Please look at this. Under a NPV plan, check out the states that would lose power, vs. the states that would GAIN power. What's a common factor? Most of the "gainers" are blue states and most of the losers? Red. PS this comes from a GOP publication that is anti NPV for these very reasons But under a popular vote model states no longer have any power, the people do. SO who cares what states do, its all about counting everyone's vote and determining a winner based on that count.

BTW, there was a guy roaming around my parents neighborhood with a petition to nullify one of the elections, they didnt see which one. LOL

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:55 PM) I think the point BMags brought up earlier is significant...all those republicans in major metro areas would have a voice in a popular vote, whereas now, they are drowned out by the democratic majority now. I am not sure how the numbers line up, but the 65-35% democratic margins that result in what, a good 150-200 electoral votes to zero would now be more like 6.5 to 3.5 (out of every 10) in those areas...that would produce some interesting effects on campaigning in my opinion. I'm really not sure what the strategy would be...your point about swing votes coming at a premium is not lost, but entering in millions of republican votes into the equation in the metro areas that are not counted for anything in the electoral system would change the equation significantly in my mind. GOP's in urban areas and Dem's in rural areas would have a bigger voice thats for sure, not to mention votes in traditionally that color state. Us here in Illinois would actually have a vote that matters nationally, right now we simply dont.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:54 PM) you're just wrong man. How so? If the popular vote is the determining factor how can one person's vote mean more than another?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) i didn't say they don't have metro areas, but they in NO way compare to LA/NYC/Chicago Yes, instead they have multiple areas that are urban instead of essentially the one we have in illinois. Columbus and Cleveland combined is about the population of chicago. Add in Dayton, Toledo and Cincy and you have a decently urban population. Miami-Dade country in Florida is HUGE, about 2.5 million people. (chicago is about 2.7) Orlando and Tampa are over the million mark. Virginia has the DC urban area which is huge but not part. But still over a million in Richmonda, Alexandria, Virginia beach etc. Obviously the 3 largest cities in the country arent going to have any comparison because thats why they are ranked that high, but its not like those states have no big cities to speak of and in general in their states they have more areas that classify as "urban" than Illinois.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:39 PM) And none of those states have metro areas according to Reddy. You are dead Miami, Cleveland, Orlando, Cincinnati Columbus is actually the largest city in Ohio. Virginia has several urban areas too like Richmond and Alexandria. Dont forget Fla has Tallahasse (sp?) and Tampa as well. It just sucks that MY vote for a national election essentially means dick living in Cook county. If we went popular every vote across the nation counts equally.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) Peanut may miss Sunday's game vs. Houston. His wife is due to have their fourth child any day now, if she goes into labor on Sunday, he won't play to be with her. It sucks for us, but honestly good for him. Family is #1.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) hahaha fair enough, i'm just not sure i wanna be that grossed out by myself. i think i'd rather jerk it to madison ivy than screw a fat chick. lol Just let her blow you then and close your eyes.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) They already are. Electoral college being removed does not change this. All it changes is that if you live in a state where you are a huge political minority, you can still impact the national race. Right now Ohioans, Floridians, Virginians and Tarheels votes are more important than ALL of ours. Is everyone ok with that?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:53 AM) And even worse for them is that there is very little indication that people in the age group of 30-40 are becoming less socially liberal as they get older. The writing should be on the wall. The young population and the growing minorities put a black president in office and reelected him amongst very weak progress. Their parents or even our parents were the folks who instilled alot of the liberal social attitudes in us and it will be passed down from there. The social issues need to be something they come to agreement on with the dems or at least be more conservative.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:43 AM) I don't have Fox News (thank God), but I would've loved to have watched them last night for the lulz. It was that and super drunk Diane Sawyer that made it entertaining to watch the different channels last night.

The fact that the Republican part is shocked that people voted for more people's rights regarding social issues like abortion and marriage equality instead of for their economic plan shows how out of touch they really are. Young people came out in mass to vote for Obama primarily for those reasons. Unless the GOP softens up their stance in no-win issues like those they are going to be behind the 8-ball.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:15 AM) The Republican model is fundamentally flawed and is currently playing a losing game. This is nothing more than an extension of agrarian v urban models that were first seen in the Hamilton/Jefferson era. Generally the US should get more diverse and become more urban. As long as the Republican party of the South wants to flip the bird to the urban population, they are always going to be starting from behind. Even Mitt Romney, a businessman former Governor of a northern state, had to completely disavow every plan that would have made him dangerous to Obama, just so that he could solidify the Republican core. On Fox news last night, they had some people who got it. But there were others who just seemed to think that it was a bad campaign and that if Romney had been more tactical he could have won. And its true Romney could have won, but his path would have been a hell of a lot easier if he could actually threaten in a state like California or New York. And its not like Republicans dont win there, its just Southern Republicans dont. The model clearly shows you can punt the Confederacy and still win more times than not. What should be even more telling for the Republicans is that they havent even nominated a Presidential candidate who was born in a confederate state (at least not post WWII and I was to lazy to go back further.) The closest (to actually being a southerner) was GWB, but hes a pretty big exception as he is a legacy of pretty influential northern Republicans. They really they just need to stop with the big govt social ideas, otherwise Id expect a bigger defeat in 2016, as the economy will likely be better and the country will be more diverse. I was telling my fiance this lat night and she couldnt believe that I already counted states like Cal in Obama's favor before it even started. Republicans COULD take a state like that but far right politics will never help that cause.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:44 AM) Not you - you're fine - you live in Illinois. I wish I'd mentioned that earlier cuz it would have saved us all this headache, but primarily i'm talking about people who live in contested states. In THOSE states a third party vote risks moving backwards (ie: the "other guy" of the two viable candidates winning). the solid red or blues can do whatever they want. it's NOT as big a deal in Illinois, and your point about the popular vote is well taken. There's the real issue for me if I was forced to choose for one or the other the idea of "greater good" would mean either voting with my family who are mainly teachers, friends who are openly gay and support freedom of choice, or myself who financially should side with the GOP. I firmly believe governement shouldnt make our moral decisions for us and that women have rights to control their bodies, but at the same time that tax issue for people who make over 250k is attractive to me. Glad that wasnt really a situation I was put in.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:57 AM) No way, because he would never get on the ballot. That's the problem with the GOP right now. The vast majority of the party doesn't care (or care enough) about those social issues, but a very strong minority does. And that minority has a good hold on the primary elections. So you have to come off as extreme and then get back towards the middle come election time. But at that point you've already got quotes and video clips saying those extreme things, so it doesn't play with independents and moderate voters. Romney is closer to Obama than people think, especially on social issues. But like McCain he was forced to look much more extreme than he really is. Thats whats unfortunate about these elections is that the person you are voting for is essentially lying because they are puppets of their party. In the GOP's case, they have decided that the extreme right was their base for victory so you have basically an Obamacare supporter telling everyone how evil it is. Behind the curtains for both parties are special interest groups who are paying for their opinions to be expressed. s*** locally you had money being poured into advertising that would have helped our state and city dig themselves out of debt, instead we have Walsh being a deadbeat dad aired every 20 min.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:41 AM) My prediction for 2016. Hillary Clinton vs Marco Rubio I don't think a woman will be a presidential candidate for at least 10 more years. He dems would do better choosing a minority like one of the castros IMO.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:37 AM) i'm locked into a greater good, lesser of two evils frame of mind. but like i said, if a candidate comes along who's a viable third party choice, then I'll vote for them - but until that day, I'd rather us go slowly in the right direction than backwards, and i'll vote to support THAT. How is helping award a third party financial support for next election moving backwards? You make zero sense. Because of this election and the support they can continue to build the campaign for 2016 when they can insert in your words a "viable" candidate.

So in 2016 will we see Julian Castro as the dem nominee? Talk about securing the Latino vote.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) well not ZERO. popular vote still matters in the framing of the election Yes and my vote went to the party I support. So I boosted my own choice and that's it. I took away a popular vote from both the republicans and democrats. You are still locked into a two party frame of mind.