NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 05:25 PM) If the economy is humming along in 2016, no one is beating Hilary. This, by the way, is something probably very upsetting to the GOP looking forward. Not only all the problems they will have that will worsen in terms of the makeup of the electorate... but I am sure they know that, no matter who was elected President, there is a very good chance the economy will get stronger at some point in the next few years. And with a Dem in the White House, that could spell big trouble for the GOP in 2014 Midterms and the 2016 General. Not to mention the GOP is defending a lot more Senate seats in 2014 than they were this year. The only thing that kept this from being a complete disaster, was that they happened to control most state legislatures in 2010-2012 when redistricting was occurring, which is why the House makeup stayed static. If not for that, they may have lost the house too.

QUOTE (IowanSoxFan @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) keithlaw ‏@keithlaw Good fourth OF. Like him a lot "@JimNeedsCoffee: @keithlaw White Sox just got Blake Tekotte. Org guy?" Anyone else notice that Law has been complementary of Sox moves, since KW gave up the GM job? Anyway, this is trading a high-floor low ceiling reliever (which the Sox have an abundance of), for a low floor high ceiling talent to compete with JorDanks and/or be relief for the OF from AAA. He's still fairly young, they may strike gold. These are good moves to make.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 05:05 PM) Is this one of your classic "one example means the whole party" situations? Cuz I know since Murdoch thinks rape is God's plan, so does the entire GOP! Well, let's be honest, the GOP lost a chance to gain Senate control almost entirely because of a handful of Tea Party right wingers made outlandish and offensive comments about women. So no, not all Republicans in the electorate are like that, at all. But the Senate candidates in the key races were that way, in many cases.

QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:40 PM) Chicago White Sox ‏@whitesox UPDATE: #WhiteSox have acquired outfielder Blake Tekotte from the @Padres in exchange for right-handed pitcher Brandon Kloess. Which should give you an idea of his value. Tekotte is a flyer for the 4th OF spot, probably ends up replacing Conor Jackson in Charlotte. Seems a lot like Jordan Danks, really.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) Eh, I don't agree with that. Blacks are one of the biggest haters of homosexuals, yet 93% just voted Democrat. Perhaps the politicians yes, but not necessarily the party members. I'm not sure that's true, at least anymore. I seem to recall the numbers shifting on that, a lot, in recent time. Can't recall the numbers though.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) Um, Chicago? Chicago has a stranglehold on the rest of the state. And are you kidding? That's one of the main difference currently between Dems and Republicans. It's rural v. urban. It's "get off my lawn and out of my wallet" versus "we need to provide people with more!" Chicago is an interesting example of what I was saying earlier. Chicago's population is 2.8M. The Chicago METRO area is about 9M. So there are over 6M in the suburbs, more than twice what is in the city. And suburban voter dynamics are vastly different than the city, just as they are both different from rural areas.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) The ones that bother me are when states don't get an option, such as passing a law or they lose a specific kind of funding. Fun fact: do we all know who the father of conditional block grants to states was? Hint: the President that conservatives fawn over more than any other, and make into something he wasn't. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) The President is the last check on federal power. That would be SCOTUS.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/cws/ticket....jsp?loc=prices As stated before, this is an aggressive move to bring back fans. They even posted the savings per seat. One can now buy a season ticket seat for $810, for the full season. $10 a game. And that includes the front rows of that section. That's pretty incredible. Down about 18% in our section. Very nice.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:54 PM) you're just wrong man. I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crated retort. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) If states really don't matter, let's get rid of the state level governance, as it is a waste of money then. Get rid of all of the boundaries, rules, etc. Either you have to honor that states are there, or don't. You can't rely on states for somethings, and then ignore them for others. For the record, I was never saying states don't matter. I have said that for the purpose of electing the President, a single national office, states should not matter. There is a huge difference.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) So, I skipped the last 10 pages but... 1) I was told I wasted my vote by not voting for Johnson, because I voted in Missouri and it didn't matter here or if I had voted in Illinois. And Johnson needed that 5%! That's equally as stupid as saying voting for Johnson is bad in non-swing states. 2) Todd Akin's loss was celebrated around here. Lot's of legitimate jokes. 3) I voted strictly Democrat this time, because that's how my political views lineup. We get a kick out of lambasting people for voting along party lines...but what if those are just your views? Back home I vote for a few Republicans on the local level cause some of the Democrats, here I voted all Democrat. 4) We need a new flag. Damn. If you skipped the last 10 pages, you missed some of the best discussion I've seen in a long time in here. And what's with #4? New flag?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) And Reddy's point is that if you change it to popular, NONE of the small states would matter ever again. Campaigns would take place in NY, Chicago and LA, etc. At least right now there are a few small states that DO matter. And I'm not saying the current system is perfect...but I believe it's better than the alternative you pose. I think you're trying to fix a problem and making it even worse. You should run for office...you'd fit in well in Washington. And I vehemently disagree with that point. Small states vs large states should be irrelevant in this case, first of all. Second, the voters in North Dakota or other small states will matter MORE, not less, with a popular vote, for the reasons I have laid out. QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) that's not actually true. the whole myth of the "undecided voter" is a fallacy. lol wut? This is fundamental stuff. You win by getting your base out, and by winning swing voters. The only reason some people feel the latter is a falacy is because they conflate independents with moderates. They are not nearly the same thing.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) but dont you see how much EASIER that would be for the Dem? the Dem can go to LA, NYC, Chicago, big cities. That's it. And be fine. The GOP candidate has to go EVERYWHERE ELSE in order to "motivate the base" and GOTV Not at all. First, the Dems already hold big sway in the cities of those areas you mentioned. So they won't go there too often either. The prize is the swing voters, who are spread out all over the country anyway. For both parties.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Ok let me try and be clear about this. if there are 9 million people in NYC alone, and 500,000 people TOTAL in Wyoming, whose issues are going to be MORE important in the minds of the candidates? Wrong question. See my post above. And for more evidence, see Iowa and New Hampshire. Very rural areas, of great importance because they have so many swing/moderate voters. Most NYC urbanites are going to vote Dem, most Wyomingers (or whatever they call themselves) will vote GOP, in the current landscape. In reality, if you want to make a good argument for the weakness of the popular vote model, it is that the candidates will focus on suburbanites more than either urban or rural extremes.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) I don't think we're far off in that we both realize there is a problem with votes mattering. I think the disagreement comes in that you believe a popular vote would fix the problem where I believe it will make an already bad problem even worse. Fix it entirely? Of course not. Make it better? I think so. Just to be clear, I don't think this would be some sort of fix-all for Presidential politics. In fact I'd say there are a number of much more important issues. QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) urban... areas... would be more necessary than rural areas in securing a majority! No, because that is not how Presidential campaigns work. What is necessary for them to win is two factors, just as it is now: getting out a base of people who believe in your platform, and winning over the moderate/swing voters.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:29 PM) simply not true. candidates policies will be shaped to reflect those in the heavily populated areas because THOSE are the areas they need to get on their side. when candidates don't talk about your issues and don't visit your state, you're not going to be motivated to vote. Simply not true? By its very nature it has to be true. One vote equals one vote. Candidates' policies are already shaped by the populace, and already shaped by battleground states (auto bailout anyone?). A popular vote puts the entire populace in play, instead of a few, so candidates are forced to deal with what the people actually want.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) Because of our limited choice two party system, we ALREADY have very few "battleground" states that "matter" in a national election. I believe that without the EC, we'd have even LESS. I would argue a popular vote better empowers 3rd parties to enter the realm, because it doesn't require winning any chunks specifically over others. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:28 PM) I agree 100% that it is a very interesting discussion. And it seems to be one that people can have without threatening to move to Canada over. I'm moving to Ireland! Seriously though, I agree, this is the best discussion I think I've seen in the Buster in some time.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:24 PM) Popular vote vs EC is an interesting discussion. At least, I think so. Personally, I think the problem is that when we speak of a popular vote, and someone touched ont his earlier, we divide our country with "imaginary lines" that are states. The problem with this is those lines are not imaginary. What affects someones everyday life in South Dakota is nothing like what affects the life of a New Yorker. The EC can lend extra weight to states that are no less important than larger states like NY, for example, to counteract massive population densities from controlling EVERYTHING. If the EC is removed, they lose the ability to control that. It may not be popular for me to say this, but I do not like the idea of calling another state unimportant because it has a lesser population...and well, I don't happen to live there. I don't like the idea of 60% of the states in the union being ignored because they're too small, or "don't matter". On the bolded... the EC being removed does no such thing. It empowers all voters, instead of a few. The states still control everything that states control now, and still have the Senate which is the point of that body's structure. And I also do not like the idea of one state being less important, or more important, than another, which is why I favor a popular vote.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) But when theres 1 North Dakotan for every 700 New Yorkers, his vote counts even less than if the electoral college, from HIS/HER state, represented them. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) I said this before, and I'll say it again, because it appears it needs to be repeated. I'm not saying a popular vote wouldn't work temporarily...in our current political landscape/population, it MIGHT work just fine. But 50 years from now, the population of these cities are going to quadruple, if not more. At that point, they and they alone will control the vote. First, I think you are wrong on the population trends. The populations of CITIES will be pretty stable, the population of SUBURBS will increase dramatically, and that is a very moderate (overall) segment of the population. Trends change over time, in terms of where the population is - west to east, north to south, city to suburbs, rural to city, etc. That is not a reason to choose a system of this kind, in my view. And again, to your first post... 700 people SHOULD have more voice than one person. But no one person should have more voting power than another, for a single national office.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) Why is it important that we fix that? Why should a tiny population of North Dakotans be really important? A North Dakotan should count the same as A New Yorker, when it comes to an all-for-one election. I don't care which state any given voter is from, and neither should the election for President. The Legislature is the REPRESENTATIVE body, and takes care of that.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) that... was... my point. how does a national popular vote FIX that? By making North Dakota irrelevant, just as New York will be irrelevant. Or looking at it another way, if you really want to collate by state... it makes North Dakota the same as New Hampshire. Small vote totals, all of which matter the same. Whereas now, NH gets a ton of attention, and ND gets none.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) will it though? yes in theory they'll bear the same weight, but in a national popular votes the candidates will be in: NYC, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Columbus, Cleveland, St. Louis, DC, etc etc etc - they won't give a crap about North Dakota, and thus, I don't see it as being all that different in terms of everyone's vote "mattering". The candidates will just assume ND goes Red just as they do now. There cannot be an assumption that any state goes red or blue, if each vote counts the same, so I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. It is quite the opposite - they won't be spending weeks of time in Iowa and none in Nebraska, since they have a similar number of voters - they would spend similar amounts of time there, all else equal. QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) Senate and Presidential voting are two very different things. And the highest percentage of minorities exist in urban areas, thus the GOP candidates will have a MUCH harder time overcoming that obstacle. It's not a balanced playing field for both parties as it is now. Yes of course they are different things, that was my point. A popular vote is the far end of the continuum towards popular-based structure. The US Senate is the other extreme, purely state-based or geography-based, whereas the House is closer to population based. And yet, the model you claim would favor Dems is currently red, and the model you claim would favor GOP is currently blue. The popular vote model is, in my view, the ONLY balanced model for electing a single national office. As to your actual post here, I fail to see what point you are even trying to make. GOP candidates already have a hard time with urban populations - that won't change either way. Same with Dems in rural areas. So what has changed in that regard?

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) Interesting. Wonder if Thiggy or Dotson move up. Rich Dotson supposedly isn't well-liked by the players, he has a rep for being a real a-hole. Having never met him I can't say for sure, but that has been the rumor for some time.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) a lot of valid points, but i'm curious about what i mentioned before. If only the urban centers matter, won't 1) the rural areas and small states become disenfranchised and 2) won't democrats always win? 1. no, in fact most will have more say. As it is now, 40+ states are irrelevant each cycle anyway because of the electoral college. You give the power back to 80% of the voters, in all states, by switching to a popular vote. The farmer in North Dakota (whose vote wouldn't have mattered much in this election), and the urbanite in Chicago (same), would now have both their votes matter the same as everyone else's. 2. Of course not. Look at the US Senate. That is a MUCH more state-based system than the electoral college, and they held that nicely anyway, despite being up against that 2-per-state thing. And on the opposite end, the US House stayed Red, and it is much closer to a population-based model, which would theoretically be biased towards larger states.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) saw all that - new question - why is a national popular vote the right call NOW when it wasn't for last 200+ years? To a certain extent, this... QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:18 AM) It was the right call 200+ years ago, just as allowing women and minorities and people who didn't own land to vote was the right choice 200+ years ago. But also, the nation has changed, as has technology. Here are my basic reasons, if you really want to know... 1. Look at the history. The Electoral College was put in place for three primary reasons. One, a national popular vote was much more expensive and difficult to accomplish at that time. Two, the framers didn't trust the electorate to make good decisions (this may still hold true, but modern society now gives them the ammo they need to make good ones if they are informed). And three, they wanted buy-in from the smaller states to form the union. Of those three factors, none are really relevant today, except to a degree the representation of smaller states. 2. The Presidency is not, and cannot be, representative in the same sense as a legislature. It is one person. One person to represent the nation as its chief executive. Arguments about small or large states, urban or rural, black or white... are irrelevant because there cannot be a breakdown. Therefore, the only logical way to derive the will of the people for a single office, is a single vote. Unless that is, you want to go the other way, and have Congress choose a President, and take the vote of the people away entirely. 3. The interests of those dynamics I mentioned earlier, geographically and otherwise, and represented in the Legislature, as was the design. You have a population-based body, and a state-based body, in a bicameral legislature, and that is a great system for doing just that. SCOTUS and the Executive branch were never intended to be filled by the wishes of land area, or of smaller levels of government. 4. The electoral college is statistically problematic because of the nature of 535 - rounding and grouping must occur, in some biased fashion. No need for that intrusion with a popular vote. 5. The electoral college leaves wiggle room for electors to do stupid things, and not represent the will of the voters. You are introducing human error where there need not be any. I have other reasons too, but there is a sampling for you to chew on.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:02 PM) Lol stock market is down big after the election Partially due to their preference for Romney. But more so, it is about the looming fiscal cliff and regulatory uncertainty, and the reality that Congress is still split, making it very difficult to get something done about it quickly. The markets want certainty.