StrangeSox

"being hispanic" doesn't nullify the immigration issue. Actually having policy that Hispanics like will nullify the immigration issue. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lar...-not-the-answer BTW, Obama won Cuban-Americans 49-47 in Florida.

i didn't mean to come off dickish there, it was a quicker way of making the point.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:28 PM) I never said the electoral college was perfect, just statewide as long as counties have their own government a popular vote isn't a better solution. QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:28 PM) I never said the electoral college was perfect, just countywide as long as cities have their own government a popular vote isn't a better solution.

It's a nation-wide office, not a representative for a state. Why doesn't a popular vote make sense? Plenty of other federal systems run that way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 06:55 PM) This is why the "my vote doesn't count" people need to be smacked. There is more than the President on the ballot. People who have a lot more say in your day to day life than Barack does. Otoh i read that on a three page South Carolina ballot, there were exactly four democrats, two of them being Obama and Biden. The other races were unopposed republicans.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 05:35 PM) 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. That's exactly why going district-by district for the ec only makes things worse. A majority of Pennsylvanians voted democratic for house, but the make up is something like 16-5 republicans. Edit: this is also why state races are really important!

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! Sb1070, rejection of the dream act, no real plan supported by the party, demonization of "illegals," self-deportation and "language of the ghetto" being said by main candidates and not being roundly condemned, English-only initiatives, harsh Georgia laws. So no, not just one person. A good bit of the party and the rest letting it happen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:57 PM) All that s*** about Romney was to get viewers. Flipping between basically all of the networks last night, until about 9am you could tell they were just bulls***ting, trying to make it sound like it was going to be a tight race. ^^^this is why the pundits hate Nate Silver et. al.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) Agreed. They can come to more reasonable positions on those social issues - be fine with civil unions if not marriage, don't overturn Roe v. Wade but still fight for further restrictions (24 hour waiting period or something), immigration reform that doesn't deport everyone (oh wait, no one is advocating for that), etc. that isn't why the GOP lost the Latino vote in such huge numbers. It's the laundry list of things they have actually said and done as well as their lack of any real plan to do anything about immigration or for immigrants.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) I can understand people wanting to get rid of the EC. But, how can anyone argue that going to popular vote someone in a state like North Dakota would be worth more. The EC benefits the smaller states and gives them more of a say than their population does. I don't think the EC is perfect but popular vote isn't the answer be open to hearing other ideas to replace it. The only question I care about answering in the one national race we have is "how do we make sure every person's vote counts exactly equally?"

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) EC votes are all proportional to the states' populations so they don't get more of a say. They're whole numbers, so they get rounded, and the smaller states actually do get over-represented per capita. They get more representation in the Senate, they get an edge in the House (on a rep per capita basis) and they get an edge in the Presidency for the same reason. This is 2004 but the pattern holds: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/pre_2004_...otes-per-capita Texas gets 0.149 EC's per 100,000 people while Wyoming gets 0.589.

For the first time in history, the Democratic Party's House Delegation is not majority white-male.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:26 PM) Yeah I saw that. I think it was a story about Romney closing the gap, especially married women. He did do that with married women. Some of the fever swamps (free republic) are blaming the loss on all those unmarried whores who just wanted free contraception and abortions.

BTW jenks, way back in the start of this thread yesterday you asked if Romney had closed the gender gap. Women voted for Obama by an 18 point margin.

It's 90% of the people, 10% of the rest of the people though.

Everyone in favor of the EC: Should we move all elections to this manner? Is it fair that the vote in Chicago essentially controls the governor's office in Springfield? Should we give electoral votes district-by-district for governor to that the rural areas aren't ignored?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:33 AM) Chris Matthews: Thank God for Hurricane Sandy! http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/1...ened-last-week/ chris matthews is awful, but that NPR story was more about the epistemic closure at Fox than anything else.

Media Circus: Fox Struggles with Obama's Win

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) I find it funny that millions love Silver's predictions based on biased data (polls). But many of those same people would rather gouge their eyes out than agree that sabermetrics in baseball are valid. Yes, it's not like it was 4-5 years ago, when the likes of Buster Olney and Jon Heyman would make sabermetrics seem nerdy and irrelevant (those two now use it...), but the point remains. FanGraphs had an article on this today: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/n...rfect-modeling/ Silver's predictions were based on what turned out to be accurate data (polls) which he adjusts for various factors. Some argue that his model is overly complex, but it's done a hell of a job. I've always been a fan of sabermetrics as well.

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? 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.

Trump's posts aren't funny because he thinks we should have a national popular vote. They are funny because he thought it meant Obama would have lost.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:05 AM) I just find it pretty humorous when Twitter would have looked very similar for liberals if it had been around in November 2000. I remember reading some of the same sorts of things on message boards back in the day. Especially on issues you agree with him on anyway. 2000 should have resulted in armed revolution. Trump's posts aren't funny because of the bitter, bitter tears but because Obama didn't lose the popular vote.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) You guys agree with Donald Trump on the Electoral College. Sure, and I agree with Hitler on national highway systems as well. That's why it's an ad hominem.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:29 AM) But even that choice is for those who make over $250k which is not 50% of America. And then of the people making $250k, some of them are going to pick social interests over money (I personally would burn money than vote against my social interests). Economics isnt great for a party to hang their hat on because its too fickle, and often is related to the times, not to the actual policy. In my opinion its a simple fix, really be about small govt. That means less govt in marriage, less govt in drugs, less govt in sex, less govt in immigration, less govt in the workplace, less govt period. If the Republicans could run a candidate like that, 2016 could be really interesting. FWIW there was also a recent study that showed higher taxes on the top bracket aren't an economic drag, anyway, so it could mean higher taxes but with more robust growth and therefore more net income.