Jenksismyhero

ha, that's pretty good.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:20 PM) 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. Yeah I saw that. I think it was a story about Romney closing the gap, especially married women.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) In my opinion, main difference between democrats and republicans is social issues like abortion (get out of my bedroom), marriage (get out of my life), drugs (dont tell me what I can consume.) Of the Democrats I know, none of them want big govt, they just hate big govt social conservatism. 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) I think everyone understands the premise...more campaign time in urban areas = exposure to more people = more votes. I fail to see how this would be the obvious equation in a popular vote scenario when it isn't the case in the electoral scenario, when the same basic principles hold true. What we are seeing now, and I don't know why this would not continue, is the following equation....more campaign time in "swing" populations = exposure to swing voters = more swing votes. Where the resources will be expended is where the votes come at a premium. The votes that come at a premium are the votes that are truly up for grabs. Thus the resources seemingly would continue to be spent on the votes that are truly up for grabs, not the ones that were already in the bag. I'm not sure why this would not continue... I think Reddy had a good explanation for it - if you focus your time on urban areas, the rural people will stop caring about voting because they're being ignored. I grew up in central Illinois (near Champaign, not exactly a tiny town and one pretty significant in the state because of the University). That was the mentality when voting for the governor. You didn't even get a campaign visit, and you sure as hell didn't get the policy proposals that actually affected your community. It's 90% Chicago, 10% everyone else.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:33 PM) Can you name an example of the tyrannical urban class ruling the rural? I just dont see it happening, and I dont even know what past President youd call a "rural" President. There is just no way to give the rural people more say in the system, unless you change the system to make urban votes meaningless. Otherwise population always rules, and urban has beat agrarian. Its not a contest, 200 years ago it may have been, but in the 21st century urban is what won, and there is no changing that. 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!"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) The argument is things change, right? States rights have become an endangered concept more and more as time as gone on and we have received a stronger and stronger federal government that is willing to take extreme measures to keep influence state law. The extent that states have been marginalized in the last 100 years or so is pretty extreme. And it's getting worse EVERY year. "Disaster funds? Emergency infrastructure? Pssh, f*** that! The nanny state will pay for it all!"

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:25 PM) Just to be clear, Im not arguing against states rights. I have no intention of stripping the rights in the senate or house that give them a larger impact. What I am arguing against is the electoral college, and saying that states rights are not the main reason for the electoral college. That the actual intention of the electoral college is to deprive regular individuals the ability to directly elect the president, which is why I am against the electoral college. They are 2 completely different arguments. But for some reason the group that supports the electoral college has been able to cloak their support as "states rights" when really its not. I am generally pro-states rights, its just different with the President. As I said, if this model makes sense, why dont counties elect the Governor? Why should a county in southern Illinois not get better representation than Cook? Why does each Illinois vote count the same? The answer, because the electoral college is about direct voting, not about the rights of small states, minorities, etc. Interesting you say this because that's a problem in most states, including Illinois. Tally up every non-Chicagoan vote and you still can't beat the Chicago vote for governor. Hence why 95% of the policy initiatives in the state are done with Chicago/Chicago Metro area in mind.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:19 PM) And in case you dont believe me, Factcheck.org doesnt even mention states rights as a reason for the electoral college: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reaso...ctoral-college/ The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice." I previously linked the federalist paper that fully explains it. But this was to keep down regular joes. Yeah, so basically what we have now, except that it's one majority of basically the same people with different letters next to their names, that govern for themselves and rig the system for their friends. And I'm not sure Reddy is making the point clear enough, and given he's a liberal i'm not sure he even realized he's arguing to protect conservatives, but getting rid of the EC would shift the political spectrum in this country. Presidential candidates will devote the vast majority of their time to urban problems and ignore the rural. That would be their focus, so the "rural" candidate that would normally look to protect small town america would go extinct. And yes, it's easy to say that Congress should be the ones looking out for the rural people, but Presidents promote policy in today's system, not Congress. Without a President as their voice, the little guy would get screwed in just about every policy argument.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) That was what the teacher said to the class in Dazed and Confused when they were getting out of school for the summer... Lol, ah ok.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) Isn't a big part of that the fact that the EC discourages voting in many areas? Not exactly a lot of motivation for liberals in Alabama and conservative Chicagoans. Could be, and it could be the opposite too. I'm sure there are a lot of Chicagoans that don't vote because they know the election is in the bag.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes. While that's the easy synopsis, it was much, much deeper than that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) And I find that unnecessary. /shrugs This isnt 1770 and Im trying to convince Maryland to join the cause against the British, and they are fearful that Virginia will monopolize the US, so I have to completely kowtow to the small states. Time to take it back. Well, if we're starting over, it's time to readjust the roles of local/state v. federal government!

The biggest problem with our election system is that less than 60% of the people vote. And yet i'm sure 99.9% have an opinion about it. That's sad.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) It doesn't. Their voices are still drowned out, possibly even easier, when speaking of popular vote. It's my my opinion, but moving to a popular vote assures the Democratic party they never lose a presidential election again. Based on what? We're 8 years removed from a Republican winning with a ~3 million vote margin.

Given that there's been only a handful of times that a president has won the electoral college but not the general, and usually it's not even close, I don't think this is some massive problem that needs to be changed.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) Exactly, the only ones really off were Gallup and Ras. They had it at 49-48 or 48-49. That's basically where it ended up.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) Media Circus: Fox Struggles with Obama's Win Chris Matthews: Thank God for Hurricane Sandy! http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/1...ened-last-week/

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 02:47 AM) Yeah, that was cool as s***. He looked like the incredible hulk the way he was standing and towering over people as he flipped the room apart. I think it's funny that they have turned him in to the very people he despised. Just caught up on this last night. Bunch of really good scenes - the Van Alden scene in the office (I really enjoyed the camera techniques used there), the Mellon/Nucky scene, and the Nucky/Gillian scene. At first I was worried she wouldn't call him out on it, but I'm glad they went there. I still think the loss of Jimmy has hurt the show. There really isn't anyone to root for anymore. It's becoming like Mad Men where you basically don't like any of the characters. Harrow is the exception, but really other than the easter episode he's just been a background part.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 10:51 AM) I think by looking at this as urban vs rural, you are missing the key element that has risen dramatically since the 60's and 70's: suburbia and exurbia. That is where the battle is in the future, if you you are thinking in terms of geography. Racial demographics of course are an obvious and large factor, as are age demographics, both of which are working against the Republicans. Minorities keep picking up a couple % points of the total electorate each 4 year cycle, and younger people are overwhelmingly bringing more liberal social views into the majority. But income disparity is also HUGE, and Romney's 47% remarks were a huge blow for him. I think that got overblown and people didn't really buy it. He was still viewed as the better person to get us going economically. Race played a factor, though, for sure. 93% of blacks voted for Obama (racists!) and 71% of hispanics. I think Bush got like 44%, so that's a huge drop. And unmarried women really liked Obama more than Romney too. [i'll leave the easy joke about entitlements alone] That to me is why the GOP has to give up on the social issues. Even if you're apathetic to gay marriage or abortion, don't make that an important part of your platform. Keep it about the economy (the conservative/capitalist philosophy is always favored over the liberal/socialist one) and the government getting too big.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) The vast majority of the Republicans who don't care about those social issues (I don't think that's accurate but w/e) could vote in the primaries. But they don't. And that's a problem with the party.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) I think they could have an openly gay candidate and still clean up the Confederacy simply because of the R next to their name. 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.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) Is Chris Christie still highly thought of in the GOP as a candidate for 2016? I wonder how much damage was done when he praised the President. It's a shame that even in a time of crisis politics still rule. The main issue with that was the timing. It was a week before the election. If that was 6 months ago, fine, no problem. But as O'Reilly correctly pointed out last night, Sandy was a big blow (ba-doom-ching) to Romney's campaign. He was off the front page for 4-5 days, and in his place was the President talking on the phone or wearing a jacket with the Presidential seal or walking with Christie. I think the GOP has to go with Rubio or at least Rubio as a VP. I'm kind of surprised they didn't do that this year but I guess the thought was to try and catch one last tea party wave. This was such a winnable election.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) lol ok. see this is the reason this country is so divided. people like you won't see logic and reason if it smacks them in the face. Oh the irony! As for the results, I think this is a clear message to the GOP that the national party committee needs to "rig" the system so that the primaries aren't about all about appealing to the crazy right and then be forced back to the middle come election time. It's time to concede the gay marriage and abortion battles in order to win the war. It's time to fight back on the immigration message and give the American people a good reason why 100% amnesty isn't the answer, and if you oppose 100% amnesty you don't condone the killing and raping of little latino girls. I'm not very optimistic about the next 4 years. It's still a divided country, and i'm sad that we're becoming western Europe more and more by the day. "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" has been completely flipped in 50 years. We are an entitled nation that now demands the Federal government play the role of babysitter and provider. That's sad. There's a place for that in the government's responsibilities, but not at the cost of losing that mentality of individualism and self-responsibility. I'm 100% in agreement with SS2k5 - give me a candidate that stays out of my wallet and out of my bedroom. Legalize drugs, stop the abortion fight, allow gay marriage, whatever. But if we're deciding government can't decide moral issues, then the government shouldn't be able to take my money in order to pay for governments supposed moral responsibilities.

Woooo!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 04:58 PM) If by "pandering" you mean "not demonizing immigrants" then... But the Republicans really do have a demographic problem. For Mitt to win, he has to have huge margins with white males. Republican policies, rightly or wrongly, have alienated most others from the party. And wasn't he doing really well with women?