Houshphandzadeh wrote:you really don't think Republicans will dig in either way? they dug in last time when he had a mandate

Depends on what happens in the House too in addition to the presidential. 5-10 GOP votes would be a lot easier to get than 25-30. If the Democrats need more than 10 they are going to need Boehner's support probably, and that's gonna mean a compromise of some sort (grand bargain part deux?) or things falling apart. The stimulus did pass the Senate in 2009 because of the few GOP moderates supporting it. I don't think the House GOP can really survive letting all the Bush tax cuts expire in order to save the top 250k tax cuts if Obama wins and is serious about not compromising on it, even if Obama doesn't win the popular vote. But they've got a decent argument for their side if Romney wins the popular vote and the House GOP majority is still strong so a compromise might end up being closer to their position. I dunno, we'll see. I don't understand wanting to give up negotiating leverage to get 'payback' for 2000. I guess I can understand it being worth it if one hates the Electoral College that much.

jerseyhoya wrote:If the electorate is anything like what that poll says, Mitt can't win Ohio

Gonna just operate under the assumption that the poll is garbage because it makes me happier to do so

I can respect this attitude

well I don't actually want Romney to win the popular vote

then again, I don't even trust the numbers. go merica

Neil King ‏@NKingofDC
Ohio tied 47-47 in new Suffolk U poll of likely voters. Obama up among early voters, Romney among those still to vote. Ground game, anyone?

Harry Enten ‏@ForecasterEnten
Give u an idea how close that Suffolk poll is... Romney leads by 1... and by 1 I mean respondent.

One respondent. Winning! That's a path to 270, CalvinBalls.

Yeah, I pretty much believe our elections would be COMPLETELY different without it. I also think it's one of the biggest things, besides having elections on Tuesdays, that suppresses voter turnout.

I don't trust state polls...unless Romney is winning in that state.

pacino wrote:Yeah, I pretty much believe our elections would be COMPLETELY different without it.

The electoral college? I understand what you mean, technically, but doesn't it pretty closely correlate to the popular vote percentage? I mean, it's gotta be a real close race to even be an issue, and candidates could still ignore tiny states with a popular vote

Grotewold wrote:

pacino wrote:Yeah, I pretty much believe our elections would be COMPLETELY different without it.

The electoral college? I understand what you mean, technically, but doesn't it pretty closely correlate to the popular vote percentage? I mean, it's gotta be a real close race to even be an issue, and candidates could still ignore tiny states with a popular vote

It does, but it's hard to quantify how many Republicans in New York or Democrats in Texas won't vote in a few weeks because their vote basically doesn't matter.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:what difference would it make

His people have made noises that he'll veto anything that doesn't include the Bush tax cuts expiring on wealthy tax payers, even if that means everything expiring. If he comes in having won reelection in a position of strength, it will be easier for him to win a battle of public opinion. If both sides dig in, the only thing that will get them to blink is if polling shows them getting killed. I think the only real shot of that happening is if the GOP House is seen as obstructing Obama's mandate, which loses a lot of its sting if Obama loses the popular vote.

Won't the calculations of the House leadership depend as much on the House's own legitimacy in the public eye as on the President's?

JUburton wrote: but it's hard to quantify how many Republicans in New York or Democrats in Texas won't vote in a few weeks because their vote basically doesn't matter.

I would think there must be data somewhere on the # of people who cast votes for candidates for offices other than the Presidency, and NOT for the Presidency, in a Presidential election year.

As for those who don't bother to go to the polls at all, you're probably at the mercy of what people tell you they plan to do, or did do

that lyme's disease thing still weirds me out. the farris guy seems like a loon and should probably be shunned but instead has the support of a national presidential campaign

td11 wrote:that lyme's disease thing still weirds me out. the farris guy seems like a loon and should probably be shunned but instead has the support of a national presidential campaign

gives new meaning to the expression "ticked off"

Polling of all eligible voters (including non-registered) suggests Obama, or indeed most any Democrat in a national race, would win in a landslide.

Polls of registered voters generally suggest a comfortable Obama win.

Polls of likely voters suggest a nail-biter with the very real possibility of a Romney majority.

Were we to abolish the electoral college, Democrats would focus on registering urban voters and maximizing turnout everywhere, and, as pacino notes, they'd suddenly have to care about cities.

I happen to believe this would be an awesome thing with all kinds of positive consequences. But I also think it's so inimical to the modern Republican Party on the levels of both politics and policy that even if the rules gave Obama the win this year, they wouldn't want to change them; they'd just double down on de-legitimizing his presidency.

perhaps theyd try to get electors to 'switch' their votes for whatever freaking reason.


i just wish our politics was close to the reality of our populous' views.

NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS TO ENSURE THAT BARACK OBAMA IS A TWO TERM PRESIDENT

I actually met a guy who was a member of the electoral college in 2008. He said he was surprised he was chosen, because he wasn't a hack.

going back to the lawn signs thing, i have yet to see a romney sign in my neighborhood, but probably see 5 new obama ones every day. have yet to see one in the city. have seen romney signs in the rich burbs and in the rural areas. in fact, i saw an obama as hitler sign in rural berks with an anti-socialism one and also a HUUUUUGE Romney/Ryan on a local farm. a farm which no doubt receives tons of subsidies both locally and federally.

dajafi wrote:Polling of all eligible voters (including non-registered) suggests Obama, or indeed most any Democrat in a national race, would win in a landslide.

Polls of registered voters generally suggest a comfortable Obama win.

Polls of likely voters suggest a nail-biter with the very real possibility of a Romney majority.

Were we to abolish the electoral college, Democrats would focus on registering urban voters and maximizing turnout everywhere, and, as pacino notes, they'd suddenly have to care about cities.

I happen to believe this would be an awesome thing with all kinds of positive consequences. But I also think it's so inimical to the modern Republican Party on the levels of both politics and policy that even if the rules gave Obama the win this year, they wouldn't want to change them; they'd just double down on de-legitimizing his presidency.

I'm not so certain--I do agree that they'll double down on de-legitimizing the Obama Presidency, but I'm not sure about the urban politics aspect here. Consider--VA, FL, and OH all have large urban centers, and the Dems could try what you're talking about in those states.

80+ million people live in Cali, NY and Texas. There is no current need to 'get out the vote' in those three states. it would completely change our electorate.

pacino wrote:80+ million people live in Cali, NY and Texas. There is no current need to 'get out the vote' in those three states. it would completely change our electorate.

But where would the resources come from for such a strategy? If it were a cost-effective strategy for the Dems, they would already be using it in the big swing states.

In fact, it might mean that the swing voters--suburban voters--would get even more attention than they currently do.