TenuredVulture wrote:

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.

thephan wrote:I only heard a snippet of something about the UN deploying people to watch the elections... in the context of the UN has no legitimacy to be here to monitor the US elections. What the hell was/is that all about?

Is there some conspiracy going on like that fool in Texas who thinks Obama will become a dictator and have the UN enforce it

TenuredVulture wrote:

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.

JUburton wrote:

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.

bleh wrote:

JUburton wrote:

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.

A lot of Democrats in NY and Republicans in Texas don't vote either, since they know their guy will win.

We're half way to using the popular vote if anyone doesn't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_P ... te_Compact

jerseyhoya wrote:I have no desire to watch this tonight - I've already watched more debates this go around than 2004+2008 - and I'm telling myself just to watch the football/baseball, but I'm probably gonna end up getting sucked in/pissed off.

The choice is clear. The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work.
The reëlection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves.

jerseyhoya wrote:Watching the baseball

Feels good man

jerseyhoya wrote:Watching the baseball

Feels good man