- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 21, 2011 at 9:28 pm #601647
kootchmanMemberWatching MSNBC… the hope and a prayer channel… and they were speculating/hoping a strong Ron Paul showing would lead to a third party candidate. Y’know the old divide and conquer… my brother sent me a link… I never knew this… WOW… what a windfall this would be for the Republicans if Plan A doesn’t work. Must have been asleep in this civics class. A president by vote of the House… not the electoral college. Run Ron, Run… the independents love ya!!! Better yet, c’mon Hilary ya old war horse..ya got another one in ya!!
A majority of the members of the Electoral College (currently 270 out of 538) is required in order for a president and vice president to be elected. If no candidate for president receives a majority of electoral votes, the House elects, on a state-by-state basis, a president from the top three electoral vote-getters. This requirement proved fatal to Andrew Jackson’s candidacy in the 1824 election; while Jackson received the most electoral votes, John Quincy Adams, who came in second in the Electoral College, was elected president by the House.
Woulldn’t this make Gore/Florida look like a traffic infraction?
December 21, 2011 at 9:59 pm #743519
DBPMemberWhy do you think Ron Paul would be a windfall for Republicans? He’d draw more votes away from the Republicans than from Democrats. He’d probably draw away most of the Tea Party vote.
The “independent” label doesn’t mean that much. In most cases, it just means “undecided as of right now.” The vast majority of so-called independents will still go with a Republican or Democrat in the Presidential race.
December 22, 2011 at 12:15 am #743520
kootchmanMemberThe Independents love him..(Paul). he polls best with them. The core Democrats are going to vote Obama..irregardless of his dismal record… the core Republicans will do likewise…. if you recall the Ross Perot race.. he received 19% of the popular vote. .
” In a new Public Policy Poll, 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul bests President Obama 48 to 39 percent among independent voters”
In some states… not all, popular vote takes ALL the electoral votes. But interestingly, there is no law that says this has to be so. Some states, will allocate their electoral votes according to the popular vote. And some states…the electoral college is under no obligation whatsoever. The are free to vote their “conscience”… no matter what the popular vote says.
They are not staying with the parties…they are in fact migrating in their own right. T
Quote;
“It appears that independents were elected to state legislators in 2010 in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont. We are still waiting to see if one was elected in Colorado.”
This is a very distressing Democratic circumstance. One, the core liberal base has been dissed by Obama. Two, he gutted his standing with moderate democrats, and independents with centrist leanings. Republican voter however are staying with their home team. ..they are in the “anyone but Obama mode”.. The status of “Independent” is in large measure coming from the Democratic hide… more self described independents are conversions from the Democratic Party. More Democrats are leaving party affiliation than republicans
this is a good overview…Obama’s fortunes with Independents has been dropping like a stone. The more he leans to his base, the less appealing he is to Independents.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/82404092/
Republicans in the main are a pretty disciplined party… they deliver the votes. There is lage cultural centrist core of Democrats that have been totally marginalized
“But when it comes to the ever crucial bloc of independent voters, Romney trumps Obama by a 12-point margin – 53 percent to 41 percent. Independents in 2012 could be especially critical in tipping the scales in such battleground states as Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, all of which went for Obama last time around but have since been deemed toss-ups.”
December 22, 2011 at 1:28 am #743521
kootchmanMemberWith the new apportionment, red states were the net gainers of electoral votes. If the polls are right, Obama 48, Republicans 47 (Romney leading Obama) All it would take is one or two states to go Independent, or, a an electoral assignment by popular vote to equal 2% …it’s a thin line. The presidential election would go to the current house of representatives… where the majority would decide the election. Not that it will happen..but it would be historic. 37.2 are self proclaimed democrats. 31.5 republican…meaning almost 1/3 of the electorate is neither. Dems are on the wrong side of every issue the overal electorate supports… and continue to press the liberal agenda.
Obamas hurdle: While he is suing states for immigration, suring states for voter ID cards, pushing forward with Obamacare, These are Dec Rasmussen poll lead-ins
55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law
69% Say Federal Government Lacks Authority To Force Purchase of Health Insurance
23% Say U.S. Economy Is Getting Better These Days, 49% Say Worse
43% Say 99 Weeks of Benefits Increase The Unemployment Problem
60% Favor Considering Spending Cuts in Every Government Program
50% Favor Mix of Cuts, Taxes To Reduce Deficit, But 64% Oppose Paying Higher Taxes
60% Think Federal Government Encourages Illegal Immigration
63% Favor Immigration Checks On All Routine Traffic Stops
54% Still See Bailouts As Bad for the Country
52% favor passage of an immigration law similar to Arizona’s in their state. Thirty-four percent (34%) oppose such a law in their state.
Here’s a shocker…despite blame Bush, blame Bush…
45% trust republicans to manage the economy, democrats 35%
It could happen… the magin between Dems and Repubs is thin..a very small percentage of defectors could force a House election… and we know those numbers! It would be a great civics lesson dontcha think?
December 22, 2011 at 2:21 am #743522
DBPMemberif you recall the Ross Perot race.. he received 19% of the popular vote. . .
Yeah. I also recall Perot causing the Republicans to lose a Presidential election. Ron Paul would do the same thing for the Republicans in this election. Most of the independents who vote for him would have voted Republican or would’ve not voted.
December 22, 2011 at 3:46 am #743523
kootchmanMemberThey did. What is different this time is the increase in the absolute number of independents. Remember under this scenario… the republican nominee CAN lose the electoral and the popular vote… as long as the 3rd party candidate denies an electoral majority to Obama… republicans win. Perot was a republican overthrow of the moderate republican party who compromised on tax and fiscal discipline. Obama has to get a 50% share of the electoral college…if not the republican house gets to elect the president. What is very very different…is Perot did not appeal to independents or democrats.as you correctly point out, he was the first de facto TEA party candidate.. Ron Paul does have greater appeal to blue dog democrats and independents than Perot did.
December 22, 2011 at 5:50 am #743524
dobroParticipantIt’s Obama vs Romney, no third party bid, Obama blows him out in the biggest smackdown since Reagan-Mondale. Ron Paul is not a factor. You heard it here first.
December 22, 2011 at 6:57 am #743525
kootchmanMemberOK… I admit the possibility is remote.. but it would be exciting to see a house of representative election. The numbers aren’t trending Obama… independents call this election. The die hards of both parties just have to do their regular call of duty…no major shifts… FYI… Colorado in the mid-terms did a 27 per cent shift for Republicans. Amazingly, independents still poll favoring republicans better able to solve the economy .. and that, also it their largest concern. The tune-up is starting. After the primary is over…the record of the last three years goes on the big board…the old “are you better off than you were three years ago” Bet ya a new set of strings Obama does not get a second term. Medium lights please…
December 22, 2011 at 7:42 am #743526
JanSParticipantand then, just to make things interesting, there is this…and they are now on the ballot in 12 states…
http://www.americanselect.org/?gclid=CNXM9-qWla0CFQ5lhwodV2YG4w
esp. this interesting page from that link:
December 22, 2011 at 9:12 am #743527
metrognomeParticipantas long as the Republicans keep holding televised debates, Obama will win in a landslide …
Third party candidates usually cause the main party candidate nearest their political belief system, who would otherwise have won, to lose because they split the vote. Happened with Perot and Nader.
December 22, 2011 at 2:24 pm #743528
redblackParticipantDecember 22, 2011 at 7:57 pm #743529
kootchmanMemberThe assumption you make, not borne out by the pollls, is that the independents identify with republicans and republican orthodoxy. They don’t. They are a decided swing vote, and they have gone strongly for and strongly against Obama. They put him in the White House, and took him out in the mid-terms. Polls show it is Independents that are most likely to vote for an independent third party candidate. Now, if Bachmann, Santorum etc.. ran.. that would hurt. That would be akin to the Ralph Nadar debacle..pulling the extreme idealogues. I don’t think republicans would do it…we just want Obama gone..and we will swallow a lot of bile to make sure that happens. Remember… with the less than 2-3 per cent margin that seperates the two parties… all a third party candidate has to do is deny Obama a 50% electoral college.majority for the House republicans to decide. C’mon..admit it.. it would be political entertainment at the highest level. God, I wish Hilary would haar the muse… run Hilary, run! But Ron Paul would do the same, albeit with a little more tension and nail biting. Obama getting 49% or less is all we need. BTY .. as the electoral college and state polls show… Obama loses if one non apportioned swing state goes independent. Geez redblack… can labor come up with a Labor Party candidate in say…. Wisconsin? Ohio? VA? PA? These televised debates are for the “core constituents” metrognome… once the charade is over..the full machine goes into populist appeal. The money machine takes over. Problem Obama has…I think…is he is campaigning strictly to his ” left out” base..and that won’t get the votes for the general election, and he has a record to defend. He has to attract the independent votes and they are dumping him in droves. Are you better off now than you were three years ago? Do you want another four years of the same? May not happen…but it is not impossible and this is not the same as Perot or Anderson… Independents are almost 25%of the vote now. The base won’t carry either party.
December 23, 2011 at 6:21 am #743530
redblackParticipantDo you want another four years of the same?
i sure as hell don’t want any more laissez-faire economics or republican gutting of regulations.
then again, i’m a little tired of your whining.
December 23, 2011 at 8:50 am #743531
kootchmanMemberRest easy dude… I merely started a thread with an intriguing possibility… one that hasen’t happened in over 150 years… and is now possible.. I do many things…whine ain’t one of em… looking a little grim is it?
December 23, 2011 at 2:49 pm #743532
redblackParticipantgrim? for republicans? it never looked good.
December 23, 2011 at 5:33 pm #743533
waynsterParticipantAfter this week with the pay roll tax the demise of the tea party has started the wrecking ball has swung… all the GOP candidates side stepping the issue the true colers come out just how much they care about the middle class worker including Ron Paul whole milk and all…..
December 24, 2011 at 2:31 pm #743534
sydneyMemberThe people want to keep the civil rights gained in the 20th century; they don’t want another war; they want the filthy robber baron types reined in; they want some relief and jobs. Therefore, they don’t want a Republican presidency, and in order to prevent that they must vote in a bloc and therefore will vote for Obama, since there is little chance anyone more progressive will be allowed to run against him.
How unfortunate.
December 24, 2011 at 4:08 pm #743535
JoBParticipantDecember 24, 2011 at 9:26 pm #743536
kootchmanMemberHa ha ha ha… let’s see about this “tax holiday”… first, it’s YOUR SS fund that is not being funded. Your benefits. Disability, retirement, survivor benefits. Already stressed and under actuarial impossibility. Great remedy… short pay it more so future congresses will have to cut the benefits. Right? Noooo, not our congress. We are going to pile it on the younger generations as we have been doing for the last forty years.
Waynster..I believe you could be their poster child.. they just skinned you…dropping a 38 billion tax hike on ya while telling you you have a tax break. And you can’t wait to spread the news of your good fortune…for 10 years at least, probably 20… and you like it! Republican sadism trumped by Democratic masochism… not enough pain the last 3 years? I will say it is a bi-partisan fleecing this time. How big is this hit? For the average 1,100 “temporary tax cut” which hasn’t moved the economy one bit the last year… you got set up for.. $4.000 increased cost for your home loans, assum a 200K home…now, Seattle is a bit over 340K… so you young folks.. with an average of 24,000 in college debt burden…you are now going to pay the feds an additional $ 6,500 to buy a home… GREAT TRADE off eh?
Let’s call it what it really is.. a national sales tax on home sales… and you are all going for it!!!! Now, if you are in the top 1%…it ain’t diddly squat…but you Occupiers? It’s your carcass to skin.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/BGOVALL-BGOVFINAN-BGOVTAX-BNALL/2011/12/21/id/421708
Back to the biggest cookie jar in the Democratic arsenal… Fannie and Freddie AGAIN… it just gets more and more incredulous… for every year of short paying the SS trust fund.. they are slapping additional underwriting fees on home loans for 10 years.. yep.. all you young families, new home owners… you are going to cough up 32-38 billion per year for the next ten years, 20 years if it gets extended another year to cover the SS shortfall. We, the boomers thank-you for your inattention and the diversions such as Occupy that keep your eye on $30 per week for one year…while you get fiscally skinned and ignore once again the depths of the intrigue. A new side line revenue stream … now watch the FHLA fees creep up and up and up over the next twenty years … you will rue the day… and those taxes and increased underwriting fees? Straight from the old 99% pockets. Congress thinks we are too stupid to go past the sound bites..are they right? Kick the can down the road..and kick the taxpaying ass of every young couple, family, individual, who is going to get a home mortgage for the next 20 years.
December 24, 2011 at 10:04 pm #743537
JanSParticipantyes, it’s the NYT…I’m sure someone will have something to say about that ;-)
December 24, 2011 at 10:32 pm #743538
kootchmanMemberI do of course. .. it now moves past “he thinks, she thinks” we are in court, 6 former executives, are in court, being prosecuted. What we think, what we believe, is now in evidentiary discovery..and we will hear the sworn testimony of the participants. That beats the editorial page every time. Don’t follow it though… so far, F n” F executives HAVE admitted they hid the extent of sub primes and the degree of exposure…. but Jeeez Jan… just on the face of it.. they are in federal receivership…that didn’t get ya a little suspicious? They went broke.. kaput, couldn’t cover their losses… bankrupt… all these words mean a thing to ya? I for one am delighted they are in court… albeit civil… they should be in criminal court.. but that may happen yet… at some point the stench becomes overwhelming. We will get the full story.. grudgingly or with a new AG.
December 24, 2011 at 10:46 pm #743539
JanSParticipantyes, I’m sure we will…hope it’s not up to interpretation by the masses :)
December 24, 2011 at 11:27 pm #743540
JoBParticipantDecember 26, 2011 at 11:14 pm #743541
kootchmanMemberI did. New books,…
December 27, 2011 at 12:00 am #743542
charlabobParticipant -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.