• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cheebs

Member
grandjedi6 said:
Actually I'd say Obama should win the popular vote handily. However that doesn't mean Obama will win the electoral college of course
Obama will win the popular vote, even if he loses the electoral college.

Chuck Todd is the one who stated that earlier this week. Todd says Obama will take a lot of southern states dems lose by 20% to 10% due to african american turnout. He wont win them but states like Alabama, Louisiana...etc will cause him to win the popular vote unless it is a total blowout against him because of his boost in the south even though it wont net him and electoral votes.

He'll "waste" a lot of popular votes in southern states he'd never win.
 

Zeed

Banned
grandjedi6 said:
Actually I'd say Obama should win the popular vote handily. However that doesn't mean Obama will win the electoral college of course
Agreed.

I'm worried about the electoral college, honestly.
 

Cheebs

Member
Zeed said:
Agreed.

I'm worried about the electoral college, honestly.
Yep. Electoral College is the issue. There is little to no chance he'll lose the popular vote.

If this was a proportional system for electoral votes like the primary Obama would blow out McCain cause he plays better in the south than McCain does on the coasts.
 

VALIS

Member
polyh3dron said:
The whole Republican angle would be to just play Hillary soundbites ad nauseum, saying "His VP candidate didn't believe in him, so why should YOU?"

They're already doing that, and will continue to do that until November whether she's the VP candidate or not. It's one of the more effective arrows they have in their quiver and the deed is done already, unfortunately.

And let's not forget that early republican debates with McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson and Paul got pretty hairy, too. They ripped on each other quite vigorously. This is why I think people so overwhelmingly sore and unforgiving at many of Clinton's comments seem like political noobs to me. It's par for the course to try and undermine your opponent's platform. She did go overboard at times, like the "I don't know if he's a muslim" bullshit, and lauding her experience and McCain's over Obama's; those two are pretty unforgivable. But otherwise it wasn't that bad. Obama is going to get 10x worse treatment from the GOP than he did from Hillary's merry band of cut throats.
 

Cheebs

Member
All of us have been saying we expect an Obama bump cause he won the nomination. Obama has been polling 1-2% ahead of McCain for months now with no movement.

What do you all expect from this so called bump we all have been expecting?
 

Sharp

Member
Cheebs said:
All of us have been saying we expect an Obama bump cause he won the nomination. Obama has been polling 1-2% ahead of McCain for months now with no movement.

What do you all expect from this so called bump we all have been expecting?
Other than Gallup hasn't it already appeared?
 
Cheebs said:
All of us have been saying we expect an Obama bump cause he won the nomination. Obama has been polling 1-2% ahead of McCain for months now with no movement.

What do you all expect from this so called bump we all have been expecting?

I wouldn't expect any bump until Clinton gave her concession speech. Maybe Monday or Tuesday and probably something work talking about in about a week.
 

Cheebs

Member
syllogism said:
A few % at most, though it may have already materialized. Perhaps a bit more but that will take longer.
I agree it will be only a few %. The primary has gotten so much media buzz I am unsure if there is this confused chunk of public out there who would suddenly switch cause he won. I bet it will shift from 1-2 to 3-4ish. I dont see this race growing past a 5% lead either way.
 
DrForester said:
So, Big Brown just lost to a 35:1 shot horse in the Belmont...

as i said in the belmont thread, it's like how obama lost south dakota because he stopped campaigning in the primaries. Big Brown started freaking out on the final turn and shaking his head, the jockey made a decision to stop, so he pulled him to the outside and slowly got to the finish, in dead last. when you stop racing 3/4's the way through the race, that's what happens. initial statements say big brown is OK, so who knows what the horse was doing when it started freaking out, but the jockey made a decision and that's that. so congrats to Da'Tara for the win, but i wouldnt read too much into it in the way of superstitions/etc
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Can you guys imagine if the democrats win the popular vote again but lose the electoral college? :lol
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
Cheebs said:
hillaryis44 is all of 300 people. With a huge proportion of them coming from New York, a safe state.
It is the worst site on the internet.

The will only let anyone make comments that are either anti-Obama, pro-Hillary or pro-McCain.

Every single comment I've attempted to make...even when pretending to be pro-Hillary but leaning towards Obama, are not allowed at all.

So it's just full of hate with no end.
 

Cheebs

Member
GaimeGuy said:
Can you guys imagine if the democrats win the popular vote again but lose the electoral college? :lol
Which will happen if McCain wins 270 electoral votes due to Obama's "odd" popularity in southern states he wont win. Lets just hope it doesnt happen again. ;)

If it does happen I expect the dem congress will try to ram through reform of the electoral college.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_campaign_mystery_solved_HillaryIs44.html

I wrote in December about a mysterious pro-Clinton, anti-Obama website called HillaryIs44, a site that floated sharply negative information about Obama long before the word "Rezko" passed the lips of Clinton and her campaign, and that has been the subject of many months of speculation among reporters, bloggers, and campaign staffers.

Now, two sources have identified the site's creator: A New York political activist named Alex Rodriguez, pictured above.

I called Rodriguez yesterday.

"How do you know?" he asked.

I made the case to him that he might as well tell me his story.

He said he'd think about it, and hasn't called back.

Rodriguez has no evident connection to the Clinton campaign.

"He's a freelance political guy," said Cliff Arnebeck, an Ohio lawyer who worked with Rodriguez in 2004 and 2005.

Rodriguez has long been politically active outside the mainstream of two-party politics. Arnebeck said they met as Perot supporters in 1992.

In 1994, Rodriguez was reportedly involved in a fight between grassroots Perot supporters and Perot's close aides over control of United We Stand America, an umbrella group of Perot supporters.

More recently, in 2004, he was political director of the Ohio Honest Elections Campaign, one of whose leaders, Arnebeck, went on to file suit to overturn President Bush's 2004 victory in Ohio.

Ironically, Rodriguez, who lives on Manhattan's far West Side, was quoted by me and others earlier this year in stories about the cycle's most famous piece of anonymous politics -- Phil de Vellis's "Vote Different" video.

"He has a long history of dirty tricks and a shorter history of getting caught," said Rodriguez, who had run across de Vellis in Ohio. (De Vellis vigorously disputes the charge.)

There's no public record linking Rodriguez to Clinton's campaign, and he's not part of her New York political universe. The one of my two sources who had more detailed knowledge of his connection to the site, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity, had no evidence linking him to the campaign.

However, there's some suggestion that some close to the campaign were at least aware of his existence.

When I learned of his identity, I emailed Tracy Sefl, a Clinton consultant who is perhaps best known as the campaign's liaison to Drudge, and whom reporters and insiders have long speculated -- without evidence -- was behind the site. She was amused to learn that I'd finally linked someone to the site.

"I know very little about this. But I have been tremendously flattered by your opinion of my Web skills and assumptions about my free time," she emailed.

But she did seem, at least, to know Rodriguez's name.

I'd asked her if she knew "Alex." She then made a joke about the Yankee third baseman, also named Alex Rodriguez. But I hadn't supplied the full name of subject of my story, so I asked how she knew his last name.

"I don't know him. I just heard his name somewhere," she said, denying again any role in the site. "I haven't sent this person anything, ever."
 
The thing to remember about Hillaryis44 is that, at this point in the game, they hate Obama a lot more than they love Hillary. It's marginally more coherent when you view it that way.
 

Gaborn

Member
Cheebs said:
Which will happen if McCain wins 270 electoral votes due to Obama's "odd" popularity in southern states he wont win. Lets just hope it doesnt happen again. ;)

If it does happen I expect the dem congress will try to ram through reform of the electoral college.

The electoral college really isn't an issue for "reform" at the national level, individual states determine how their electors are divided, that's why Nebraska and Maine both have proportional delegates. You'd need a Constitutional Amendment to change that.
 

Hootie

Member
bishoptl said:
That looked like one the WWE's backstage segments. I half-expected Shawn Michaels to come out of nowhere and superkick him in the head.

hbkrampage.gif
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
GaimeGuy said:
Can you guys imagine if the democrats win the popular vote again but lose the electoral college? :lol

The line of thought with Republican analysts right now is that the American people can accept one "2000 election" scenario every 100 years. But more then that and the public will be pissed. Especially not after only 8 years and for it to favor the Republicans again. Bad things would come to pass if that situation were to occur again
 

Zeed

Banned
grandjedi6 said:
The line of thought with Republican analysts right now is that the American people can accept one "2000 election" scenario every 100 years. But more then that and the public will be pissed. Especially not after only 8 years and for it to favor the Republicans again. Bad things would come to pass if that situation were to occur again
If Obama gets fucked over 2000-style, I will be ever so pissed.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
grandjedi6 said:
The American public is extremely likely to view it as "being fucked over" though

They'll be pissed, but like in 2000, do you think they'll actually get off their butts and do anything about it? American's are lazy and wont do squat if popular vote looses again.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
DrForester:
They might not have to. If the 270 electoral vote popular vote plan goes through in enough states, the people won't have to do anything. It won't happen for this presidential election, but maybe for future ones.

Background--the electoral college is constitutionally enshrined and effectively cannot be removed. A constitutional amendment is a nonstarter because 38 states will not ratify it, period. On the other hand, how the states distribute their electors is a state-level issue. A number of states have come up with a plan that they all sign a pledge to give their electors 100% to the popular vote winner nationally, regardless of who wins the state. This pledge does not come into effect until at least 270 electoral votes worth of states have signed it, at which point the electoral college becomes functionally useless and there's no reason for other states not to take part in the system.

Currently Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii are on board (50 electoral votes). Vermont, Washington, Maine, and Rhode Island (22 electoral votes) have passed it in at least one house or both but been vetoed.
 

Gaborn

Member
grandjedi6 said:
The American public is extremely likely to view it as "being fucked over" though

What DrForester said, it's very difficult to make major changes to the system because the kind of change some people want (elimination of the electoral college or a mandated proportional representation system) would require a Constitutional amendment.

Stumpokapow - That sounds like a really good way... to disenfranchise the majority of states if a candidate is very popular in a few heavily populated states.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Gaborn said:
What DrForester said, it's very difficult to make major changes to the system because the kind of change some people want (elimination of the electoral college or a mandated proportional representation system) would require a Constitutional amendment.

Like I said in the post right before you; it's quite easy to de facto get rid of the electoral college without a Constitutional amendment
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
DrForester said:
They'll be pissed, but like in 2000, do you think they'll actually get off their butts and do anything about it? American's are lazy and wont do squat if popular vote looses again.

Americans tend to lazily accept things the first time but then get enraged the 2nd

Gaborn said:
What DrForester said, it's very difficult to make major changes to the system because the kind of change some people want (elimination of the electoral college or a mandated proportional representation system) would require a Constitutional amendment.

And the primary way said reforms get passed are from extreme rage from the American public
 

Gaborn

Member
Stumpokapow said:
Like I said in the post right before you; it's quite easy to de facto get rid of the electoral college without a Constitutional amendment

Yeah, and as I was just editing in... that just seems REALLY dangerous to me, it destroys the entire notion of a person's vote mattering in the smaller states.
 

Zeed

Banned
Gaborn said:
Yeah, and as I was just editing in... that just seems REALLY dangerous to me, it destroys the entire notion of a person's vote mattering in the smaller states.
As opposed to disenfranchising the majority?
 

Gaborn

Member
Zeed said:
As opposed to disenfranchising the majority?

Majoritarian rule is not our system, except in the electoral college sense. What the plan Stumpokapow suggests would do is remove the point of having electors... good, right? Well, yes, if you live in California, Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. As it stands, those states get quite a few visits because they're big electoral prizes, but other, smaller states, such as New Hampshire, Utah, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Georgia, Virginia, Arizona, etc matter NOW solely because of the electoral college. As it is those states "matter" to politicians because they want their electoral votes for their candidate. Without the electoral college they slide WAYYYYYYYYYYY down in the pecking order. There'd be no such thing as a"swing" state, and campaigning would no longer be particularly interesting.
 
I think more people were pissed about the questionable Florida results and Supreme Court decision, not simply the fact that Gore won the popular vote (although that's what immediately jumps out "emotionally")

Oh, and one election reform I would like is to make Election Day a national holiday.
 

Zeed

Banned
DrForester said:
American's are magically not lazy anymore?
1. They remember last time, and many people are conscious that it directly resulted in the Bush Years.

2. Obama is black, making this an especially sensitive election, what with the ugly history of electoral shenanigans lurking in the background.

3. People are already angry. They weren't back in 2000 - they were complacent and yes, lazy, enjoying peace and economic prosperity. Things are different now.

Gaborn said:
Majoritarian rule is not our system, except in the electoral college sense. What the plan Stumpokapow suggests would do is remove the point of having electors... good, right? Well, yes, if you live in California, Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. As it stands, those states get quite a few visits because they're big electoral prizes, but other, smaller states, such as New Hampshire, Utah, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Georgia, Virginia, Arizona, etc matter NOW solely because of the electoral college. As it is those states "matter" to politicians because they want their electoral votes for their candidate. Without the electoral college they slide WAYYYYYYYYYYY down in the pecking order. There'd be no such thing as a"swing" state, and campaigning would no longer be particularly interesting.
So it's the government's obligation to put in place regulations to disproportionately favor small states despite their natural disadvantage?

You've been awfully selective with your Libertarian ideals lately.
 

Gaborn

Member
Zeed said:
1. They remember last time, and many people are conscious that it directly resulted in the Bush Years.

2. Obama is black, making this an especially sensitive election, what with the ugly history of electoral shenanigans lurking in the background.


3. People are already angry. They weren't back in 2000 - they were complacent and yes, lazy, enjoying peace and economic prosperity. Things are different now.

Are people really planning to use Obama's race as an excuse if he loses?

Edit - No, it's not the government's responsibility to put in place protections for small states. What I'm saying is that that is the historical rationale, it gives smaller states a bigger voice in politics. I'm saying I don't see the 270 plan as practical because ultimately more states will lose a voice than gain it and there's less incentive to adopt that plan.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Just out of curiosity, does anyone else want McCain to win the popular vote and Obama win the Electoral College?

I think epic lulz would be had.
 

Zeed

Banned
Gaborn said:
Are people really planning to use Obama's race as an excuse if he loses?
That's a red herring if I've ever seen one.

First of all we're talking about a 2000-style clusterfuck, not a clear cut "loss". You can't possibly believe that no one will be pissed at the perception of a black man being "cheated" out of the presidency.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Stumpokapow said:
DrForester:
They might not have to. If the 270 electoral vote popular vote plan goes through in enough states, the people won't have to do anything. It won't happen for this presidential election, but maybe for future ones.

Background--the electoral college is constitutionally enshrined and effectively cannot be removed. A constitutional amendment is a nonstarter because 38 states will not ratify it, period. On the other hand, how the states distribute their electors is a state-level issue. A number of states have come up with a plan that they all sign a pledge to give their electors 100% to the popular vote winner nationally, regardless of who wins the state. This pledge does not come into effect until at least 270 electoral votes worth of states have signed it, at which point the electoral college becomes functionally useless and there's no reason for other states not to take part in the system.

Currently Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii are on board (50 electoral votes). Vermont, Washington, Maine, and Rhode Island (22 electoral votes) have passed it in at least one house or both but been vetoed.
I like that!

It's the way it should be.
 

Zeed

Banned
GaimeGuy said:
I like that!

It's the way it should be.
I'd bet you anything it happens if Obama loses the Presidency but wins the popular vote.

If anything shady like 2000 in Florida happens...I'd expect riots. Seriously.
 

Gaborn

Member
Zeed said:
That's a red herring if I've ever seen one.

First of all we're talking about a 2000-style clusterfuck, not a clear cut "loss". You can't possibly believe that no one will be pissed at the perception of a black man being "cheated" out of the presidency.

Well, you seemed to be implying that his race would have something to do with how the situation is "different" now. It's true he's a different type of candidate, and more different than say, Kerry or Gore, in a variety of ways. He lived outside the US for a substantial portion of his life. He's had quite a bit of real world experience even though he's much younger than either of them. He's different in a lot of ways but it seems like you're suggesting the only different thing (since that was the original thing you were responding to) about the candidate himself (you talked about the past, Bush, the present candidate Obama, the voters mood) was his RACE.

Frankly I just don't care for that kind of rhetoric, it stifles debate and it brings back bad memories of race riots. I don't agree with Obama on most issues but I do think he genuinely is trying to do things for good reasons and is trying to unite people behind him. I disagree with him on principle, not his race and I don't like suggestions that if he loses it's because he's black.

I mean, come on, as you said
2. Obama is black, making this an especially sensitive election, what with the ugly history of electoral shenanigans lurking in the background.
He's not going to lose the election because he's black. Don't imply it.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Gaborn said:
Majoritarian rule is not our system, except in the electoral college sense. What the plan Stumpokapow suggests would do is remove the point of having electors... good, right? Well, yes, if you live in California, Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. As it stands, those states get quite a few visits because they're big electoral prizes, but other, smaller states, such as New Hampshire, Utah, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Georgia, Virginia, Arizona, etc matter NOW solely because of the electoral college. As it is those states "matter" to politicians because they want their electoral votes for their candidate. Without the electoral college they slide WAYYYYYYYYYYY down in the pecking order. There'd be no such thing as a"swing" state, and campaigning would no longer be particularly interesting.

Well majoritiarian rule really should be our system since we function as a plurality system currently. Also it wouldn't really make smaller states worthless, just lower their worth to their population (and no swing states would be awesome). The real problem is if all the states don't agree to the system. Then the popular vote of the states that did join would not be represented by their electorals. And then of course 3rd parties stand a greater chance of fucking up the system
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
GenericPseudonym said:
Why don't you just allocate the electoral votes within the state roughly according to the state's popular vote.
Because states that do that then become useless. If you are going to do that it has to be all or nothing. But that would likely then require a constitutional change of the electoral college to a proportional one
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom