And the Senate decides the VP. We'd be likely looking at a Romney Biden administration.
-
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.
United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
And the Senate decides the VP. We'd be likely looking at a Romney Biden administration.
Every time I think about that scenario, I like to imagine Biden making incredulous funny faces at Romney whenever he says dumb shit during the State of the Union address.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Whoa easy now, let's not bring truth into the discussion!
I'm getting a bit tired of this argument popping up over and over. If people want to discuss it, we're going to need more than drive-by platitudes about turnout.
I suppose all the farmers should stop feeding the cities. Woah. Haha.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Bluntly, yes. It's been a pretty steady trend of back and forth for the last few decades when seeing what Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 2 had to deal with in terms of partisan opposition. There is a spike of Republican opposition this time around, but in the context of the high degree of Conservative backlash towards Obama's policies and philosophies, it doesnt strike me as out of place. Especially since that sentiment was also reflected by voters in 2010. I dont have much reason to think why the Democrats would have acted significantly differently had the roles been reversed.
Like a few of Bush's other more unpopular legacies, Obama has taken the bar of polarization that Bush set and extended it - despite the hope of his campaign promises to end it. But that sounds like it puts most of the responsibility on Obama than he gets credit for, which is not my goal. Arguing about whose fault it is wont be very constructive in this circumstance.
Calls of 'false equivalence' on these points are usually brought up by people biased towards Demmocrats, just like it was Republicans who told me the same damn thing if I ever pointed out any beligerence by Dems during the Bush years. Of couse, I cant discount that perhaps my own bias is poking out, as I dislike both of them.
But hey, that's just like, my opinion, man
I really want to see it happen, and I don't even smoke weed.
I already believe that the marijuana ban, as it exists currently, is unconstitutional, and that Gonzales v. Raich was the worst Supreme Court decision of the last 25 years. Legalizing will be a huge rebuke of authoritarianism. Hopefully if it passes and Obama wins, he gets that absolute disgrace Eric Holder out of office or at least instructs him to leave marijuana the fuck alone.
Devolution
Member
You mean the ones not already fucked over by Agribusiness?
wat.
"My number one priority is making sure President Obama's a one-term president."
have we forgotten this already?
So long as you pay for your weed and don't grow it on your own, come on over. If we want weed legalized, it needs to be fairly taxed.
Oh, and don't carry more than an ounce at a time
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
That unamerican commie terrorist muslim racist needs to stop dividing the country and being negative!!
Yes, Monsanto is pretty corrupt. Just saying it is not a black and white issue many urban people are red leaning and many rural people do vote blue.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Like the rest of that paragraph said, my point wasnt to put the blame squarely on Obama, as I tried to clarify my previous sentence. In other words, just as Bush was a polarizing figure, justly or unjustly, Obama was also viewed as a polarizing figure as well. The notion of the end of racial and partisan bickering was as pie in the sky as the notion that the seas would stop rising.
Although not explicitly said, the priority of all opposition is to try to make sure the other side's leader is a one termer.
User 100115
Banned
I voted last week in Washington, and voted for Marijuana and Gay Marriage. Considering I live in a very very red part of the state, I worry about either passing, but hopefully the big cities will push us over.
But that's really awful. The priority of the opposition should be to try and make sure they themselves aren't a one termer... by helping out the American people and doing good legislation.
The second we give a party a pass for throwing the American people under the bus in order to make the opposition look bad so they could install their own leader, is the second our entire democracy is at risk.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
So I have heard that there is a chance (though unlikely) that there could be an electoral tie, which would probably result in a Romney victory since the house gets to vote on the president. But the senate votes on the VP.
Could a Romney/Biden White House be as funny as it sounds?
Could a Romney/Biden White House be as funny as it sounds?
ViperVisor
Member
I have no idea what you are saying other than the black guy's thing extends farther.
What I do know is 2 of the most boring and experienced wonks in D.C. wrote this book.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151522725/even-worse-than-it-looks-extremism-in-congress?ps=cprs
What I do know is 2 of the most boring and experienced wonks in D.C. wrote this book.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151522725/even-worse-than-it-looks-extremism-in-congress?ps=cprs
If the GOP were to get away with that kind of shit, it would have incredibly disturbing implications.
We'll start to see the equivalent of "I'll kill your country unless you concede {*insert policy point*}" whenever a vital piece of legislation comes-up. The Democrats never had the gall to try that level of shit, and anyone claiming "both sides suck" on this is holding a very disingenuous, or willfully ignorant, or really, really dim-witted stance.
Seattle has your back.
NihonTiger90
Member
So Ohio has two issues on the ballot.
Issue 1 is on a constitutional convention (I voted no) and Issue 2 is on making redistricting the job of a non-partisan, independent panel (I voted HELL YES FUCK THAT BULLSHIT FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR).
Locally, we have Issue 3, which is a tax that the anti-tax group (funded by out of the county Tea Party money ... seriously, for a local election) is so confident will fail, they bolted from a debate with the mayor over it.
Issue 1 is on a constitutional convention (I voted no) and Issue 2 is on making redistricting the job of a non-partisan, independent panel (I voted HELL YES FUCK THAT BULLSHIT FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR).
Locally, we have Issue 3, which is a tax that the anti-tax group (funded by out of the county Tea Party money ... seriously, for a local election) is so confident will fail, they bolted from a debate with the mayor over it.
User 100115
Banned
Honestly, I think that would be more terrifying than a Romney/Ryan White House.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If it's that black. And white to you, then our democracy has been at risk for a long time. But we seem to be chugging along well enough.
What complicates things is that one party's notion of throwing the people under the bus is the other party's notion of a really good policy.
The "Vote Yes" camp has gotten pretty aggressive. A couple of my friends have had their "vote no" signs torn down this week. Mine is still safe, but I have a spare just in case.
I really want Minnesota to reject this shit.
Except it isn't. I don't know many that would call the debt ceiling debacle good policy. That's ridiculous. And most of America wouldn't call some of the deals the GOP passed on just because they absolutely will not ever raise taxes on anyone good policy.
Also, what happens when what was once good policy endorsed by that very party becomes something the entire party votes against because, again, they will vote against everything?
This really isn't a "well, I disagree with your policy" territory anymore. This is blatant "I disagree with you have any power at all and I disagree with you ever getting any credit for anything good happening. I want you to look the worst possible, so I will vote no on everything" territory.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
The incoming house gets to make the decision, but the layout is not likely to change much so an EC tie would likely go to Romney.
LOL, don't be.
http://www.king5.com/news/politics/KING-5-Poll-Governors-race-a-dead-heat-176770651.html
I-502: 56% Yes
R74: 52% Yes
R74 has tighted up a little bit, but that is waaaaay too big of a mountain for the opposition to overcome in time. They're both going to pass.
The governor's race is what's going to be a doozy.
I was listening to NPR a few days ago and they had on some guests to discuss the issue. Basically the yes guy's reason for why this amendment is important (its already illegal), is that the people of Minnesota should decide this important issue, not judges or the legislature
I face-palmed right there. Apparently discrimination is okay so long as a majority of people agree with you.
User 100115
Banned
That makes me feel better. When one is surround by mass amounts of Romey and McKenna signs, one starts to worry.
The debt ceiling debacle alone is enough reason for me to not support the GOP this cycle, even if I didn't give a fig about any other fiscal or social policy implications.
All 50 states should have this.
We've actually had presidents that lost both the electoral and the popular votes but still won the presidency, oddly enough.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
What is the chance of neither Romney or Obama winning an undecided state?
Might perhaps a third-party presidential candidate have a chance?
Might perhaps a third-party presidential candidate have a chance?
Banana Kid
Member
No chance at all.
really? Damn, like who?
I'll give you an example of why the electoral college isn't really that bad (or as bad as it sounds). Take the hurricane situation. If that depresses turnout drastically in those states, which are very populous, it could totally change the outcome of the election if we based it totally on popular vote.
Still, the electoral college isn't totally based on population either. Some states are agricultural centers or have other important national resources but smaller populations, so their local concerns might be more important to the nation than their population size would suggest.
Also, the culture in a country as big as the USA can vary drastically from one region to another, but if popular vote ruled, the majority in the big cities would have a tyranny of sorts in terms of imposing their viewpoints on the people in rural areas.
There are reasons for it. They might not be great reasons, and the arguments against it are more compelling than they once were, but I doubt if it will ever change.
MasterShotgun
brazen editing lynx
A third party candidate will be doing good to get just 5% in any state.
I think it's supposed to reduce the chance of any single state being able to manipulate the election too much. That's how I've always thought of it, at least.
Interesting, never thought of it that way. I wonder how a country like Russia does it then.
Angelus Errare
Banned
So long as you pay for your weed and don't grow it on your own, come on over. If we want weed legalized, it needs to be fairly taxed.
Oh, and don't carry more than an ounce at a time
Grow my own? Man weeds die under my care. I have a thumb of death, easier and more convenient for me to buy.
One of my co-workers made the same argument. It's ridiculous.
The amendment just feels spiteful. Gay marriage isn't legal anyways. This just makes it more illegal (and makes it harder to allow gay marriage in the future).
I don't agree with the voter ID amendment either, but I can at least understand the argument for it. Mind you, it's an imaginary fear disguising disenfranchisement, but at least there's a pretend argument. With the marriage amendment, it's just pure hatred. There is no logical argument.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Rutherford Hayes.
Lost popular vote. Lost electoral vote, except for some electoral fraud at state level which eventually resulted in him having a certified total of +1 electoral vote over Tilden.
RUTHERFORD B HAYES
NOT MY PRESIDENT
John Quincy Adams and Rutherford B Hayes.
Though Hayes was a bit of a different circumstance since there was a lot of contention over who actually won a few states. Adams really did lose both, but he didn't get a majority of the electoral votes, so the House of Representatives had to decide, and I guess there was a kind of back alley deal with one of the other candidates (there were 4 that year).
The US is not a democracy, it's a republic.
I hope to live to see the day when third parties aren't referred to as third parties, but just another party. Standing with the other candidates in the debates. Can you imagine if the likes of Johnson, or hell, Goode were televised with Obama and Romney? Suddenly the two primary candidates would look and sound very cautious and actorly in comparison.
- Status