By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 2012 Election Center: The Main Event - Obama Wins

 

Of the two main candidates for president, who will win?

Barack Obama 245 75.85%
 
Mitt Romney 73 22.60%
 
Total:318
NiKKoM said:

Good to see fox news responding like a gentleman:

BIAS ALERT:
How Media Tipped
Scales in Obama's Favo
r

Wow. Just a terrible polemic. And pretty damn hypocritical, considering Fox News serves as the media arm of the Republican party.



Around the Network

I heard that 5 toupees died tonight..



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Veknoid_Outcast said:
NiKKoM said:

Good to see fox news responding like a gentleman:

BIAS ALERT:
How Media Tipped
Scales in Obama's Favo
r

Wow. Just a terrible polemic. And pretty damn hypocritical, considering Fox News serves as the media arm of the Republican party.

lol. Let them (and others... *cough*) be sore losers. They're just venting their frustration because they did, after all, lose.

I didn't expect any grace from the Republican Party, anyway. I expect demands for recounts, cries of cheating and bias, and possibly calls for impeachment. Oh yeah, and more conspiracy theories, a LOT more conspiracy theories.

^ Looks like Trump is getting a head start on that last one.



the_dengle said:

Actually.... According to the 2010 census, Montana's population is under one million. It represents about 0.32% of the total US population. However, its 3 electoral votes amount to about 0.56% of all electoral votes. The electoral college actually gives less populous states such as Montana an advantage. To continue, South Dakota represents only 0.26% of the US population, and North Dakota represents only 0.21%. But both of those states still have 3 electoral votes, or the same 0.56% as Montana -- this more than doubles their pull in the election with the electoral college over a simple popular vote. It sounds like a small difference, but the 3 states together would combine for about 0.79% of the total US population, while carrying 9 total electoral votes, about 1.67% of the total.

The electoral college was created as a compromise to appease those pushing for states' rights and state power. Maybe it's not the best way to do things -- maybe a simple, total popular vote would be better. But there's no arguing that the electoral college gives more weight to the vote of a single voter in Wyoming than one in California. (California, by the way, represents 11.91% of the US population, yet carries about 10.22% of the electoral votes).

What baffle me about the US election system is the fact that the minority of the votes inside a state doesn't count. I mean if you live in a state that has strong republican or democrat roots you can very well save yourself the trouble of going to vote. Maybe that's the reason there is an high abstention rate (by european standards I mean).

Anyway congrats to president Obama, the other one really seemed like a douche, just trying to please people while only thinking about "his" people.



interesting dengle,thanks,what did the map loo like with bush jnrs 2 wins

obvioulsy the population demographic of the usa has changed for ever and it will be interesting to see if/how quickly it effectcs the US politcal system,the bigger the divide becomes with race and religion



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

Around the Network
askel50 said:
the_dengle said:

Actually.... According to the 2010 census, Montana's population is under one million. It represents about 0.32% of the total US population. However, its 3 electoral votes amount to about 0.56% of all electoral votes. The electoral college actually gives less populous states such as Montana an advantage. To continue, South Dakota represents only 0.26% of the US population, and North Dakota represents only 0.21%. But both of those states still have 3 electoral votes, or the same 0.56% as Montana -- this more than doubles their pull in the election with the electoral college over a simple popular vote. It sounds like a small difference, but the 3 states together would combine for about 0.79% of the total US population, while carrying 9 total electoral votes, about 1.67% of the total.

The electoral college was created as a compromise to appease those pushing for states' rights and state power. Maybe it's not the best way to do things -- maybe a simple, total popular vote would be better. But there's no arguing that the electoral college gives more weight to the vote of a single voter in Wyoming than one in California. (California, by the way, represents 11.91% of the US population, yet carries about 10.22% of the electoral votes).

What baffle me about the US election system is the fact that the minority of the votes inside a state doesn't count. I mean if you live in a state that has strong republican or democrat roots you can very well save yourself the trouble of going to vote. Maybe that's the reason there is an high abstention rate (by european standards I mean).

Anyway congrats to president Obama, the other one really seemed like a douche, just trying to please people while only thinking about "his" people.

same in the UK,some places you know will be left or right regardless,i never quite understand what is wrong with one vote,one vote but i guess politicians will try and change things the longer they keep losing



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

askel50 said:

What baffle me about the US election system is the fact that the minority of the votes inside a state doesn't count. I mean if you live in a state that has strong republican or democrat roots you can very well save yourself the trouble of going to vote. Maybe that's the reason there is an high abstention rate (by european standards I mean).

If you check out the maps I've been posting, you can see that although some states have trends, the idea of having "strong rep/dem roots" (being sure to vote one way every election) is a very recent development in the US, and could change at any time depending on the candidates.

 

zuvuyeay said:
interesting dengle,thanks,what did the map loo like with bush jnrs 2 wins

The 2000 election was the year the electoral map took its modern shape:

The only differences between these results and the 2012 results are Obama's wins in Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, and possibly Florida.

2004:

No state that voted Democrat in 2000 or 2004 has voted Republican in either of the last two elections.

2012 election, for comparison:

You can see they're almost identical, just with the Democrats winning the more "moderate" states like Nevada and Ohio. This isn't necessarily indicative of a growing trend toward one party in those states -- more likely it is indicative of the general popularity of the winning candidate. I think it's pretty impressive that Obama carried Virginia in both '08 and '12.



mrstickball said:
4 years from now, I don't think you're going to be as happy as you are tonight.


It'll be fun watching the country and how it deals with a ~$20 trillion debt and higher interest rates.

If I wasn't poor, I'd be tempted to follow TheRealMafoo. 

Anyone have a vote total for Johnson?



thanks again so new hampshire was the last republican state up there,i guess when texas goes more hispanic then the republicans are pretty much finished i assume texas has a lot of electoral votes

colorado,new mexico,virginia and i think iowa can swing about a bit by the looks of things



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

zuvuyeay said:
thanks again so new hampshire was the last republican state up there,i guess when texas goes more hispanic then the republicans are pretty much finished i assume texas has a lot of electoral votes

colorado,new mexico,virginia and i think iowa can swing about a bit by the looks of things

Texas - 38 electoral votes,

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/2012-Electoral-Votes-By-State.htm

Full list:

Alaska - 3, 
Arizona - 11, 
Arkansas - 6, 
California - 55, 
Colorado - 9, 
Connecticut - 7,
Delaware - 3, 
District of Columbia - 3, 
Florida - 29, 
Georgia - 16, 
Hawaii - 4, 
Idaho - 4, 
Illinois - 20, 
Indiana - 11, 
Iowa - 6, 
Kansas - 6, 
Kentucky - 8, 
Louisiana - 8, 
Maine - 4, 
Maryland - 10, 
Massachusetts - 11, 
Michigan - 16, 
Minnesota - 10, 
Mississippi - 
Missouri - 10, 
Montana - 3, 
Nebraska - 5, 
Nevada - 6, 
New Hampshire - 4, 
New Jersey - 14, 
New Mexico - 5, 
New York - 29, 
North Carolina - 15,
North Dakota - 3, 
Ohio - 18, 
Oklahoma - 7, 
Oregon - 7, 
Pennsylvania - 20, 
Rhode Island - 4, 
South Carolina - 9, 
South Dakota - 3, 
Tennessee - 11, 
Texas - 38, 
Utah - 6, 
Vermont - 3, 
Virginia - 13, 
Washington - 12, 
West Virginia - 5, 
Wisconsin - 10, 
Wyoming - 3,

If the republicans lose Texas they're pretty much done for.