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
noname2200 on 07 November 2012
TheShape31 said:


I think it's interesting how much people stick up for the electoral college like this.  You come off as a politician.  The truth of the matter is that the Three-Fifths Compromise counted a slave as 3/5 of a human being.  This was agreed upon in 1787.  The electoral college was created in order to take power away from certain portions of the population.  This was created in 1787.  Interesting how it's the same year.  The college was created in order to make sure there was an imbalance of power, and that the minorities in the United States would never be fully counted.  This is the people's history, the true history.  Continue politicking.



Around the Network
fordy on 07 November 2012
TheShape31 said:
Dodece said:
@Electoral College

The United States is a Union. Each state has a right to allocate its votes as it sees fit. Not just to benefit the nation as a whole, but in the way that is most beneficial to the state. When a state casts its votes as a block it is making the case to a national candidate that they have to work hard to win that block of votes. That means doing more for that state. Whereas if a state chooses to parcel its vote based on the popular vote the national candidate is almost sure to put far less effort into appeasing the citizens of that state.

To put it mildly a bigger prize won narrowly carries more weight then a prize where you can get just a sliver more then the other guy. That means that splitting your states vote actually reduces your leverage in a election. Your vote becomes worth less. Even more important then that however is the following. Every person in a given state is valued whether they vote for a candidate or not.

You may dismiss those that refuse to vote out of hand, but that is a choice they are making. Not participating isn't a argument for them being devalued. When you vote in a block vote their voting power is added to your own. So even if they aren't voting. Their welfare is still being safe guarded by you the voter. When you block vote you all speak as one, and that means the national candidate has to pay more attention to you. Whether you are excited, or outright lethargic about the contest.

The Electoral College does its job, and the members take their jobs seriously. It isn't just about being a delivery man. They exist to act as a bulwark against the unanticipated. They ensure that no matter what we will have a continuation of leadership. Thankfully we have never had to rely on that back up, but it is good that we have one in place.

Hey I have nothing against a popular vote system, and I actively encourage you to petition your State government to enact such a system for your state. That said who are you to tell my State how it should, or should not vote. If you want to waste your vote go right ahead, and I will gladly accept the value add that my vote will get in return for that. Leave my State out of your crazy little scheme.


I think it's interesting how much people stick up for the electoral college like this.  You come off as a politician.  The truth of the matter is that the Three-Fifths Compromise counted a slave as 3/5 of a human being.  This was agreed upon in 1787.  The electoral college was created in order to take power away from certain portions of the population.  This was created in 1787.  Interesting how it's the same year.  The college was created in order to make sure there was an imbalance of power, and that the minorities in the United States would never be fully counted.  This is the people's history, the true history.  Continue politicking.

Popular vote gives the state governments greater political power to influence federal government. For instance, a safe state that is Republican, and run by a Republican governor could inroduce far-right propositions in order to influence the turnout of those interested in said propositions. Currently, the only votes they can obtain through persuasive measures is the electoral votes for their own state.



fordy on 07 November 2012
noname2200 said:
fordy said:


Who said that Republicans need a house majority to be obstructionist? Check out the record number of Filibusters used by Republicans when the Democrats are in power. They didn't want to pass policy. They wanted to stall the process to use as ammunition against the Democrats.

Now that Obama is on his last term, he has nothing to lose. Republicans on the other hand get reviewed in 2014, so they have the choice of sticking with the lunatic Tea Party, or looking to be bipartisan. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do to prevent them from losing the house in 2 years.


Hmm, true, although I'd argue that having control of the branch of the legislature which originates spending bills is a much longer lever than merely filibustering in the Senate.

As for your second paragraph, I'm curious to hear what folks think will happen. Personally, I expect the hard-liners to double down, not moderate. No idea what the rest of the party intends, although they've been happy to go along with the hard-liners for quite some time now.


The stakes are different now. For his first term, Obama only needed to show that he was willing to work together. He still had the possibility of reelection for a second term on the table. He has recognised criticisms that he folds on opposition far too easily. In his second term, Obama no longer has that worry. He will become a 2 term president. Now his only worry is whether he will be remembered as a good president or a bad president, so I'd be expecting a push for more reform based on his original ideas.

I just noticed that Harry Reid is talking about filibuster reform, which is long overdue, given the nature to abuse it. Whether Republicans see this as a bipartisan effort or a move to silence them in the senate is anyone's guess. I'd be shifting towards the latter if they hadn't been shut up at the election.

As mentioned before, Boehner has a tough choice. He can take the polls for what they are, and take Romeny's advice to work together, or he can stick to his guns of "accept no compromise" from the Tea Party, and see if he can keep hold of his position in 2014....



Moren on 07 November 2012

Yay!

And yes, I'm part of the non-American crowd that wanted Obama to win because of his less harsh view towards the illegal immigrants. Sue me.

Yeah, maybe Romney was a better choice for Americans... but meh, most countries will be glad Obama won.



NiKKoM on 07 November 2012

So what's the deal with Florida? can't they count 100%? and call the winner? I don't get that..



 

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

Around the Network
Mr Khan on 07 November 2012
haxxiy said:
Mr Khan said:
haxxiy said:
Mr Khan said:

( )

Yo Mr Khan, what are your thoughts about the elections?

Mostly pleased, except for the shellacing my congressional candidate (Pennsylvania 3rd district) got. The one i was working for.

Anyway... I think the general theme of this election is that the Republicans have flung themselves too far to the right. I mean, i won't deny that Obama's overseen a period economically comparable to the hated 1970s, and some of that may have been his fault (though in all objectivity, partisan obstructionism on both sides is a big part of our gridlock as well), but while the Democrats are willing to move to the middle, the Republicans clearly aren't. The embrace of some of the more radical economic policies, as well as their extreme slants on gays and reproductive rights have completely screwed them over. I mean, look at Todd Akin, who got his ass whomped over his rape comments even though McCaskill (his opponent) was not very well-liked in Missouri.

Similarly, we have Richard Mourdock from Indiana. He beat the Republican senator, Lugar, in the primaries, because Indiana Republicans didn't like Lugar's willingness to work across the aisle, and then his stupid rape comments caused the Republicans to lose one of their coveted Senate seats entirely.

It's clear. The Republicans need to focus on common-sense reforms and abandon their extreme stances on the economy and wedge issues, or face irrelevence. I mean, if they can't beat Obama under these conditions, their only hope (other than changing themselves) is that the global economic meltdown comes in the next four years.

Interesting. What do you think it's more damaging to the image of the republican party - the Bush years creating sort of a public perception they are warmongers or the attachment to christian morals? Perhaps where they both mix? I can't say I would be happy if my country were fighting wars over some two-thousand year prophecies. 

Personally I would disagree with the economic instance of the GOP being an issue, yeah perhaps a bit extreme and liable to not make a part of the population happy, but a genuine conviction nevertheless that could turn out to be right one, who knows. But I could be wrong and you could be right, I don't know a lot of the inner workings of it to express a stronger opinion.

I think their role in helping to manage the economy isn't necessarily bad, as we do need counterweights against unions and regulatory agencies overstepping their boundaries, or government programs getting too bloated or inefficient, but i feel that the way the Republicans have chosen to address these problems (union-busting, calls to eliminate regulatory agencies altogether, calls to eliminate government programs altogether) are things that the average American does not want. I think Americans do agree that there's a place for keeping unions in check, for keeping welfare programs accountable and streamlined, and making sure regulations are not over-excessive, but the Republican solutions take it too far.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

drkohler on 07 November 2012
NiKKoM said:
So what's the deal with Florida? can't they count 100%? and call the winner? I don't get that..

a) lots of envelopes to go through, apparently

b) the first Repblinut has filed a lawsuit (he lost against his Democrat contender)



chocoloco on 07 November 2012
morenoingrato said:
Yay!

And yes, I'm part of the non-American crowd that wanted Obama to win because of his less harsh view towards the illegal immigrants. Sue me.

Yeah, maybe Romney was a better choice for Americans... but meh, most countries will be glad Obama won.

The people that are angry will always scream the loudest. GAF is liberal territory and people were drunk on happiness. I have never seen such an online expression of joy. This site is an odd one in that it has a lot of conservative, political posters. Also, why politics here are a lot more angry and defensive. GAFs politics are so much more fun loving.



Kasz216 on 07 November 2012
Mr Khan said:
haxxiy said:
Mr Khan said:

( )

Yo Mr Khan, what are your thoughts about the elections?

Mostly pleased, except for the shellacing my congressional candidate (Pennsylvania 3rd district) got. The one i was working for.

Anyway... I think the general theme of this election is that the Republicans have flung themselves too far to the right. I mean, i won't deny that Obama's overseen a period economically comparable to the hated 1970s, and some of that may have been his fault (though in all objectivity, partisan obstructionism on both sides is a big part of our gridlock as well), but while the Democrats are willing to move to the middle, the Republicans clearly aren't. The embrace of some of the more radical economic policies, as well as their extreme slants on gays and reproductive rights have completely screwed them over. I mean, look at Todd Akin, who got his ass whomped over his rape comments even though McCaskill (his opponent) was not very well-liked in Missouri.

Similarly, we have Richard Mourdock from Indiana. He beat the Republican senator, Lugar, in the primaries, because Indiana Republicans didn't like Lugar's willingness to work across the aisle, and then his stupid rape comments caused the Republicans to lose one of their coveted Senate seats entirely.

It's clear. The Republicans need to focus on common-sense reforms and abandon their extreme stances on the economy and wedge issues, or face irrelevence. I mean, if they can't beat Obama under these conditions, their only hope (other than changing themselves) is that the global economic meltdown comes in the next four years.

Social issues I can see...

Economic issues though... in general voters seemed to trust republicans more.  Romney actually had the lead for "Who do you trust to fix the economy."


At the end of the day I think the republicans lost because their exclusionary social polices led to too many "automatic exclusion" votes.

Essentially Democrats are mostly playing to a full field, while abortion, and just in general beliefs about racism more or less limit republicans mostly to just white men.  Which is basically who Romney won.

 

A lot of people become one issue voters based on these things...  things like abortion that aren't actually going to change ever anyway.



smbu2000 on 07 November 2012
noname2200 said:
smbu2000 said:

Narrowly, but it's passing.

http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21945748

Overcoming decades of anti-tax sentiment in California, Gov. Jerry Brown's Proposition 30 -- billed as a tax hike to rescue the state's schools -- narrowly won Tuesday.

That's good news. I don't think it would have been a total armageddon if the measure hadn't passed, but it wouldn't have been good either.

Yeah, good news that it passed. The rival tax measure prop 38 was soundly defeated.

I was watching (I think) NBC news while the CA returns were still coming in and they were talking to Gov. Brown and asking him how his prop was faring (prop 30) and he was saying that it was still close. Then onscreen they showed a graphic of the prop 38 (not his prop 30) being destroyed and they kind of looked at him like he was crazy because it wasn't close at all. After they said sorry that they had put up the graphic for the wrong prop, hehe.




starcraft: "I and every PS3 fanboy alive are waiting for Versus more than FFXIII.
Me since the games were revealed, the fanboys since E3."

Skeeuk: "playstation 3 is the ultimate in gaming acceleration"