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

Forums - General - McCain's Convention Bounce Essentially Gone

cwbys21 on 19 September 2008
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Kasz216 said:
HappySqurriel said:

In the context of the original post, I do think that it is interesting that Obama is leading in national polls while sites like pollster.com and electoral-vote.com show John McCain winning the electoral college. Now I could be wrong, but I suspect this is because Barack Obama is winning in states with low per-capita electoral college votes by a very wide margin, while McCain is winning states with high per-capita electoral college votes by a much smaller margin.

That has been a democratic party complaint.

The electoral college gives slightly more per capita voting power to the smaller states to make sure they  don't get bullied by the states with more people.  Well that and because of the whole slaves thing... but i mean we don't have slavery anymore.

It also hurts independents.  I mean Ross Perot got 12% of the vote or something crazy like that... yet no electoral votes.  If he got electoral votes his party could of really stuck around as a real third option.

There are advantages to it as well and a lot of problems with a direct popular vote format.  So it's an interesting conudrum.

Also, the electoral vote is redistrubted once every 10 years, so every 10 years California is way behind in electoral power.  The population (and thus % of popular vote) here grows insanely fast, but our % of electoral vote grows super slow in big steps decades apart.  At any given election, your vote in Ohio is worth more than my vote in California.  Not to mention that the Electoral College mandates that campaigns only care about swing states.

And Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992!!!  Then 8.8% in 1996.  Either way, the electoral college has become a scam that keeps us stuck with a 2 party system and makes the popular vote meaningless.  It's a good way to distribute Congressmen and Senators, sure, but they don't need to re-calculate votes based on those numbers anymore.

 

Yes it does keep us stuck with a 2 party system, but that would have to change from the state level I believe.  They decide how they will cast their votes in the Electoral College, not by Federal rules.  The Feds only say how many votes each state gets, otherwise why would anyone in states like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North or Sout Dakota go to the polls?  The blue states have the most people and if it was purely by popular vote then everything else wouldn't matter because the smaller population states would have no effect on who was president and you would have a lot of very angry people.  In fact those states and others in the mid west might leave the union because they wouldn't be fairly represented.



God hates console fanboys.

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 19 September 2008
cwbys21 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:

Also, the electoral vote is redistrubted once every 10 years, so every 10 years California is way behind in electoral power.  The population (and thus % of popular vote) here grows insanely fast, but our % of electoral vote grows super slow in big steps decades apart.  At any given election, your vote in Ohio is worth more than my vote in California.  Not to mention that the Electoral College mandates that campaigns only care about swing states.

And Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992!!!  Then 8.8% in 1996.  Either way, the electoral college has become a scam that keeps us stuck with a 2 party system and makes the popular vote meaningless.  It's a good way to distribute Congressmen and Senators, sure, but they don't need to re-calculate votes based on those numbers anymore.

 

Yes it does keep us stuck with a 2 party system, but that would have to change from the state level I believe.  They decide how they will cast their votes in the Electoral College, not by Federal rules.  The Feds only say how many votes each state gets, otherwise why would anyone in states like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North or Sout Dakota go to the polls?  The blue states have the most people and if it was purely by popular vote then everything else wouldn't matter because the smaller population states would have no effect on who was president and you would have a lot of very angry people.  In fact those states and others in the mid west might leave the union because they wouldn't be fairly represented.

 

Yeah, the American system has many checks and balances to prevent a tyranny of the majority and does (about) as well as you can if you're electing a single individual to an executive position. Now, it would be interesting to see what would happen if you used proportionate representation to vote for an executive branch that worked like a board of directors ... I suspect that it would be more representative of the views of the public, but that also means that it would (probably) be stuck in a constant dead-lock.



akuma587 on 21 September 2008

Numbers are updated. I included the battleground states as well.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

koffieboon on 21 September 2008
tokilamockingbrd said:
akuma587 said:
The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have been catastrophic, at the same level as AIG.

 

 

Yes, In fact even worse. They HAD to bail out F & F, it would have been really bad. The problem is the corruption that led to the collapse. F & F can be linked to the root of the housing woes. It all started with their corruption and it trickled down.

 

My whole point was McCain noticed it and tried to do something. It is only speculation as to why Obama recieved so much money from them. It could be something like because he is a Minority (which would not be that bad) or it could be bad, and he was helping F & F escape regulation and oversight.

McCain is not an advocate of heavy regulation. He prefers strict oversight. (which is similiar except it is more hands off). Any of the 2 might have saved F & F. Heavy regulation is bad because it makes everything(cept certain things, like public works) less effcient. Oversight allows the Gov to keep an eye on corruption without interfering with the markets. George Bush might have been slightly Lasse Fare (spelling?), McCain is a classic liberal.

This article on CNN actually states McCain received a lot more money from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" than Obama, namely $169000 versus only $16000. Obama did receive a lot more from normal employees though.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/

 

 



akuma587 on 21 September 2008
koffieboon said:
tokilamockingbrd said:
akuma587 said:
The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have been catastrophic, at the same level as AIG.

 

 

Yes, In fact even worse. They HAD to bail out F & F, it would have been really bad. The problem is the corruption that led to the collapse. F & F can be linked to the root of the housing woes. It all started with their corruption and it trickled down.

 

My whole point was McCain noticed it and tried to do something. It is only speculation as to why Obama recieved so much money from them. It could be something like because he is a Minority (which would not be that bad) or it could be bad, and he was helping F & F escape regulation and oversight.

McCain is not an advocate of heavy regulation. He prefers strict oversight. (which is similiar except it is more hands off). Any of the 2 might have saved F & F. Heavy regulation is bad because it makes everything(cept certain things, like public works) less effcient. Oversight allows the Gov to keep an eye on corruption without interfering with the markets. George Bush might have been slightly Lasse Fare (spelling?), McCain is a classic liberal.

This article on CNN actually states McCain received a lot more money from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" than Obama, namely $169000 versus only $16000. Obama did receive a lot more from normal employees though.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/

 

 

Shhhhh, don't tell that to the people (or McCain) who claim that Obama had something to do with bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Take your facts and leave!

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
loy310 on 21 September 2008

I cant wait for the debates, Obama and Biden are going to tear the Republicans candidates apart on the Economy and pretty much every other important issue..



bigjon on 21 September 2008

Indiana will not go Obama... I am willing to bet my family jewels on that one. In 04 poeple were saying Kerry could win Iowa (there was only a 1-2 difference in the polls) Bush ended up carrying it by alot. I have lived in Indiana, even the big cities (Fort Wayne, and Indy) are not liberal(comparitively)

But I do like to see Obama wasting resources here. Kinda like if McCain campaigned heavily in NM.... It would just be a waste.



End of 2009 Predictions (Set, January 1st 2009)

Wii- 72 million   3rd Year Peak, better slate of releases

360- 37 million   Should trend down slightly after 3rd year peak

PS3- 29 million  Sales should pick up next year, 3rd year peak and price cut

Sam Yikin on 21 September 2008

Hmmmm. RCP just changed Florida to a toss up. If McCain loses it he's basically screwed.



akuma587 on 21 September 2008

Ohio will go to Obama before Florida will, but Obama's campaign has been working really hard in both states. They have the organizational advantage that Bush's campaign did in the last election. That could mean results that could well be 1 or 2 percentage points higher than the polls predict.

Aggressive registering of new voters is a very effective strategy.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 21 September 2008
akuma587 said:
koffieboon said:
tokilamockingbrd said:
akuma587 said:
The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have been catastrophic, at the same level as AIG.

 

 

Yes, In fact even worse. They HAD to bail out F & F, it would have been really bad. The problem is the corruption that led to the collapse. F & F can be linked to the root of the housing woes. It all started with their corruption and it trickled down.

 

My whole point was McCain noticed it and tried to do something. It is only speculation as to why Obama recieved so much money from them. It could be something like because he is a Minority (which would not be that bad) or it could be bad, and he was helping F & F escape regulation and oversight.

McCain is not an advocate of heavy regulation. He prefers strict oversight. (which is similiar except it is more hands off). Any of the 2 might have saved F & F. Heavy regulation is bad because it makes everything(cept certain things, like public works) less effcient. Oversight allows the Gov to keep an eye on corruption without interfering with the markets. George Bush might have been slightly Lasse Fare (spelling?), McCain is a classic liberal.

This article on CNN actually states McCain received a lot more money from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" than Obama, namely $169000 versus only $16000. Obama did receive a lot more from normal employees though.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/

 

 

Shhhhh, don't tell that to the people (or McCain) who claim that Obama had something to do with bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Take your facts and leave!

 

That bit he's talking about was during the 2008 cycle.

The actual point was that Obama got more money then everyone but Dodd when everything was going bad.  Which is the truth.

That and the fact that the were basically using lobbiests and stuff to make it look like McCain got more money... when Lobbyiests represent different companies.

McCain's stance on stopping Freddie and Fannie is well documeneted in the bills he proposed.  He tried in 2005 and had his plan tabled.