When President Obama is re-elected!!

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:49 pm

I think Romney will look out of touch with the common man (much like Bush Sr) when he releases his tax returns.
And for the record I don't like any of them (Dem/Rep/Tea Party).
What happened to
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
Used to be if I didn't infringe on the rights of others I was pretty much free to do what I wanted.
Now there's way too much talk of "cost to society".
Smokers were the first target (yea smoking is bad for you). Now "fat" is the next target. Britain has in recent times been concerned about the cost of drinking on society.
We attacked drinking one time and it gave rise to the powerful criminal syndicates.
But you sure don't hear much chatter about the "cost to society" of a couple useless wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Or moving manufacturing offshore. Or providing social/medical services to aliens.
We still don't have any comprehensive energy strategy. No one really went to jail for the "too big to fail" shenanigans. There's been no political reforms. The Supreme Court gave the green light to those with deep pockets to control the media with slick expensive propaganda . The judical sytem is built to handle issues from 1800's. Not 2012.
I'm actually swaying to Jim's earlier viewpoint that we are past the tipping point or event horizon.

I don't need a bunch of bureaucrats telling me how to live and squandering my hard earned dollars. I'd rather live in a well educated society with individual citizens that tried to invent/improvise/manufacture to improve things than a bunch of TV Zombies electing someone who looks good,talks well and will hopefully give them something for free.

And back to on of Jim's original questions about the Supremes invlovled with interstet wine shipping. The answers is NO. They are too busy ruling on how often you can say the F word on TV.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:27 pm

Jim, how is it that electoral college system favours the Repubs?

"I'm actually swaying to Jim's earlier viewpoint that we are past the tipping point or event horizon." I have more faith in you guys than that. You're just acting out Churchill's old saying: "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted all other possibilities" (or something like that).

However, and this is only my own personal opinion, since government is a necessary thing, and there is no real way of doing without it, instead of electing those who claim to be against it, mightn't it be better to elect those who think the job should be done well? I'm not talking about particular policies at the moment, because it's always possible to genuinely disagree over point of policy, but one's broad starting point. It seems self-destructive, and not a little contradictory, for government to be made up of a bunch of people who claim that government is bad at best, or just plain down right evil!

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:33 pm

It gives disproportionately more strength to smaller western and southern states, Bacchus, because a state like Idaho has as many senators as states like California or New York. Moreover, there has been an exodus to the south and south west in the past twenty years, into traditionally Republican states, resulting in increases in Congressional seats for the south and decreases in Congressional seats for the north. The classic example of the Electoral College tilting towards the Republicans, of course, was in 2000, when Gore won the popular vote by between 500,000 and 2 million votes, but lost the Electoral College. I can easily see a scenario where Obama wins the popular vote but loses Florida and Ohio and the Romney/Rubio ticket is elected.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:45 pm

What's more troubling than the electoral college is I don't see how the Pats beat the Giants in the Super Bowl. Three point favorites? To a team they lost to at home already, and one that didn't have Nicks in the lineup? Jim you'll have to try and persuade me otherwise but with the Pats' shaky secondary I see it something like G-men 31 Pats 24, with the Pats scoring as time runs out only making it a seven-point game.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:59 pm

Hey, you'll get no argument from me, Hound, I'm terrified of Eli, I think he is one of the most underrated quarterbacks of all time, and I said that before the 2008 Super Bowl. I think the Giants are going to win, I can't see the Pats secondary stopping Eli. The only hope I have is that Eli has an off game, and then of course, we have our ace in the hole, Number 12, he's pretty good too....

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:18 am

Just got home and put on MSNBC to hear -- did I hear this right? -- that Gingrich has pulled ahead of Romney in Florida, and pulled even nationally amongst Repubs. Holy cow! Has the '93 Batailley turned exciting? Is Lafite selling for under $100/bottle? My oh my, it looks like we have a race.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:18 am

So, Jim, if the Newtster were to pull this off, how would that affect Obama's chance of winning FL, Ohio, and the other swing states.

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:14 am

It's a pendulum, Jim - at other times, tiny blue states like Maine, Massachusetts and Maryland can have a disproportionate impact on things due to their absurdly high quantity of senators relative to population. I wouldn't know classic examples from run-of-the-mill ones, but didn't Kennedy get elected with a minority of the popular vote? Or certainly at least after all of the vote fraud in Illinois is subtracted out?

This country wouldn't exist without the electoral college. Would you prefer a place more like Europe, where states would have been at war with each other off and on for the last two-plus centuries?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:17 pm

Kennedy ended up winning by about 100,000 votes, about a vote per precinct nationwide, thanks to Mayor Daley. I wouldn't call Massachusetts and Maryland small states. It looks like Maine is going to lose one of its two members of the House, probably in the next census. I'm beginning to wonder if we need a parliamentary system, it doesn't seem that our current system works anymore, it is so polluted by money. It may have worked reasonably well for a couple hundred years, but not anymore. The blue states lost about ten electoral votes to the red states between 2000 and 2008. In other words, if Gore and Bush had run again in 2008 and produced the exact same totals as they did in 2000, Bush's electoral college victory would have been wider by an extra ten electors. Instead of a three elector victory, it would have been about 13. That's because of the gains in seats in Texas and the southwest and the loss of seats in the northeast.

Trust me on this one, Bacchus: Newt Gingrich will not be the Republican nominee.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:34 pm

What's the point of a federalist system (and an electoral college) when, and this is not a new phenomenon, it's been ongoing for over a hundred years, we have transitioned from a system of limited federal authority and expansive states' rights to one of almost unlimited federal authority and limited states' rights? Under these circumstances shouldn't we just elect the executive by popular vote and even have senators and representatives stand for election at large?

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:30 pm

I'm inclined to agree with you about Newt, Jim. I can't really believe he'll be the Repub nomination. But weirder things have happened; so who knows.

I'm not sure if any particular type of democratic system is more prone to abuse by money than others. We have a parliamentary system up here, as you know, and it has problems with money too, although nowhere near as bad as what's happening down there. I'm not sure if it's the electoral college system that's responsible for the money problems, or some rather strange decisions by the Supreme Court based on confusing people with corporations, and speech with money! I've heard, however, that it is the structure of the electoral college that has prevented a true third party from ever forming. If that's the case, and I'm not sure of the exact shape of that argument, then I'd think people would want to modify the system since anything that would prevent the formation of other parties could be seen as anti-democratic, at least to the extent that they prevent individuals from forming said third party.

As far as the balance between federal and states powers, well that's a problem for all federal and confederal systems. And from an historical perspective, the relationship is always evolving, always changing, and not just in the USofA. The relationship between our Provinces and the feds is also ever-changing. And to be honest, I think that's the sign of a healthy system, a system that is able to change with changing times, needs, and changing conceptions about what the nature of the country and its basic political structures are. A country that is inflexible, and/or incapable of change is one that will eventually end up in even more trouble because of its inability to change.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:57 pm

Houndsong wrote:What's the point of a federalist system (and an electoral college) when, and this is not a new phenomenon, it's been ongoing for over a hundred years, we have transitioned from a system of limited federal authority and expansive states' rights to one of almost unlimited federal authority and limited states' rights? Under these circumstances shouldn't we just elect the executive by popular vote and even have senators and representatives stand for election at large?

Well said. Except it would be unconstitutional.
Our form of Democracy doesn't work well with our huge mobile population and ubiquitous media.
We've out grown our form of government.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:12 pm

If the problem with an electoral college system is that it gives too much representation (power) to the small States (2 Senators each no matter the population), the problem with a parliamentary system is just the opposite. In Canada's case the large provinces dominate the political agenda because of the large number of parliamentarians they get to send to Ottawa. The result is that small provinces like the one I live in always feel ignored and powerless giving rise to a grumpy population.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:20 pm

Bacchus wrote:If the problem with an electoral college system is that it gives too much representation (power) to the small States (2 Senators each no matter the population), the problem with a parliamentary system is just the opposite. In Canada's case the large provinces dominate the political agenda because of the large number of parliamentarians they get to send to Ottawa. The result is that small provinces like the one I live in always feel ignored and powerless giving rise to a grumpy population.

It worked great when there were only 13 states...........

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:36 pm

It will work better again when eastern Canada secedes and western Canada joins the USA as 4 new states.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:56 pm

Don't hold your breath, Stefan. Never going to happen. At least not in our life time.

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:06 pm

I'm not saying the electoral college is going away, but it's not out of the question. You only have to look back as far as what, 1910s to the direct election of senators and women's suffrage.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:00 pm

More good numbers, Jim: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -matchups/

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:12 pm

It's not the nationwide numbers I look at, Bacchus, it is the swing state numbers.
Keep an eye on the usual suspects: Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, as well as North Carolina, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado.

This site gives you everything you need to know:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:40 pm

JimHow wrote:It's not the nationwide numbers I look at, Bacchus, it is the swing state numbers.
Keep an eye on the usual suspects: Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, as well as North Carolina, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado.

This site gives you everything you need to know:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

North Carolina huh?
My vote could be important.
Or I can just nuetralize Susan's vote.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:33 am

This is unbelievable, truly unbelievable: http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/judge_s ... _raw_story

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:12 pm

Bacchus wrote:This is unbelievable, truly unbelievable: http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/judge_s ... _raw_story

WHen I first read it, I thought the headline meant they wanted him to show up naked..............

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:35 pm

Bacchus wrote:This is unbelievable, truly unbelievable: http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/judge_s ... _raw_story

Back in the 1970's, while the US was busy "throw(ing) the bum out", Canadian citizens were rightly appalled to find out that the Mounties were illegally opening postal mail. Demonstrating a difference between US Americans and our neighbors to the north, those appalled Canadians figured that if the authorities wanted to open citizens' mail then those authorities must have a good reason for doing so and quickly changed their law to make it LEGAL!

And without our history of presidential subpoenas, the world would have never known that the definition of the word "is" was so unclear!

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:06 pm

Here ya go, Jim; from the Daily Kos: "According to the latest NBC News/Marist poll (1/29/12), Obama leads Mitt Romney in Florida 49-41. Obama also leads Newt Gingrich 52-35." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/3 ... in-Florida

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:11 pm

Yes but when young Marco Rubio is tapped as VP, that lead will dissolve overnight.
I hope I'm wrong, Bacchus. Oh, how I hope I'm wrong. I still am having trouble seeing Obama winning those key states if unemployment is north of 8%. It's the economy, stupid.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:54 am

It's not just the economy. It's also how the media portrays the economy.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:12 am

Florida down....

One step closer to the sixteen-year Romney-Rubio era....

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:39 am

Another day another poll out of FL, this time it's Rasmussen; and I quote: "In potential Election 2012 matchups, it’s President Obama 47% and Romney 42%." So yesterday's NBC/Marist poll isn't an outlier. Cheer up Jim.

I remember when Clinton won his first term the pundits declared the beginning of the 16 year Clinton-Gore era. Look how well that worked out!

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:43 am

Rick Santorum is coming to my town tomorrow at 1. What would be a good question to ask him? I was thinking something like, "I understand you're opposed to same-sex marriage. How come you're not also opposed to heterosexual marriage?"

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:46 am

Or perhaps you could ask him when he plans to come out?

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:46 am

How about: "If you're so upset with same-sex marriage in America, why don't you move to Iran?"

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:27 pm

This is for you, Jim. New presidential tracking polls, this time out of Ohio pitting the Repub contenders against Obama:

Ohio: Romney vs. Obama PPP (D) Obama 49, Romney 42 Obama +7
Ohio: Gingrich vs. Obama PPP (D) Obama 51, Gingrich 39 Obama +12
Ohio: Santorum vs. Obama PPP (D) Obama 48, Santorum 42 Obama +6
Ohio: Paul vs. Obama PPP (D) Obama 48, Paul 38 Obama +10

Interesting how Santorum is doing a bit better against the President than Romney.

And just to bolster the feeling for you, today's Rasmussen poll out of FL has Obama over Romney 47-43.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:56 pm

General election polls at this time of year mean absolutely nothing.
Ask George H.W.Bush....

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:53 am

Well, these polls don't determine the Nov election, that's for sure. But they don't mean nothing either. They indicate that at this point in time the people of two important swing states, Florida and Ohio, favour Obama over any of the Republican candidates, including Romney. Since your concern was that he couldn't carry any of the swing states, the polls at least suggestss that it is possible. Of course either candidate has time to win (or lose) the election. There's lots of time for Bush 41-type gaffs (although Romney seems more prone to them than Obama). So while there's no guarantees, there's at least room for optimism.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:59 am

See, that's where you and I disagree.
Bush Sr. had a 93% approval rating a year before the general election in '92.
But the economy tanked and Carville's maxim, "It's the economy stupid," was born.
If unemployment remains over 8%, Barack Obama cannot win.
It's the economy, stupid. It has nothing to do with some poll on February 1st.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:08 am

But the American economy is getting better. By the end of Dec unemployment in the US had fallen to 8.5% Think the rate can come down that extra .5% by Nov?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:15 am

No, I think that's a false economy. The actual unemployment rate is much higher, that doesn't include those who have given up looking for work. And the unemployment rate doesn't reflect how sick -- terminal, really -- the American economy actually is. The disappearance of the middle class is the real indicator. The disparity between rich and poor. Sure, there are pockets of health out there, but the overall economy is flatlining. People can't earn a livable wage. Students are avalanched with debt, and no prospects for jobs. States are actually having to close nursing homes. As I've said many times, we are past the tipping point. Our country is very, very ill. I honestly believe Barack Obama is toast in the fall. It will take some sort of miracle for him to win, like A Paul third party candidacy, or some such thing (not holding my breath).

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:57 pm

A few more jobs reports like that one and Mitt will be looking at a very tall mountain to climb in October. Some movement on the housing front and Mitt will be looking a lot like Bob Dole in 1996, with or without a Ross Perot/Ron Paul candidacy. That's the trend. The wild care would be some kind of national security issue, like Iran or something.

pomilion · Post by **pomilion** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:02 pm

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... per-month/

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:49 pm

New US unemployment figures out today; down to 8.3%.