So Obama shows he is nothing new......

[aberkowitz]

The Electoral College has and will remain a vital tool that many just dont understand, its original intent was to deny a couple large areas of population to control the entire election. In the old days perhaps just 2 or 3 newspapers could be all thats needed to campaign and the entire mid-section of America would be ignored. This still is an issue as a small percentage of states with heavy population can still sway results, Liberals hate this because these areas in general are infested with very liberal folks with very liberal views, like it or not its about balance and its needed, without the College many states in our heartland would be completely ignored.

Chad- the fact that many don't understand it is one of the biggest detriments to using it! For a democratic election to be effective it should be as simple as possible. The ultimate in simplicty is: 1) One person = One Vote, 2) Most Votes Wins.

I understand your point about less populous states being ignored, but does that mean we should swing totally the other side and have most of the most populous states ignored? Why should it be that the Democrats don't have to campaign in California or New York any more? Is it fair that the GOP almost automatically win Texas and many other Southern states?

During the final 6 weeks of the 2004 election the candidates spent 60% of their time and money in 4 states- Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. During this time they visited New York once, California twice, and spent no time in almost 25 states (and no money in a different subset of 25-30 states) including Texas, Illinois, Virginia, NJ, Georgia, and most of the mid-section of "flyover" states including Nebraska, Utah, and Oklahoma.

Forget about having to run 50 state campaigns, candidates today only have to seriously run 10 state campaigns. While the simplicity proposal I laid out above may not be the best solution, I don't believe we can make the claim that the current electoral college is the best way to run an election.

 

[obscbyclouds]

The Electoral College has and will remain a vital tool that many just dont understand, its original intent was to deny a couple large areas of population to control the entire election. In the old days perhaps just 2 or 3 newspapers could be all thats needed to campaign and the entire mid-section of America would be ignored. This still is an issue as a small percentage of states with heavy population can still sway results, Liberals hate this because these areas in general are infested with very liberal folks with very liberal views, like it or not its about balance and its needed, without the College many states in our heartland would be completely ignored.

I know I'm late to the party here, but I have to disagree with this point. I could argue that the Electoral college gives too much power to the states with smaller populations. Electoral votes are give on a basis of house+senate seats. For example, Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes for a population of 500,000. Compare that to Texas, which has 32 electoral votes for almost 20,000,000 people. If you divide that out, each individual vote in Wyoming counts almost 4 times as one in Texas.

Besides which, the days of Newspaper's controlling elections are over. Most people under the age of 30 don't even read newspapers anymore, they get their news from the internet and television outlets (that is, if they even pay attention to the news at all). If you don't believe me, check out newspaper subscriptions today compaired with 10 years ago.

I think in order to get people to be less apathetic about elections, the college system must change. I hear this from my peers all the time: "What's the point in voting in Massachusetts; Republican votes don't count". I'm sure it's the same in reverse in conservative states. Besides, I'm really sick of the stupid red/blue electoral college map the news networks bring out every election season! There are plenty of colors other than red and blue, and as this thread proves, many viewpoints in between the two. The two party system is antiquated and must evolve to get people interested in politics again! Only about 30% of the population votes, this has to change! Getting rid of a silly system where some votes count more than others is a great way to begin changing this.

 

[Alamar]

I'm coming very late to the party but I'm in the "a pox on all their houses" group. I don't see either group really representing my views so no matter who [of the big 2] I vote for I still won't really get my voice heard.

After all what politician is REALLY for smaller government and less governmental control???

********************************************************

Many of my views tend to side [theoretically] with Libertarians but even that party seems to have issues with isolationists and things of that nature which doesn't exactly match my idea of engagement on the world stage.

********************************************************

You know things are bad when "personal responsibility" is a dirty word and when calls for smaller government and more fiscal responsibility is seen as irresponsible.

********************************************************

As for the electoral college I'm more-or-less OK as-is. It gives smaller states a larger voice but not so large as to make large states meaningless.

********************************************************

What ever happennd to issues and DETAILS on how people would approach things:
-- What will you do about social security?
-- What will you do about medicare?
-- What will you do about the level of government spending?
-- What will you do about Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, ...
-- What is your judicial philosphy [in appointing judges]?
-- What is your plan for taxes?
-- What is your plan for national defense?
-- What is your stance on the environment?
-- What is your stance on developing additional energy resources?

I could list tons of critical issues that seem to be lost because we're focusing more on catch phrases, POWs, etc. ....

 

[Seth=L]

I wish Obama and Hilary weren't Elitests, then I wouldn't be so concerned.

 

[chadnliz]

Did anyone catch Obama in his fantasy Presidential camp last week? He was in a conference with an imaginary Presidential logo flanked by flags and all his play dates, it was pretty cheesy. They got laughed at from both sides and apparently retired the "Pretenadential Seal" and its never to be seen again, look for it on Ebay!

 

[Halon451]

Did anyone catch Obama in his fantasy Presidential camp last week? He was in a conference with an imaginary Presidential logo flanked by flags and all his play dates, it was pretty cheesy. They got laughed at from both sides and apparently retired the "Pretenadential Seal" and its never to be seen again, look for it on Ebay!

I did, and remember thinking WTF?? Confidence is one thing, but that seemed a little over the top to say the least. Too funny.

 

[Halon451]

Absolutely anybody would be an improvement over Bush. We could pick some random bum off of skid row, offer him booze in return for being president, and he would be better than Bush.

No way Joe, I thought you were a staunch Bush supporter! Lol..

 

[Rickster71]

I wish Obama and Hilary weren't Elitests, then I wouldn't be so concerned.

True, they are also both lawyers, and their spouses are lawyers.
(Not that there's anything wrong with that)

 

[Rickster71]

Did anyone catch Obama in his fantasy Presidential camp last week? He was in a conference with an imaginary Presidential logo flanked by flags and all his play dates, it was pretty cheesy. They got laughed at from both sides and apparently retired the "Pretenadential Seal" and its never to be seen again, look for it on Ebay!

I did, and remember thinking WTF?? Confidence is one thing, but that seemed a little over the top to say the least. Too funny.

He knows it's a done deal.
If he picks Hillary for queen....I mean, vice pres, it's all over.
What's a Libertarian to do?

 

[aberkowitz]

True, they are also both lawyers, and their spouses are lawyers.
(Not that there's anything wrong with that)

Not trying to defend Hillary or Obama here, but wouldn't it also be correct to put Bush in the category of elitest? His childhood schooling included a private prep elementary school, followed by Phillips Academy, Yale, and Harvard Business School.... not exactly a proletarian middle class upbringing!

The presidency has never been a bastion for the "man of the people". Almost every president that has served since 1900 has come from affluent upbringings (even our favorite peanut farmer Jimmy Carter)- the 2 most "regular guy" upbringings that I can think of are Harry Truman (who actually never even graduated college) and Dwight Eisenhower.

 

[Rickster71]

Not trying to defend Hillary or Obama here, but wouldn't it also be correct to put Bush in the category of elitest? His childhood schooling included a private prep elementary school, followed by Phillips Academy, Yale, and Harvard Business School.... not exactly a proletarian middle class upbringing!

The presidency has never been a bastion for the "man of the people". Almost every president that has served since 1900 has come from affluent upbringings (even our favorite peanut farmer Jimmy Carter)- the 2 most "regular guy" upbringings that I can think of are Harry Truman (who actually never even graduated college) and Dwight Eisenhower.

If you want to label an educated person elitist, that's up to you; I wouldn't.
Carter and Bush are both educated; though I find both men 'down to earth'.
Conversely, Hillary has always shown her elitist attitude, from her, rolling with the Hollywood crowd, to her presumption that the election, was nothing more than her coronation.

 

[aberkowitz]

If you want to label an educated person elitist, that's up to you; I wouldn't.
Carter and Bush are both educated; though I find both men 'down to earth'.
Conversely, Hillary has always shown her elitist attitude, from her, rolling with the Hollywood crowd, to her presumption that the election, was nothing more than her coronation.

Elitism is about entitlement, class, and social status- I would agree that Hillary is elitist because of her sense of entitlement, Bush is elitist because of his priviledged upbringing (you don't get into Skull & Bones at Yale w/o some serious connections), and Carter partly because of his upbringing but moreso lately because of his shameless lobbying for a Nobel Peace Prize and how he continuously throws himself into every domestic and international crisis believing he's still President.

Education has something to do with it based on where/how you went to school. In the case of George Bush (and also every Kennedy since JFK) he got into his schools based more on his name than his own achievements.

 

[Rickster71]

Elitism is about entitlement, class, and social status- I would agree that Hillary is elitist because of her sense of entitlement, Bush is elitist because of his priviledged upbringing (you don't get into Skull & Bones at Yale w/o some serious connections), and Carter partly because of his upbringing but moreso lately because of his shameless lobbying for a Nobel Peace Prize and how he continuously throws himself into every domestic and international crisis believing he's still President.

Education has something to do with it based on where/how you went to school. In the case of George Bush (and also every Kennedy since JFK) he got into his schools based more on his name than his own achievements.

Adam, I understand what you mean; and I'm trying to think of a better way to characterize my impressions. The Clintons just seem to radiate elitism. Whereas, Carter appears more a narcissist.
Bush had the upbringing you speak of; though today, with his school days far behind, seems to have out grown his privileged early years.
Just my impression, and IMHO.
Rick

 

[chadnliz]

Obama is an Elitist and he really REALLY loves himself, maybe his lips are purple because he kisses his reflection every chance he gets.

 

[aberkowitz]

Adam, I understand what you mean; and I'm trying to think of a better way to characterize my impressions. The Clintons just seem to radiate elitism. Whereas, Carter appears more a narcissist.
Bush had the upbringing you speak of; though today, with his school days far behind, seems to have out grown his privileged early years.
Just my impression, and IMHO.
Rick

Ok- I can definitely see where you're coming from. Your opinion is definitely respected and appreciated.

 

[darien87]

Obama is an Elitist and he really REALLY loves himself, maybe his lips are purple because he kisses his reflection every chance he gets.

By the way Chad, where are you getting that Obama is nothing new? The examples you gave in your original post were pretty general and weak. Give me some specifics to back up your assessment.

 

[Seth=L]

Being born rich and being privilaged doesn't necessitate Elitism. Bush doesn't seem high on himself like Obama and the Clintons. Obama's wife definitely views herself as being high and mighty. Obama, Clinton don't care about bringing our country out of decline. They would, truthfully, want to bring our standards down to meet with the rest of the world.

I am sorry, but Obama and Hilary both make me want to throw up. But to be honest, what makes me really sick, is that people will blindly vote for a candidate (not that all voters voting for Obama are blind) without looking at the future, looking at the history, but focus solely on the present. I've got news for you. If you think our economy will boom because Obama says he'll bring industry back in the the states, think again. If you think gas prices will fall down, think again. If you think you will be able to go to the store and buy the same quantity and quality of food you did 10 years ago for a decent price, think again....

*steam comes from Seth's ears*

Sorry, I know it's only my humble opinion. I am just frightened at the prospect of it all.

 

[chadnliz]

By the way Chad, where are you getting that Obama is nothing new? The examples you gave in your original post were pretty general and weak. Give me some specifics to back up your assessment.

Ok here you go but to be honest you would have to be in a coma or blinded by liberal faith not to see this,
When Obama runs on "Change" that implies that he is not going to do what all politicians do and that is say one thing and do another, he said his campaign wasnt about race and the other day he predicts the GOP will make issue of his skin color, he gives a big speach on race because of what his radical church and Rev Wright said that many found divisive and offensive claiming he could no more disown him than his own Grandma, yet a week or so later he quit the church because the heat was on. Very early in his run for Democratic nominee he wrote in a questionaire and again addressed the same issue in the Cleveland Democratic debate when both times he asked if he would accept the 84 million we tax payers give when we check that little box on our tax returns to donate to the Presidential race. Twice he said he was all for it and poof he changes his mind so he can try to purchase the Presidency by spending perhaps 4 times that amount from donations than McCain can by keeping his word and limiting himself to $84 million. That is proof that he is just another Politician that says what everyone wants to hear then changes his views to meet his own needs....same old same old.
It appears the only thing different about Obama is his skin color and for far too many thats all that they vote on. It is going to be a hard road for the GOP to tow seeing how the media is firmly in his camp, this issue of Rolling Stone is the second time since March this idiot is going to be on the cover, MTV for the first time in its 27 year history is going to allow Political ads on its network and countless children who can vote are going to cast a vote for him with no real idea of what the hell they are doing, same with the Black community. The White House is for sale this year and Obama is going to be getting a ton of help to purchase it, god help us if he wins.

Seth has some key points above that many need to understand, if you think doing anything with NAFTA will bring jobs back, think again. If you think fuel is going to drop in price or that his idea of taxing Oil with a "Winfall" tax wont raise all our prices.....think again. If you think his tax happy party is going to stop at the rich and not raise everyones taxes........think again. If you think we will be safe and sound by pulling out of Iraq and Afganistan, think again. But hell lets just see how screwed up he can make things if he wins, after 4 or as many as 8 years of the lefts B.S. the GOP will be back in power, and thats IF they loose this election but it is going to be very hard to do for sure.

If I have not made my case there is no help for you as you are blind to reality but I figured I would atleast show you I actaully know what I am talking about......................cheers

 

[speakerman39]

Hey guys one thing I noticed in this thread is that nobody even mentioned the issue of negative campaigning. Whenever one candidate attacks another there is always a counter attack and so on. At times, it is like a tennis match. However, over time I must say it really is a turn-off. Kinda leaving a bad taste in my mouth for supporting any of the candidates. Why not just stick to the issues that really matter and find some common ground to solve them as opposed to just "talking" about the issues in which nothing never gets done or changes. In closing, politicians are so out of touch with what is really going on in this country or they just don't really give a sh*t. Is it really ever going to change-by the way things look it is doubtful imho.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[mazersteven]

I don't know about Obama or McCain. But did you see who is putting his name in the hat for President.

He has my vote.