Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   333,000 votes in four swing states would have given Romney the Presidency. Also, a set of external genitalia would have given him an uncle instead of an aunt   (breitbart.com) divider line 323
    More: Unlikely, Mitt Romney, presidents, swing states, President Obama, socialist country, aunts, uncles, international  
•       •       •

6286 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Nov 2012 at 8:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



323 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-12 08:32:00 AM  
And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.
 
2012-11-12 08:42:41 AM  
Like my grandmother used to tell me "If the dog hadn't stopped to lick his balls, he would have caught the rabbit."

/totally serious
 
2012-11-12 08:45:55 AM  
www.micafeina.com
 
2012-11-12 08:47:20 AM  
If Breitbart were alive today, he wouldn't be dead.
 
2012-11-12 08:48:29 AM  
Obama won with Electoral and Popular votes. Deal with it.
 
2012-11-12 08:49:40 AM  
The obvious response for republicans is to dial up the derp, that should get them the results they want.

Palin/Santorum 2016
 
2012-11-12 08:50:00 AM  
And if he'd not been born rich and spoiled, he'd just be some random Mormon dude.
 
2012-11-12 08:52:49 AM  
Look at the big ole mandate on that guy.
 
2012-11-12 08:53:24 AM  
How many votes would have given Obama a 400 EV landslide?
 
2012-11-12 08:53:43 AM  
If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.
 
2012-11-12 08:53:59 AM  

Krymson Tyde: The obvious response for republicans is to dial up the derp, that should get them the results they want.

Palin/Santorum 2016


Come on, Palin is so 2008 bro

/Bachmann/Santorum 2016
 
2012-11-12 08:54:05 AM  
Oh, look! More butthurt.
 
2012-11-12 08:54:51 AM  
If Alabama had just scored six more points, they'd still be undefeated.
 
2012-11-12 08:55:35 AM  
I wonder how many votes in the right places would have turned the house back to the Democrats?
 
2012-11-12 08:55:39 AM  
And let me guess.... these votes are hidden away somewhere, confiscated by Liberals working the polls, perhaps of the Black Panther variety?
 
2012-11-12 08:56:02 AM  

Penguin_named_Nori: Oh, look! More butthurt.


Exactly. farking Politics tab...

Oh, wait, this elections shiat is still on the Main tab? WTF, mods? Welcome to last week.

/Old News is so exciting jpg
 
2012-11-12 08:56:29 AM  
If Michele Bachmann were a man, she'd be gay married to Marcus.
 
2012-11-12 08:56:47 AM  
"But we derped so hard, how could we lose?"

Something tells me these guys are never going to leave last Tuesday night. They're trapped in time.
 
2012-11-12 08:56:54 AM  
How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?
 
2012-11-12 08:58:07 AM  

Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.


That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken
 
2012-11-12 08:58:29 AM  

swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.


Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.
 
2012-11-12 08:59:05 AM  
Obama's victory doesn't constitute a mandate for his far left agenda to "transform America" into some nightmarish amalgam combining the worst features of a European socialist state with an Indonesian oligarchy.


What is this I don't even
 
2012-11-12 08:59:10 AM  

MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?


It's not a democracy. It's a representative republic.
 
2012-11-12 08:59:17 AM  

swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.


Really is, 4-5 states should not decide an election. Candidates not even needing to campaign in the largest states as well is just silly. And it does stifle voter turnout. If you live in CA and are not a Democrat, Texas and not a Pub, you know your vote is thrown out, so why do it? Same here in VT, unless you are a Democrat, your vote is useless.

No reason to have the college, none.
 
2012-11-12 08:59:30 AM  
It's refreshing to see some in this country put their feelings aside to rally behind the President and face our future challenges together.
 
2012-11-12 08:59:33 AM  

MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?


Obama gets to be president every day from Midnight to 12:30pm. Romney takes over again until 11:57pm; Gary Johnson gets the 11:57pm to midnight shift.
 
2012-11-12 08:59:56 AM  
cdn.breitbart.com
Forever Alone
 
2012-11-12 09:00:03 AM  

Sybarite: Like my grandmother used to tell me "If the dog hadn't stopped to lick his balls, he would have caught the rabbit."

/totally serious


And she was right.

But what living thing with balls is going to pass up a good ball licking, even if a nice juicy rabbit is involved?
 
2012-11-12 09:00:23 AM  

GoodyearPimp: How many votes would have given Obama a 400 EV landslide?


300k (200k in AZ and 100k in NC) would have given him 356. Too lazy to find the shortest route to 400 though.
 
2012-11-12 09:00:26 AM  
A prolapsed uterus thread?

In my fark?
 
2012-11-12 09:00:30 AM  
Well, that's all I needed to hear to consider an armed revolt to be justified!

Otherwise, I'm failing to see the point. Perhaps we can talk about the narrow margin by which GW Bush won the popular vote?
 
2012-11-12 09:00:32 AM  
Despite losing the popular vote 51% to 48%--not a landslide for Obama by any means...

Yeah it's not like the '04 landslide where GWB got 50.73%.
 
2012-11-12 09:00:43 AM  

Sneakernets: "But we derped so hard, how could we lose?"

Something tells me these guys are never going to leave last Tuesday night. They're trapped in time.


Well they'd have to leave the shiny happy version of the 1950's first before they even think of getting to last Tuesday night.
 
2012-11-12 09:00:46 AM  
And if Rove had just gotten $390,000,001 from donors, Republicans would've won everything!
 
2012-11-12 09:00:53 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?

It's not a democracy. It's a representative republic.


Pretty sure he was making fun of Trump's Twitter feed there...
 
2012-11-12 09:01:06 AM  
Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!
 
2012-11-12 09:01:40 AM  
"Free Candy" is the only platform that can win from now on.
 
2012-11-12 09:01:40 AM  
Not protesting Obama or anything, but the Electoral College "winner take all" system is absolutely stupid.

Every election we hear the "your vote counts" garbage. That's not true. The message should be "your vote counts if you live in Ohio or Florida".

I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words,
All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do.
.
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.
 
2012-11-12 09:01:46 AM  
Maybe the Republicans didn't get off work yet.
 
2012-11-12 09:01:52 AM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.

That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken


House Dems received significantly more votes than GOP Reps. That identifies a significant problem with how the districts are drawn.
 
2012-11-12 09:02:18 AM  

PunGent: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?

It's not a democracy. It's a representative republic.

Pretty sure he was making fun of Trump's Twitter feed there...


Oh, sorry, I don't bother following Trump's twitter feed. Not sure why anyone would.
 
2012-11-12 09:02:24 AM  
So is this going to be the narrative for the next four years then? "Dammit white people, vote harder"?
 
2012-11-12 09:02:37 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

You keep saying that, but he lost, Zombie Breitbart. He lost.
 
2012-11-12 09:02:51 AM  
Well, they sure weren't biatching in 2000 when Gore won the popular by 540k and lost the EC by 5. shiat happens, this was a landslide by comparison. DEAL!
 
2012-11-12 09:02:59 AM  

MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?


They should each take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the weak.

But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.

//Help, help; I'm being repressed!
 
2012-11-12 09:03:01 AM  
i47.tinypic.com

332,999 votes....
 
2012-11-12 09:03:07 AM  
Obama got the votes he needed. Maybe he could have found another 300,000 between the couch cushions.
 
2012-11-12 09:03:47 AM  

MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?


First, as someone else pointed out, it's a Democratic Republic.

Second, More than half the people who voted wanted Obama as president. He won the electoral college votes and the Popular vote. Therefore, Obama is president again.

This is how Democratic Republics work.
 
2012-11-12 09:03:54 AM  

Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!


Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.
 
2012-11-12 09:04:35 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?

It's not a democracy. It's a representative republic.


Thank God for that. A pure democracy would be bad, what with all the retards.
 
2012-11-12 09:05:10 AM  

ramblinwreck: Le Grand Inquisitor: Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.

That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken

House Dems received significantly more votes than GOP Reps. That identifies a significant problem with how the districts are drawn.


All it really indicates is that democratic districts are urban and republican districts are rural. It's much harder to organize rural districts, due to the lower population density.
 
2012-11-12 09:05:19 AM  

sdd2000: I wonder how many votes in the right places would have turned the house back to the Democrats?


They did get more aggregate votes for House seats than the Republicans. So, maybe not too many (I haven't looked at the totals).

It's interesting that Romney actually got less overall votes than McCain in 2008, universally considered to have been a very bad year for Republicans. The race was only closer this time around because Obama received several million less votes than he did four years ago. Not a surprise, really; he didn't exactly have the same level of hype going into this race, and the conventional wisdom is that 2012 wasn't supposed to be a great year for Democrats.

Republicans should be really worried, though. If, in an election where they had record enthusiasm levels, they couldn't even get as many votes as the election when they had middling enthusiasm, that's a sure sign of shrinking demographics. Doesn't bode well for the future (well, unless you're a Democrat, I guess.)
 
2012-11-12 09:05:41 AM  
And if the Mets had won one more game in 2007, they would have made the playoffs that year.

/yes, I'm still bitter about that, how could you tell?
 
2012-11-12 09:05:49 AM  

Thunderpipes: swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Really is, 4-5 states should not decide an election. Candidates not even needing to campaign in the largest states as well is just silly. And it does stifle voter turnout. If you live in CA and are not a Democrat, Texas and not a Pub, you know your vote is thrown out, so why do it? Same here in VT, unless you are a Democrat, your vote is useless.

No reason to have the college, none.


I agree with the thrust here, but 2 points of order

1. You do it because there are other people running for other offices.
and
2. There *was* a reason for the electoral college. Technology has since removed that reason.
 
2012-11-12 09:06:24 AM  
and if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hops. what's your point?
 
2012-11-12 09:06:45 AM  

Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.


Someone get this guy some butt salve... The country is going to be just fine, Chicken Little.
 
2012-11-12 09:07:39 AM  
If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.
 
2012-11-12 09:07:45 AM  
Yea, and if Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened.
 
2012-11-12 09:08:17 AM  

Thunderpipes: Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.


And this, I completely disagree with. Couldn't get the bites without going completely off the reservation huh?

White people vote harder, indeed.
 
2012-11-12 09:08:18 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?

It's not a democracy. It's a representative republic.


You are fooling yourself
 
2012-11-12 09:08:33 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: [cdn.breitbart.com image 475x356]
Forever Alone


Don't you think he looks tired?

/Will be commentator on Bain wil buy Fox News.
 
2012-11-12 09:08:34 AM  

Thunderpipes: Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy.


cdn.crushable.com

Nos encantan los coches de payaso
 
2012-11-12 09:08:43 AM  

Honest Bender: [i47.tinypic.com image 763x427]

332,999 votes....


He might have won the election after all!
 
2012-11-12 09:09:04 AM  
Technically, women have external genitalia. They just don't protrude to nearly the same extent.

/Got nothing.
 
2012-11-12 09:09:39 AM  

Thunderpipes: Obama's nut droppings.


Again with the male-genitalia obsession.

/NTTAWWT
 
2012-11-12 09:09:45 AM  

swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.


I almost wish he'd won the popular vote yet lost in the electoral college. That way, BOTH parties would have a recent memory of being burned by it, and maybe there would be a push to change it.

Does anyone actually have a convincing argument in favor of the electoral college? I don't believe I've ever heard one good reason for it.
 
2012-11-12 09:10:00 AM  
333,000 votes in four swing states would have given Romney the Presidency

Get over it, one side lost, one side won. You happen to be on the losing side. It happens.
 
2012-11-12 09:10:19 AM  

brobdiggy:

I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.


If it did pass they would gerrymander the shiat out of it.

Obama won PA, VA and OH statewide elections, but the democrats won less than a third of the house seats.
 
2012-11-12 09:10:49 AM  

Sgt Otter: If Alabama had just scored six more points, they'd still be undefeated.


Why must you pour salt in the wound?

Why?
 
2012-11-12 09:11:13 AM  
It was a very close election with the winner receiving 51% of the vote. Obama is president and we should stand behind him and our congress in the 4 years to come. They can't be any worse than Bush years. Things are looking more progressive as we gradually adopt legalized marijuana and equal rights for gays. Commentary on a close election is a valid observation and completely expected, not butthurt. Not all liberals are evil, and not all republicans are evil. Carry on with the derp and hate.
 
2012-11-12 09:11:28 AM  

Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.


This is one of the best trolls in the main tab. No one could really believe this, right? Guys?
 
2012-11-12 09:11:38 AM  
I'm surprised the Romney and McCain campaigns didn't send a bunch of volunteers to swing state nursing homes and register a whole bunch of elderly conservatives in key counties. It probably would have made some kind of difference, and they could have chalked it up to being compassionate to the elderly.
 
2012-11-12 09:11:39 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Obama won with Electoral and Popular votes. Deal with it.


not only that, he won by over 100 electoral votes in what conservative commentators called a "landslide" when they were incorrectly predicting the same margins for romney.

so, to recap: obama was elected and then reelected in two consecutive landslide elections in which he received more than 50 percent of the popular vote, joining only FDR, eisenhower and reagan as the only presidents to have achieved that feat in the past 100 years.

deal with it.
 
2012-11-12 09:11:44 AM  

brobdiggy: Not protesting Obama or anything, but the Electoral College "winner take all" system is absolutely stupid.

Every election we hear the "your vote counts" garbage. That's not true. The message should be "your vote counts if you live in Ohio or Florida".

I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.


If that were the case in this past election, BO would have lost due to gerrymandering. Republicans that run states that go blue every cycle are trying their damnedest to get that done before 2016 (see OH's Sec of State John Husted's comments). 51% popular vote should not give 6 of 18 EC votes in OH. Basically, what that system does in states with large population centers is make their vote worth less. Not to mention that those folks probably waited 6-8 hours to vote while those in red counties had no lines.
 
2012-11-12 09:13:28 AM  
Indonesian oligarchy.

img714.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-12 09:13:46 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: And let me guess.... these votes are hidden away somewhere, confiscated by Liberals working the polls, perhaps of the Black Panther variety?


Maybe subby will submit The Duffel Blog again, convinced its real and not satire.
 
2012-11-12 09:14:06 AM  

born_yesterday: Perhaps we can talk about the narrow margin by which GW Bush won the popular vote?


Or his first election where he actually lost the popular vote but still won the electoral college. And that wasn't even the first time in history that happened, either.
 
2012-11-12 09:14:16 AM  
LOLOLOL.

I remember when the GOP took Wisconsin and Ohio. With margins of far less than 150K each we were told that they had a "mandate" to bust Unions and sell off state, and taxpayer, assets to their Koch buddies. And that was with a 28% turnout.

Guess what, Butthurtpublicans? The Dems, and B-Rock, the Islamic shock Super-Allah Obama actually have a mandate now. A pretty substantial one.

I hope to Tyr he uses it. I hope he shoves it down their throats. And I am going to make fun of crying little whimps like the local shills. They can't handle reality. It's funny.
 
2012-11-12 09:14:17 AM  

Cybernetic: Technically, women have external genitalia. They just don't protrude to nearly the same extent.

/Got nothing.


Eunuch?
 
2012-11-12 09:14:46 AM  

Sneakernets: "But we derped so hard, how could we lose?"

Something tells me these guys are never going to leave last Tuesday night. They're trapped in time.


manilovefilms.com

Knows a lil' somethin' about being trapped in time
/and low on gas
//and surrounded by evil
///Ash is a republican??
 
2012-11-12 09:15:04 AM  

nekom: Does anyone actually have a convincing argument in favor of the electoral college? I don't believe I've ever heard one good reason for it.


The only good thing I thought of during this election is that it only encourages vote suppression shenanigans in a handful of states, so its easier to keep an eye on all the nonsense.
 
2012-11-12 09:15:41 AM  

brobdiggy: All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do.


The Nebraska GOP gerrymandered the sh*t out of Omaha specifically to prevent Obama from winning the second district and their electoral vote like he did in 2008. That system favors geography over population.

There's simply no way such a system would not be grossly abused, especially with most state legislatures being run by the GOP -- and such a system would be scrapped once a candidate wins the national popular vote by well over ten million but loses the electoral college by several dozen or a hundred (especially if that popular candidate would have won under the current system where only Maine and Nebraska split their votes)
 
2012-11-12 09:16:11 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-12 09:16:20 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: brobdiggy:

I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.

If it did pass they would gerrymander the shiat out of it.


What do you mean 'would' gerrymander the shiat out of it?
 
2012-11-12 09:17:58 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.


The Electoral College instead gives us the United States of Ohio and Florida. NY and CA are
 
2012-11-12 09:18:35 AM  
If frogs had wings, they'd be getting pigeon pussy.
 
2012-11-12 09:18:48 AM  
Balls!!, said the Queen
If i had 'em I'd be King!

the King left because he had two
and the Queen left because she wanted two.
 
2012-11-12 09:19:10 AM  

nekom: swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

I almost wish he'd won the popular vote yet lost in the electoral college. That way, BOTH parties would have a recent memory of being burned by it, and maybe there would be a push to change it.

Does anyone actually have a convincing argument in favor of the electoral college? I don't believe I've ever heard one good reason for it.


Sam Wang makes a good one: Under the current system, when there is a recount, it's limited to one state. Imagine the chaos involved in a 50-state recount after a close election.

I also sympathize with the argument that, under a pure popular-vote system, populous states like New York, California, and Texas would have disproportionate influence. To be fair, if most of the population lives in a few states, those states probably should be disproportionally influential, but smaller states shouldn't be de-facto shut out of the process, either.

What about reducing the number of electors in each state by one, to bring the proportions somewhat more in line with population distribution, but also continuing to recognize that all of the states do matter?
 
2012-11-12 09:19:12 AM  

trotsky: I hope to Tyr he uses it. I hope he shoves it down their throats. And I am going to make fun of crying little whimps like the local shills. They can't handle reality. It's funny.


You do realize, given his track record, he's not going to do that. I know, it's a real bummer but it's true. He'll back down in the interest of compromise.

Or I'm totally wrong, he'll step on their balls and ensure a Democratic sweep in the mid terms and we'll all have socialism. Dare to dream.
 
2012-11-12 09:19:28 AM  
If I'd have gotten some of that sweet, sweet election money I wouldn't be posting here with you farkers. I'd have hookers and blow and a Trans Am.

/and two girls at once.
 
2012-11-12 09:19:38 AM  

trotsky: I remember when the GOP took Wisconsin


Pretty sure Walker is still in office, bub.
 
2012-11-12 09:19:43 AM  
50,000 votes in one state would have given Kerry the election in 2004, what's the point?
 
2012-11-12 09:19:57 AM  
Obama won by ~3.3 Million popular votes.


Handle it, Repugs!!
 
2012-11-12 09:20:21 AM  

Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.


That right there is the message the GOP should be screaming from the highest mountaintop.

It can't lose.
 
2012-11-12 09:20:50 AM  
If Romney had been born a Mexican , his life would have been a lot easier.
 
2012-11-12 09:21:06 AM  

This text is now purple: ramblinwreck: Le Grand Inquisitor: Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.

That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken

House Dems received significantly more votes than GOP Reps. That identifies a significant problem with how the districts are drawn.

All it really indicates is that democratic districts are urban and republican districts are rural. It's much harder to organize rural districts, due to the lower population density.


Why would they be harder to organize? How many times does somebody see their representative in person?
A congressman in an urban district has pretty much the same number of constituents to robocall as a congressman in an urban district.
If anything, the urban congressman would have it harder, since advertising space and time in NYC is exponentially more expensive than it is in Bumfark, Flyover.
 
2012-11-12 09:21:12 AM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken


Actually, more people voted to for Democratic representatives than voted for Republican ones. If you think it means something that the popular vote for president was close, then surely it means something that the "popular vote" for the House was beyond close, actually favoring the Democrats. If you say, no, it only matters what the majority was in each district, then the electoral vote is all that matters when discussing the presidential election.
 
2012-11-12 09:21:22 AM  

Penguin_named_Nori: Oh, look! More butthurt.



Maximum butthurt is predicted within the next 10 days.

and then a gradual reduction in butthurt is forcast for the remainder of the year.
 
2012-11-12 09:21:40 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And if he'd not been born rich and spoiled, he'd just be some random Mormon dude.


Whose dad was Michigan's governor for rather a while.
 
2012-11-12 09:21:57 AM  
You know, you plan and you hope and you dream, and every once in a while the planets line up just right and and the BUTTHURT is more Epic than you could possibly imagine!

I...I'm so HAPPY....
 
2012-11-12 09:22:40 AM  
Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney's 206, remove them from Obama's 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.

Now that's a landslide!
 
2012-11-12 09:23:25 AM  
666 x 500 = 330,000

They just needed more devil worshipers to vote.
 
2012-11-12 09:23:42 AM  

nekom: You do realize, given his track record, he's not going to do that.


That's the other thing. The far right may despise Obama, but moderates see what he's done over the last four years.
 
2012-11-12 09:24:39 AM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-12 09:25:16 AM  

swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.


2000 - they loved the system
2012 - not so much

The electoral vote count WAS a landslide, much bigger margins than Bush enjoyed in two elections, but well short of the St Reagan mark.
 
2012-11-12 09:25:25 AM  

Sybarite: Like my grandmother used to tell me "If the dog hadn't stopped to lick his balls, he would have caught the rabbit."

/totally serious


Not applicable to this particular saying, but one of my dad's favorite saying is "Passed around more than the ugly chick at the orgy."

Some other good ones, too. Dad is a visionary.
 
2012-11-12 09:25:38 AM  
Not sure if this is true but if Romney had +300K votes in certain areas they would also would have had to kept it a secret otherwise the Obama ground would have been all over it and they would have lost anyways.
 
2012-11-12 09:26:34 AM  

Linux_Yes: Obama won by ~3.3 Million popular votes.


Not only that, but Romney (as of the current count) received fewer total votes than even John McCain and John Kerry.
 
2012-11-12 09:26:37 AM  
The obvious solution is for white people to have lots and lots ofsex to produce generations of little Republican voters.

/I'm available, ladies.
 
2012-11-12 09:26:47 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Yea, and if Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened.


I'm so delighted someone else remembers that!
 
2012-11-12 09:27:08 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Obama won with Electoral and Popular votes. Deal with it.


I wasn't as bitter after Obama won the popular vote. I really hate the electoral college. It's outdated by 50 years.

And despite what most would have you think, most of us move on with our lives...I was disappointed, but rarely does does a presidential election affect me personally enough to warrant caring past 2 days.

A governor's race, on the other hand...ugh.
 
2012-11-12 09:27:20 AM  

Linux_Yes: Obama won by ~3.3 Million popular votes.


Handle it, Repugs!!


According to Donald Trump, Obama lost the popular vote.

This is what Republicans actually believe.

/and why they will continue to lose.
 
2012-11-12 09:27:22 AM  

Skw33tis: I also sympathize with the argument that, under a pure popular-vote system, populous states like New York, California, and Texas would have disproportionate influence. To be fair, if most of the population lives in a few states, those states probably should be disproportionally influential, but smaller states shouldn't be de-facto shut out of the process, either.


Yeah, I can certainly understand a small state's desire to appear relevant, but as you said it's also easy to argue that a state with a higher population rightfully SHOULD have more clout.

I always figured perhaps it once made sense in logistics in the days when ballots were carried on horseback or whatever.
 
2012-11-12 09:27:40 AM  

brobdiggy: Not protesting Obama or anything, but the Electoral College "winner take all" system is absolutely stupid.

Every election we hear the "your vote counts" garbage. That's not true. The message should be "your vote counts if you live in Ohio or Florida".

I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.

Congrats on hitting upon the worst idea yet! The reason this won't work is because whoever is in control of each state government at the time of the census gets to set the districts, and as you can see in nearly every state from Georgia to Ohio to PA and Illinois, the districts get gerrymandered like crazy. This means that some jerkoffs can make a power grab in a census year and then set the election results for the next decade.

So hey, terrible idea! National Popular Vote is the only reasonable way to go.
 
2012-11-12 09:27:52 AM  

Dear GOP

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-11-12 09:27:57 AM  
Can we just go back to the old system of strange women lying in ponds, distrubuting swords?
 
2012-11-12 09:28:09 AM  

Molavian: trotsky: I remember when the GOP took Wisconsin

Pretty sure Walker is still in office, bub.


Yeah, thanks for the reminder. Um, sure.
 
2012-11-12 09:28:09 AM  

Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.


So basically you're saying you agree with everything I just wrote.
 
2012-11-12 09:29:25 AM  
'Is that some kind of Math You Do As A Republican To Make Yourself Feel Better?'
 
2012-11-12 09:29:37 AM  
www.startrek.com

Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
 
2012-11-12 09:29:43 AM  
i47.tinypic.com
So Breitbart now gets their news from South Park?

Maybe they don't recognize that it's a parody ?

 
2012-11-12 09:29:53 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Can we just go back to the old system of strange women lying in ponds, distrubuting swords?


That's no basis for a system of government!
 
2012-11-12 09:30:22 AM  
southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com
 
2012-11-12 09:30:49 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?

It's not a democracy. It's a representative republic.


The USA is a democracy, and it is a representative Republic. It is also a Liberal Democracy, a Representitve Democracy and a Democratic Republic. All are terms that can be used, correctly, about the United States.

It is not a Direct (sometimes called "pure") Democracy, however.

That doesn't stop your point about how pure vote tally isn't how the system works, but I just hate it when people use that phrase, because it shows they don't know or care what words means.
 
2012-11-12 09:30:55 AM  
The republican nutcases are as prolific here as they are in the article....the election is OVER ,deal with it
 
2012-11-12 09:30:58 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Does Brietbart really believe the election was close?

Or is this something they say to make morans feel better?

 
2012-11-12 09:31:09 AM  

Krymson Tyde: The obvious response for republicans is to dial up the derp, that should get them the results they want.


Way back in the 1980's I had a 'very republican' teacher. He told us to never apologize, never say you are sorry, never admit a mistake. I've never really understood the position, but now I'm thinking he read a book by Rove or whoever Rove is modeling himself and the Republican party. No matter how far astray they go their solution will be to double down and insist they were right.

Predict a landslide for Romney against all evidence, there is one option that is off the table: to admit you are wrong. This also eliminates the analysis of where you went wrong and how to correct. Instead they end up doubling down to the point of absurdity. Case in point Rodgers.

A lot of pundits mentioning that this was a wake up call for the Republican party and they will change for the next election. They will be quite surprised that the change if any will be to shift farther to the derp side. The scary thing is there are 47% who will stand by their party (on both sides) as long as the party platform still leans towards one or two positions that are important to them. The party that will win 2016 is the one that will find something for that other 6% to gain their interest. This 6% are the people who watch 'reality' shows, yet are too busy to follow politics, so it really just boils down to a popularity contest for them.
 
2012-11-12 09:32:19 AM  
It would be deliciously ironic if the same voter suppression tactics used by the republicans where the cause of Romney's 333,000 vote shortfall.
 
2012-11-12 09:32:49 AM  
gobama
 
2012-11-12 09:33:05 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Can we just go back to the old system of strange women lying in ponds, distrubuting swords?


NO!


Supreme executive power comes from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!

/if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
 
2012-11-12 09:33:14 AM  
"A quarter of an inch this way and it would have gone in. A quarter of an inch, Charlie."

"Yeah, but a quarter inch the other way and you'd have missed completely."
 
2012-11-12 09:34:50 AM  
Obama lost North Carolina by a smaller margin than he won in Ohio and Virginia. So THERE!
 
2012-11-12 09:34:58 AM  

brobdiggy: Not protesting Obama or anything, but the Electoral College "winner take all" system is absolutely stupid.

Every election we hear the "your vote counts" garbage. That's not true. The message should be "your vote counts if you live in Ohio or Florida".



At least get your facts straight. President Obama won re-election by Colorado. It doesn't matter that Ohio was decided earlier in the night. The way the electoral vote turned out Florida and Ohio did not matter. Romney could have lost both and President Obama would have been re-elected. Those two "battleground" states with Virginia padded the Democratic victory margin. They did not decide the election.

The battleground states whose electoral vote decided the election (including winning margin) are:
Wisconsin (Obama +7%)
Nevada (Obama +7%)
New Hampshire (Obama +6%)
Iowa (Obama +6%)
Colorado (Obama +5%)
 
2012-11-12 09:35:54 AM  

Diogenes: ArcadianRefugee: Yea, and if Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened.

I'm so delighted someone else remembers that!


Ah, Shuddup!
 
2012-11-12 09:36:07 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: If Breitbart were alive today, he wouldn't be dead.


*golf clap*
 
2012-11-12 09:36:26 AM  
FTA: Obama's victory doesn't constitute a mandate for his far left agenda to "transform America" into some nightmarish amalgam combining the worst features of a European socialist state with an Indonesian oligarchy.

Um.. how many votes required for this? 55% of electorate? 60%? I don't even remember this from the platform.
 
2012-11-12 09:38:33 AM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.

That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken


Bigger popular vote margin than 2004 (3.01 mil vs. 3.31 mil)
Bigger popular vote percent margin than 2004 (2.47% vs. 2.69%)
MUCH bigger electoral college margin than 2004 (34 vs. 126)
Significantly bigger effective margin than 2004 (in 2004, a universal 2.12% spread would've given Kerry the win; in 2012, it would take a universal 4.7% spread)
Significantly bigger "swing" margin than 2004 (120,000 votes in Ohio vs. the headline's 330,000 votes in 4 states).

George W. Bush and the beltway media claimed a mandate out the goddamn wazoo. I believe this is referred to as "Chickens is coming home to roost, so stop farking them."
 
2012-11-12 09:40:35 AM  

lordluzr: FTA: Obama's victory doesn't constitute a mandate for his far left agenda to "transform America" into some nightmarish amalgam combining the worst features of a European socialist state with an Indonesian oligarchy.

Um.. how many votes required for this? 55% of electorate? 60%? I don't even remember this from the platform.


Because reform of the health insurance industry is the worst thing this country has ever faced, apparently.

Especially when that reform is largely the Republican plan proposed as an alternative to HilaryCare.

/The horror...the horror
 
2012-11-12 09:41:21 AM  
If Bapp hadn't designed that poorly fitting dressage horse costume he might not have been turned into a slurry.
 
2012-11-12 09:41:23 AM  
If you just replace "lost" with "won", then Romney would have "won" the election.
 
2012-11-12 09:41:41 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.>

You are right, now its Ohio, Florida, and Colorado that control the system. Im not totally against the EV, but it is far from a perfect system. Oklahoma hasn't seen a Democrat nominee since like 1993, yet the swing states see them both Republican and Democrat nominees constantly. The swing states are constantly being promised things for their votes. Its the same problem as with a popular vote system, its just shifted which states are important.

The national parties are unintentionally polarizing the nation even worse by ignoring the non swing states. Howard Dean was a crazy mofo, but he had the right idea in that you need to continue to work in states even if they are heavily against you, otherwise they just become much more against you because they feel like they are being slighted by the party.

 
2012-11-12 09:41:50 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: And let me guess.... these votes are hidden away somewhere, confiscated by Liberals working the polls, perhaps of the Black Panther variety?


No, "liberals" did not hide conservative ballots. They submitted extra liberal ballots, as is evident by one Florida county reporting 140.92% turnout. That the "turnout" percentage is based upon the number of ballot cards cast in an election with two cards per ballot compared with the number of registered voters (thus all registered voters submitting an entire completed ballot would produce a 200% turnout) is immaterial.

Additionally, liberal voter fraud is evident by the election results failing to meet "unskewed" polling expectations, anecdotal and gut feelings.
 
2012-11-12 09:41:58 AM  

nekom: Skw33tis: I also sympathize with the argument that, under a pure popular-vote system, populous states like New York, California, and Texas would have disproportionate influence. To be fair, if most of the population lives in a few states, those states probably should be disproportionally influential, but smaller states shouldn't be de-facto shut out of the process, either.

Yeah, I can certainly understand a small state's desire to appear relevant, but as you said it's also easy to argue that a state with a higher population rightfully SHOULD have more clout.

I always figured perhaps it once made sense in logistics in the days when ballots were carried on horseback or whatever.


Um, so "disproportionally" means everyone's vote means the same and "proportionally" means the vote of the guy in the littlest state (population) has a lot more influence?
 
2012-11-12 09:42:18 AM  

RminusQ: Le Grand Inquisitor: Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.

That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken

Bigger popular vote margin than 2004 (3.01 mil vs. 3.31 mil)
Bigger popular vote percent margin than 2004 (2.47% vs. 2.69%)
MUCH bigger electoral college margin than 2004 (34 vs. 126)
Significantly bigger effective margin than 2004 (in 2004, a universal 2.12% spread would've given Kerry the win; in 2012, it would take a universal 4.7% spread)
Significantly bigger "swing" margin than 2004 (120,000 votes in Ohio vs. the headline's 330,000 votes in 4 states).

George W. Bush and the beltway media claimed a mandate out the goddamn wazoo. I believe this is referred to as "Chickens is coming home to roost, so stop farking them."


What you call a mandate is up to you. It's just like landslide, it's an arbitrary term. Obama CLEARLY won rather handily, make of that what you will. The latter point, though, is sadly true. Without the house, we could be in for 2 years of gridlock. Whether or not that translates to big wins for Democrats in the mid term, well that is something to keep an eye on for sure.
 
2012-11-12 09:42:49 AM  

CPennypacker: Maybe the Republicans didn't get off work yet.


haha...2 people I know that posted that one on Facebook have, sadly, taken it down.
 
2012-11-12 09:42:52 AM  
332 to 206. That's how close the election was.

Words like "blowout" or "landslide" or "squeaker" or even "mandate" are all subjective terms, fraught with ambiguity. They generate their own spin, depending on how they're used. But whatever.

332 to 206. That's what happened. Period.
 
2012-11-12 09:44:04 AM  
Came here for the Python references and the butt-hurt schadenfreude. Leaving happy.
 
2012-11-12 09:44:44 AM  
This weekend, in a video game, someone was touting this shiat, as well as how our country is doomed and has only been sinking for the last 4 years. After I proved that the economy is growing, unemployment is shrinking, consumer confidence is rising and Obama won by not only the Electoral, but the Popular vote, and that these 330,000 votes wouldn't have made a difference, even if split up between the states Romney was supposedly earmarked to win, they put me on ignore and everyone else in the general channel ridiculed them.

It goes back to my belief that the only way to get through the butthurt is through ridicule, because these people are being ridiculous and 'facts and logic' are quite literally considered 'tools of the liberals' and shouldn't be trusted. It's amazing the mental and emotional hoops they'll jump through in order to keep up the victim complex as well as considering the election still to be contested.

It's like a Macro version of Allen West, all across the country.
 
2012-11-12 09:45:44 AM  
Republicans weren't complaining about the electoral college in 2000.
 
2012-11-12 09:45:51 AM  

Manute Bol: CPennypacker: Maybe the Republicans didn't get off work yet.

haha...2 people I know that posted that one on Facebook have, sadly, taken it down.


I had a couple facebook friends post it. Probably the two brokest friends I have. I was amused.
 
2012-11-12 09:45:55 AM  

Krymson Tyde: Palin/Santorum 2016


Santorum/Palin. We can't have a woman being anything other than submissive to a man.

// Which is why Coulter/Bachman would work...
 
2012-11-12 09:46:34 AM  

Dr. Whoof: Linux_Yes: Obama won by ~3.3 Million popular votes.


Handle it, Repugs!!

According to Donald Trump, Obama lost the popular vote.

This is what Republicans actually believe.

/and why they will continue to lose.



well, someone has to lose. may as well be republicans. snicker.
 
2012-11-12 09:46:52 AM  

Karac: All it really indicates is that democratic districts are urban and republican districts are rural. It's much harder to organize rural districts, due to the lower population density.

Why would they be harder to organize? How many times does somebody see their representative in person?
A congressman in an urban district has pretty much the same number of constituents to robocall as a congressman in an urban district.
If anything, the urban congressman would have it harder, since advertising space and time in NYC is exponentially more expensive than it is in Bumfark, Flyover.


Organize = get people to ballot boxes

The Internet is great, but it doesn't solve the realspace problem where distance still matters.
 
2012-11-12 09:47:08 AM  

What about reducing the number of electors in each state by one, to bring the proportions somewhat more in line with population distribution, but also continuing to recognize that all of the states do matter?


That would lower the influence of small states. Mississippi would have 5 EV instead of 6, so 5/488==> 1.0245% of the total college votes versus its current strength 6/538==> 1.1152%. New York on the other hand would go from 29 to 28, with initial vote percentage 5.39% to a new percentage of 5.735%. Any state with more than 10 EV would gain influence, while any state with less would lose.

if you added an elector to each state, however, the opposite would happen.
 
2012-11-12 09:48:40 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.


It's also mathematically possibly to become president by only winning 21% of the popular vote by only concentrating on the smallest states. Tell me that's a fair system and I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you.
 
2012-11-12 09:48:44 AM  

kronicfeld: Linux_Yes: Obama won by ~3.3 Million popular votes.

Not only that, but Romney (as of the current count) received fewer total votes than even John McCain and John Kerry.



time to pop open another bottle of Republican Tears bubbly.
 
2012-11-12 09:48:59 AM  
If it weren't for the dancing horse, I wouldn't have spent the year in Electoral College.
 
2012-11-12 09:49:07 AM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.

That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken


The composition of the house is determined primarily by gerrymandering (by both sides). It says nothing about mandates.
 
2012-11-12 09:49:25 AM  

Moosecakes: So hey, terrible idea! National Popular Vote is the only reasonable way to go.


And via some imaginary mechanism, you'll convince the 31 states whose votes you need to disenfranchise themselves.
 
2012-11-12 09:49:40 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: 332 to 206. That's how close the election was.

Words like "blowout" or "landslide" or "squeaker" or even "mandate" are all subjective terms, fraught with ambiguity. They generate their own spin, depending on how they're used. But whatever.

332 to 206. That's what happened. Period.


I have another pair of numbers: 17% and 50.3%.

The former is the Congressional Approval and latter is Obama's.
 
2012-11-12 09:50:40 AM  

Martycrane: It's also mathematically possibly to become president by only winning 21% of the popular vote by only concentrating on the smallest states. Tell me that's a fair system and I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you.


It's the same problem the gay rights lobby has, really. As it would take a constitutional amendment, and what 2/3 or 3/4? of the states to ratify it. Good luck getting Wyoming, Nebraska, etc. to go along with that. Even if (hypothetically, I don't know what the case is) the popular vote WOULD support such a measure nationwide.
 
2012-11-12 09:51:24 AM  

brobdiggy: Not protesting Obama or anything, but the Electoral College "winner take all" system is absolutely stupid.

Every election we hear the "your vote counts" garbage. That's not true. The message should be "your vote counts if you live in Ohio or Florida".

I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.


Then CHANGE THE MINDSET OF YOUR STATE. Get involved if it bothers you so much. Moving to a district level in no way solves the problem you describe...since then people would just b*tch about their district being too red/blue. Plus, you're proposal makes the Presidential election system completely at risk to gerrymandering.

Fail. Hard.

I'd be fine going to a pure popular vote system, but we would need federally standardized voting equipment and practices and take state-level sh*t out of Presidential election day. Good luck with that.
 
2012-11-12 09:51:55 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.


Hasn't this been beaten to death already? Those two states only made up 13% of total voters, nowhere near a majority as you make it sound. As it stands now a vote in Wyoming is currently worth 3.6 votes in either California or New York, how is that at all fair? All the Electoral College does is suppress voters in states that heavily lean one way or another. You act like making candidates focus on well populated states is at all different then the current system of focusing on a few swing states.

Seriously, give one good reason for the current system or how popular vote would be a "disaster".
 
2012-11-12 09:52:02 AM  
So that's how it is in their family.
 
2012-11-12 09:53:54 AM  
I read an article somewhere that quoted one of Romney's campaign staff as basically saying " We came really close. We just needed to get our message out stronger to certain areas, bought more airtime, convinced more voters, do a better job of "getting" the Latino vote, blah blah blah."
It's as if they look at it as some kind of game that can be cracked. Buy more airtime and fill it with negative ads and you can swing the vote your way. Have more town hall meetings so the people can get to know the "real" you. It had nothing to do with more people seeing through Romney's bs. It had nothing to do with running on zero message other than "The other guy sucks and I can do better, just trust me. I'm a millionaire."
If only they suppressed more voter turnout they could have won the game.
"We'll try harder next time."
 
2012-11-12 09:53:58 AM  

Martycrane: It's also mathematically possibly to become president by only winning 21% of the popular vote by only concentrating on the smallest states. Tell me that's a fair system and I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you.


It's about as fair as only having to visit three cities and win CA, NY, and TX, to win a popular election.
 
2012-11-12 09:54:08 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Plus, you're your proposal makes the Presidential election system completely at risk to gerrymandering.


FTFM.

Anyway, a district-level system would make things WORSE, not better.
 
2012-11-12 09:54:40 AM  
You know what twice 333,000 is? 666,000!!1!eleventyone!

Does that mean RMoney is half the anti-christ?
 
2012-11-12 09:55:27 AM  

SwiftFox: nekom: Skw33tis: I also sympathize with the argument that, under a pure popular-vote system, populous states like New York, California, and Texas would have disproportionate influence. To be fair, if most of the population lives in a few states, those states probably should be disproportionally influential, but smaller states shouldn't be de-facto shut out of the process, either.

Yeah, I can certainly understand a small state's desire to appear relevant, but as you said it's also easy to argue that a state with a higher population rightfully SHOULD have more clout.

I always figured perhaps it once made sense in logistics in the days when ballots were carried on horseback or whatever.

Um, so "disproportionally" means everyone's vote means the same and "proportionally" means the vote of the guy in the littlest state (population) has a lot more influence?


I used the term "disproportionally" to refer to the influence of populous states over sparsely populated states under a pure popular-vote system. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the issue.

The electoral college was designed as a way for states, not individuals, to select a president. Of course, this was designed this way because, in the 18th century, a president was little more than a foreign-policy interface between the states and the rest of the world. Now that the scope of the office is so much larger, I think there is an argument for updating the system. However, given that I'm somewhat temperamentally (though not really politically, anymore) conservative, I tend to favor updating with smaller, incremental changes.
 
2012-11-12 09:55:42 AM  
A change in just six of the numbers to the winning ones on my Megamillions quick pick and I would now be a millionaire.
 
2012-11-12 09:56:45 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.


Your argument would make more sense if electoral votes weren't handed out based on state population. As it ALREADY STANDS, the system is setup to roughly approximate a popular vote solution.

We all share this country...sorry. I don't think you know what "disenfranchise" means.
 
2012-11-12 09:56:55 AM  
Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.
 
2012-11-12 09:57:53 AM  

This text is now purple: Moosecakes: So hey, terrible idea! National Popular Vote is the only reasonable way to go.

And via some imaginary mechanism, you'll convince the 31 states whose votes you need to disenfranchise themselves.


The 16th and 17th amendments took away pretty much all of the power of the states over the federal government, but hey still passed those. All it takes is enough bribery and you can get anything done.
 
2012-11-12 09:58:30 AM  

sweetmelissa31: If Bapp hadn't designed that poorly fitting dressage horse costume he might not have been turned into a slurry.


If only Mitt hadn't bought that Stericycle stock, Bapp might just have been sent off to live with a more... ice-cream oriented family.
 
2012-11-12 09:58:58 AM  

Saners: As it stands now a vote in Wyoming is currently worth 3.6 votes in either California or New York, how is that at all fair?


Because that was part of their contract with the Federal Government when they became a state?

It's amusing that given their relative positions in 1791, Georgia and South Carolina each voted the wrong way on the Electoral College.
 
2012-11-12 09:59:06 AM  
We don't have slaves anymore. We don't need the electoral college.
 
ecl
2012-11-12 09:59:36 AM  

Billy Bathsalt: If it weren't for the dancing horse, I wouldn't have spent the year in Electoral College.

  

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-11-12 09:59:43 AM  
Gore just needed 600 in Florida to carry the 2000 election. Sorry GOP, you even lose at being the victim.
 
2012-11-12 09:59:50 AM  

Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.


What a Debbie Downer....
 
2012-11-12 10:01:29 AM  
330,000 aint nothing to laugh at.
 
2012-11-12 10:03:39 AM  
If I log out of my Fark account, this thread becomes twice as long....
 
2012-11-12 10:06:08 AM  

Scut Farcus' Ugly Brother: You know what twice 333,000 is? 666,000!!1!eleventyone!

Does that mean RMoney is half the anti-christ?


No! It means Obama is the double anti Christ!
 
2012-11-12 10:07:02 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.


And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.
 
2012-11-12 10:07:44 AM  

Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.


NooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOoooooooooooOOO O OOOOoooooo
 
2012-11-12 10:07:49 AM  

Gough: If I log out of my Fark account, this thread becomes twice as long....


No on cares about your pagination settings.
 
2012-11-12 10:08:09 AM  

AngryPoet: Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.

What a Debbie Downer....


Does America's future look bright to you? We will be 20-22 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's 2nd term. Growth at best will be maybe 2%. Taxing the evil rich will not put even a dent in the deficit, and all projections on that do not factor in the negative aspects of taxing people, many who run businesses.

All you did was win an election and further divide the country. No thought it given to anything long term. We really are done as a country unless something changes. Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff. Eventually, even Fark can see where that leads. There is no such thing as free stuff. Eventually, capital will move away.

Was what, 67% of debt to GDP ratio when Obama took over? Now 101%, and climbing fast. By the end of his second term, interest payment on the debt alone will be in the 500 billion dollar range. We would need a 500 billion dollar surplus to even start paying down the debt. Do any of you really thing it is possible to get out of debt, ever?
 
2012-11-12 10:09:04 AM  

Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.


Campaigning where people live? The horror.
 
2012-11-12 10:09:19 AM  

Thunderpipes: AngryPoet: Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.

What a Debbie Downer....

Does America's future look bright to you? We will be 20-22 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's 2nd term. Growth at best will be maybe 2%. Taxing the evil rich will not put even a dent in the deficit, and all projections on that do not factor in the negative aspects of taxing people, many who run businesses.

All you did was win an election and further divide the country. No thought it given to anything long term. We really are done as a country unless something changes. Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff. Eventually, even Fark can see where that leads. There is no such thing as free stuff. Eventually, capital will move away.

Was what, 67% of debt to GDP ratio when Obama took over? Now 101%, and climbing fast. By the end of his sec ...


http://blogs.igalia.com/xrcalvar/files/2012/05/Dancing_Troll.gif
 
2012-11-12 10:09:23 AM  
So what they're saying is that if Mittens had gotten more votes and Obama less then he would have carried those states and won? Is that how it works? Mind=Blown.

And if you people would like to go by popular vote instead of the EC that's fine since the result is the same in this case.
 
2012-11-12 10:09:43 AM  

BeesNuts: 2. There *was* a reason for the electoral college. Technology has since removed that reason.


As long as the "United States" is still a union of "States", the reason remains. The EC was not designed as a "working approximation" to nationwide popular vote, but to give each state the same leverage over the election that each state has in congress (note that for each state electors = congressmen+2 = congressmen+senators). The problem of presidential-campaign ignored states vs. swing states is a result of "winner take all" rules (with two exceptions noted above).

There is technology driving the NPV movement: the national news media, mainly TV news networks. Having only one election to cover for the whole country makes their job easier, and they already push it on the audience as the only election that matters. Complaining about how the Electoral College "doesn't correspond to the popular vote" gives them a post-election story to run about how voters might be 'cheated' by an 'antiquated' system.

I hope people see through this news industry scam, and can convince their states to abandon "winner take all" and reclaim their electoral relevancy. NPV would be "winner take all" on steroids, giving away any remaining State leverage over the only nationally-elected offices, president and vice president.
 
2012-11-12 10:10:22 AM  

This text is now purple: Martycrane: It's also mathematically possibly to become president by only winning 21% of the popular vote by only concentrating on the smallest states. Tell me that's a fair system and I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you.

It's about as fair as only having to visit three cities and win CA, NY, and TX, to win a popular election.


That's not entirely true though. NYC is by far the largest city with 8 million people, then LA with 3.8, then Chicago with 2.5. That works out to less than 5% of the whole country. Even if you win every single vote in NY, CA and TX, that's 82 million people, or ~25% of the population. Still no where near enough to win the popular vote.

A win off the popular vote will not "steal" the election. It WOULD make every vote equal however. This "disenfranchisement" is complete crap if you throw out the electoral college.
 
2012-11-12 10:10:33 AM  

Billy Bathsalt: If it weren't for the dancing horse, I wouldn't have spent the year in Electoral College.


Awesome...
 
2012-11-12 10:11:44 AM  

Schubert'sCell: What about reducing the number of electors in each state by one, to bring the proportions somewhat more in line with population distribution, but also continuing to recognize that all of the states do matter?

That would lower the influence of small states. Mississippi would have 5 EV instead of 6, so 5/488==> 1.0245% of the total college votes versus its current strength 6/538==> 1.1152%. New York on the other hand would go from 29 to 28, with initial vote percentage 5.39% to a new percentage of 5.735%. Any state with more than 10 EV would gain influence, while any state with less would lose.

if you added an elector to each state, however, the opposite would happen.


That's by design. The thought behind my idea is to bring electoral vote proportions more in line with relative state populations, but allow small states to exercise more influence than they would under a pure popular vote system.

Currently, small states do have disproportionate influence on the process. I'll arbitrarily use NY and VT as examples, mostly because they're geographically close: NY has 19,465,197 people, and 29 electoral votes, or one electoral vote for every 671,214 people. VT has 626,431 people, and 3 electoral votes, or one electoral vote for every 208,810 people. So, every VT voter has three times the influence of every NY voter. If we take one electoral vote from every state, then NY has one electoral vote for every 695,186 people, and VT has one electoral vote for every 335,607 people. Now, a VT voter has twice the influence of a NY voter.

Basically, it's a compromise between the electoral college and a pure popular vote system.
 
2012-11-12 10:12:10 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And if he'd not been born rich and spoiled, he'd just be some random Mormon dude.


I honestly believe if his personality hadn't been channeled by business and high society he'd have been a serial killer. Animal abuse, lying, lack of empathy.... yea...
 
2012-11-12 10:14:17 AM  

Thunderpipes: AngryPoet: Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.

What a Debbie Downer....

Does America's future look bright to you? We will be 20-22 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's 2nd term. Growth at best will be maybe 2%. Taxing the evil rich will not put even a dent in the deficit, and all projections on that do not factor in the negative aspects of taxing people, many who run businesses.

All you did was win an election and further divide the country. No thought it given to anything long term. We really are done as a country unless something changes. Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff. Eventually, even Fark can see where that leads. There is no such thing as free stuff. Eventually, capital will move away.

Was what, 67% of debt to GDP ratio when Obama took over? Now 101%, and climbing fast. By the end of his sec ...


That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son.

tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-12 10:14:59 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: 330,000 aint nothing to laugh at.


Go ahead and spread those votes out as much as you want and tell me how it could have won the election for Romney.
 
2012-11-12 10:15:21 AM  
The electoral college doesn't exist to protect smaller states rights.

It exists because the founding fathers were terrified of mob rule having just witnessed France burn itself to the ground. It was a deliberate attempt to put a buffer between the people and the executive.
 
2012-11-12 10:16:27 AM  
So if Romney got more votes, he might have won the election?

Well, that's, uh... I mean it's true. I guess that counts for something. Good job, Breitbart Dot Com. You have managed to find a fact.
 
2012-11-12 10:20:06 AM  
I am going to say uh yeah and if the Sun were the Moon we'de all be colder. What was the point of this article?

If pigs had wings they would be able to fly.

If the moon had hit the earth instead of being in orbit we wouldn't have to listen to weird arse what ifs.
 
2012-11-12 10:20:49 AM  

brobdiggy: I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.


It should never pass unless a law passes forcing gerrymandering to go away somehow. Obama won Ohio in voter count, but would have taken less EVs than Romney if Ohio copied Maine/Nebraska.

Democratic House candidates received more votes than Republican House candidates, and yet we have a Republican House by a fairly large margin.
 
2012-11-12 10:21:18 AM  

Thunderpipes: Does America's future look bright to you? We will be 20-22 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's 2nd term. Growth at best will be maybe 2%. Taxing the evil rich will not put even a dent in the deficit, and all projections on that do not factor in the negative aspects of taxing people, many who run businesses.


Show your math, unless you're like the average Right Winger and this is your Kryptonite. I know, I know, facts and logic don't belong in 'The Truth', but here in the real world, we like to use them to make informed decisions, you know, kind of like Nate Silver did to prognosticate the election results.
 
2012-11-12 10:21:37 AM  

Tigger: It exists because the founding fathers were terrified of mob rule having just witnessed France burn itself to the ground. It was a deliberate attempt to put a buffer between the people and the executive.


Wasn't that also the reason for not having direct election of Senators, which we have since changed?
 
2012-11-12 10:22:39 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.


Now I know how aneurisms happen.
 
2012-11-12 10:23:44 AM  

Tigger: The electoral college doesn't exist to protect smaller states rights.

It exists because the founding fathers were terrified of mob rule having just witnessed France burn itself to the ground. It was a deliberate attempt to put a buffer between the people and the executive.


The Constitution was written in 1787. The French revolution did not start until 1789.
 
2012-11-12 10:24:04 AM  

Tigger: The electoral college doesn't exist to protect smaller states rights.

It exists because the founding fathers were terrified of mob rule having just witnessed France burn itself to the ground. It was a deliberate attempt to put a buffer between the people and the executive.


To that same point, the only right to vote for federal office specifically called out in the constitution was for the house of representatives. Both the Senate and the Presidency were to be decided by the educated elite in each state. This would force the simpletons and the mob to focus upon local issues rather than getting distracted with nation-wide issues of which they had little understanding but could easily fall sway to charlatans and feckless propagandists, such as issues of war and peace.

How far we've fallen.
 
2012-11-12 10:25:44 AM  

MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?


Okay there are two issues with this idea. First, it's stupid. Second, majority rules. Your guy lost by a wide margin, get over it!
 
2012-11-12 10:25:58 AM  

born_yesterday: Because reform of the health insurance industry is the worst thing this country has ever faced, apparently.

Especially when that reform is largely the Republican plan proposed as an alternative to HilaryCare.



Ever stop to think that the Republicans know that their plan sucked, and was never really a serious offer? It was just a pile of bullshiat intended to make Hillary look bad.
 
2012-11-12 10:28:49 AM  

Thunderpipes: ...Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff...


Oh, but Republicans aren't racists, and the Democrats are the real racists for saying so. Right.

No doubt, it's an isolated incident.
 
2012-11-12 10:30:20 AM  
Well, only 270 more electoral votes would have given ME the presidency, and I didn't even run. Also, 270 is less than 330,000.
 
2012-11-12 10:32:02 AM  
Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-12 10:33:03 AM  

Skw33tis: Thunderpipes: ...Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff...

Oh, but Republicans aren't racists, and the Democrats are the real racists for saying so. Right.

No doubt, it's an isolated incident.


What do facts have to do with racism? You are aware of the facts about demographics, right? Democrats, but even more now that Obama is the Messiah, get the overwhelming majority of minority votes. This is a fact. They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.
 
2012-11-12 10:37:03 AM  

Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.


what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?
 
2012-11-12 10:38:34 AM  

This text is now purple: Moosecakes: So hey, terrible idea! National Popular Vote is the only reasonable way to go.

And via some imaginary mechanism, you'll convince the 31 states whose votes you need to disenfranchise themselves.




You don't need to convince all, or even most of the states. You just need to get 270+ EV worth of states to agree to cast their EVs to the winner of the national popular vote. That's what the NPVIC is designed on.

132 EVs have signed up for it already,
 
2012-11-12 10:39:08 AM  

Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.


How many people actually saw Obama, Biden, Romney or Ryan in the flesh this election cycle? The ten most populus US cities add up to around 25 million people - or around 20% of the total votes cast for president last week. Sure, they'll spend a lot more time physically in NYC and LA, but they'll still buy airtime in Alaska. Foxnews will still broadcast into rural areas, the internet won't by some miracle retract to appearing only in urban centers. And as I said before, tv spots in are significantly cheaper in Toledo than they are in Chicago, so small cities won't suddenly get a blessed lack of advertising.

These guys ain't one-at-a-timing - and they haven't since Marconi invented the radio or JFK made Nixon look like a zombie in their debate. They're MASS communicating.
 
2012-11-12 10:39:12 AM  

Heraclitus: You know, you plan and you hope and you dream, and every once in a while the planets line up just right...


Just not Kolob.
 
2012-11-12 10:43:22 AM  
Yeah and if a frog had winds, he wouldn't bump his ass a jumpin'.

Romney lost because he allowed the RNC to dictate his campaign strategy and cuddled up to the Tea Party. When he did that, he lost moderates to Obama.
 
2012-11-12 10:43:43 AM  

Thunderpipes: Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.


What free stuff has been promised. You keep posting generic statements. Post some verifiable facts.

I want to know exactly what taxpayer-funded things have been promised to minorities by democrats.
 
2012-11-12 10:43:57 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Tigger: The electoral college doesn't exist to protect smaller states rights.

It exists because the founding fathers were terrified of mob rule having just witnessed France burn itself to the ground. It was a deliberate attempt to put a buffer between the people and the executive.

The Constitution was written in 1787. The French revolution did not start until 1789.


www.strangecosmos.com
 
2012-11-12 10:44:28 AM  

Headso: Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?


Well, considering that they ran on that, well, ya.

I just wish liberals would actually care and think about solutions, instead of how to use tax dollars to stay in power. The deficit crisis is bad, and getting much worse each day, and none of you care. Are any of you parents? Don't you care that in 10-20 years we will be in deep, deep trouble with no way out?
 
2012-11-12 10:44:28 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Tigger: The electoral college doesn't exist to protect smaller states rights.

It exists because the founding fathers were terrified of mob rule having just witnessed France burn itself to the ground. It was a deliberate attempt to put a buffer between the people and the executive.

The Constitution was written in 1787. The French revolution did not start until 1789.


Fair - what I should have said was

Hamilton in Federalist Papers - "Mob rule will get us all killed - these people are farking idiots and shouldn't vote"
Cut to six months later - "look at France - mob rule"

I think there's a bit about it in Tocqueville as well - essentially linking the rising uppitiness of poor people across the west.
 
2012-11-12 10:44:59 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: goes back to my belief that the only way to get through the butthurt is through ridicule, because these people are being ridiculous and 'facts and logic' are quite literally considered 'tools of the liberals' and shouldn't be trusted.


Yeah, I came to that point over the summer. There is no reasoning with persons who won't listen. Instead, you can either avoid the argument altogether or just plow them into the ground with ridicule. Otherwise, reasoned debate (facts) have little to effect on their opinion and/or mindset and is simply a waste of time.

I never believed in this whole "life in the bubble" thing with conservatives until I started engaging them in debate. Then I quickly learned it was pointless to have any middle ground with them. Best just to cut the wound open and grind salt into it until they writhe in pain. Afterwards when walking away, add "I told you so" for good measure.

By now, I have seen enough conservatives eyes gloss over when presented with reason to know they will probably never change. Better to spend time dealing with people who have already have a bit of compassion for others than attempt to change a conservative butt-mind. They are a group that is beyond hope at this point and I wish they would do as so many have threatened - move to another country (but we know most countries would not have them). They are the biggest obstacle to this country moving forward in the 21st century.
 
2012-11-12 10:45:25 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Thunderpipes: Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

What free stuff has been promised. You keep posting generic statements. Post some verifiable facts.

I want to know exactly what taxpayer-funded things have been promised to minorities by democrats.


I was promised a free Thunderpipes cockpunching machine. It just punches thunderpipes. In the cock. For free.
 
2012-11-12 10:45:35 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Obama won with Electoral and Popular votes. Deal with it.


Done in five.
 
2012-11-12 10:45:43 AM  

brobdiggy: Not protesting Obama or anything, but the Electoral College "winner take all" system is absolutely stupid.

Every election we hear the "your vote counts" garbage. That's not true. The message should be "your vote counts if you live in Ohio or Florida".

I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.


Do you really believe that state governments should be allowed to Gerrymander the results they desire?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-12 10:46:28 AM  

This text is now purple: ramblinwreck: Le Grand Inquisitor: Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.

That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken

House Dems received significantly more votes than GOP Reps. That identifies a significant problem with how the districts are drawn.

All it really indicates is that democratic districts are urban and republican districts are rural. It's much harder to organize rural districts, due to the lower population density.


i dunno, there's multiple districts in Texas that seem to be 80% "rural", and 20% "urban" by design, if you know what I mean. In fact, IIRC one area of Texas happens to nicely portion off one uppity "urban" area into several pieces, for some strange reason. I wonder why...
 
2012-11-12 10:46:49 AM  

Karac: Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.

How many people actually saw Obama, Biden, Romney or Ryan in the flesh this election cycle? The ten most populus US cities add up to around 25 million people - or around 20% of the total votes cast for president last week. Sure, they'll spend a lot more time physically in NYC and LA, but they'll still buy airtime in Alaska. Foxnews will still broadcast into rural areas, the internet won't by some miracle retract to appearing only in urban centers. And as I said before, tv spots in are significantly cheaper in Toledo than they are in Chicago, so small cities won't suddenly get a blessed lack of advertising.

These guys ain't one-at-a-timing - and they haven't since Marconi Tesla invented the radio or JFK made Nixon look like a zombie in their debate. They're MASS communicating.


ftfy
 
2012-11-12 10:47:18 AM  

Thunderpipes: Headso: Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?

Well, considering that they ran on that, well, ya.

I just wish liberals would actually care and think about solutions, instead of how to use tax dollars to stay in power. The deficit crisis is bad, and getting much worse each day, and none of you care. Are any of you parents? Don't you care that in 10-20 years we will be in deep, deep trouble with no way out?


How much do you think we need to cut taxes on the job creators to fully solve our debt problem? 20%? 50%?
 
2012-11-12 10:47:50 AM  

Dimensio:

No, "liberals" did not hide conservative ballots. They submitted extra liberal ballots, as is evident by one Florida county reporting 140.92% turnout.


And of course, you have no link to support your derp.
It's no wonder I have you favorited as "TinfoilhatTard".
 
2012-11-12 10:48:47 AM  
i1125.photobucket.com

/Dry your vaginas and get on with life.
//Seriously.
 
2012-11-12 10:48:54 AM  
((47% people mooching x 3/5th a person voting x 12 million jobs Romney would create - 6016 years the Earth has been around) / 10 (number of Huntsman and Romney children)) - (Atari 7800) = 330,000

Math, using bullshiat, false or sad facts. Plus Atari (well, minus Atari really).
 
2012-11-12 10:52:25 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Thunderpipes: Headso: Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?

Well, considering that they ran on that, well, ya.

I just wish liberals would actually care and think about solutions, instead of how to use tax dollars to stay in power. The deficit crisis is bad, and getting much worse each day, and none of you care. Are any of you parents? Don't you care that in 10-20 years we will be in deep, deep trouble with no way out?

How much do you think we need to cut taxes on the job creators to fully solve our debt problem? 20%? 50%?


A slight tax cut would be nice. But that alone would not do it. We need massive cuts in domestic spending, military and social. We need to reform the big entitlements. We need to make being poor hard, and put unemployment back to what it should be, emergency fund to get back to work.

Democrats want to do one thing and one thing only, tax the rich. Best estimate on that are a drop in the bucket and don't take into effect growth slowdown because of pressure on business owners. Love Obamacare or not, that is another giant lump of costs thrown onto employers. I mean, really, what is Obama's plan? Instead of 1 trillion dollar deficits, we tax the rich and have 900 billion dollar deficits. I am not a math buy, but adding 900 billion a year to debt is bad, yes? Everything you guys believe in is simply to win elections and gain in numbers for your party. Not a single thing is for the good of the country, not one. Even the auto bailout was nothing but a huge taxpayer campaign fund.

You won an election by convincing half the people that being successful is bad and we need to punish that. How far we have sunk as a people...
 
2012-11-12 10:53:16 AM  
What I don't understand, is how Breitbart managed to stay so f*cking fat despite being a coke-addled retard.
 
2012-11-12 10:53:25 AM  
When the number of people taking from the government exceed the number of people adding revenue to the government, pop some popcorn and sit back and watch because this is going to be some fun s***t.
 
2012-11-12 10:54:31 AM  
And if about 1000-2000 more people in one state had voted a different Al Gore would have won.

And if about 80,000 people in one state had voted different John Kerry would have won.
 
2012-11-12 10:54:34 AM  

Thunderpipes: Philip Francis Queeg: Thunderpipes: Headso: Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?

Well, considering that they ran on that, well, ya.

I just wish liberals would actually care and think about solutions, instead of how to use tax dollars to stay in power. The deficit crisis is bad, and getting much worse each day, and none of you care. Are any of you parents? Don't you care that in 10-20 years we will be in deep, deep trouble with no way out?

How much do you think we need to cut taxes on the job creators to fully solve our debt problem? 20%? 50%?

A slight tax cut would be nice. But that alone would not do it. We need massive cuts in domestic spending, military and social. We need to reform the big entitlements. We need to make being poor hard, and put unemployment back to what it should be, emergency fund to get back to work.

Democrats want to do one thing and one thing only, tax the rich. Best estimate on that are a drop in the bucket and don't take into effect growth slowdown because of pressure on business owners. Love Obamacare or not, that is another giant lump of costs thrown onto employers. I mean, really, what is Obama's plan? Instead of 1 trillion dollar deficits, we tax the rich and have 900 billion dollar deficits. I am not a math buy, but adding 900 billion a year to debt is bad, yes? Everything you guys believe in is simply to win elections and gain in numbers for your party. Not a single thing is for the good of the country, not one. Even the auto bailout was nothing but a huge taxpayer campaign fund.

You won an election by convincing half the people that being successful is bad and we need to punish that. How far we have sunk as a people...


I'd call you an armchair economist, but I think what you're sitting on is closer to a toilet.

Toilet economist!
 
2012-11-12 10:54:37 AM  

Thunderpipes: Philip Francis Queeg: Thunderpipes: Headso: Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?

Well, considering that they ran on that, well, ya.

I just wish liberals would actually care and think about solutions, instead of how to use tax dollars to stay in power. The deficit crisis is bad, and getting much worse each day, and none of you care. Are any of you parents? Don't you care that in 10-20 years we will be in deep, deep trouble with no way out?

How much do you think we need to cut taxes on the job creators to fully solve our debt problem? 20%? 50%?

A slight tax cut would be nice. But that alone would not do it. We need massive cuts in domestic spending, military and social. We need to reform the big entitlements. We need to make being poor hard, and put unemployment back to what it should be, emergency fund to get back to work.

Democrats want to do one thing and one thing only, tax the rich. Best estimate on that are a drop in the bucket and don't take into effect growth slowdown because of pressure on business owners. Love Obamacare or not, that is another giant lump of costs thrown onto employers. I mean, really, what is Obama's plan? Instead of 1 trillion dollar deficits, we tax the rich and have 900 billion dollar deficits. I am not a math buy, but adding 900 billion a year to debt is bad, yes? Everything you guys believe in is simply to win elections and gain in numbers for your party. Not a single thing is for the good of the country, not one. Even the auto bailout was nothing but a huge taxpayer campaign fund.

You won an election by convincing half the people that being successful is bad and we need to punish that. How far we have sunk as a people...


Are you that old guy from Hungary or Albania or whatever who put that commercial about socialism on TV to convince mongoloids to vote GOP? You know, the one that confused socialism with Communism?
 
2012-11-12 10:55:42 AM  
So, I dare one person here to tell me how Obama will fix things. Use numbers and such. I dare you.

Oh, you cannot, because we are screwed. You are happy your guy won, want to attack people with jobs, and who cares....
 
2012-11-12 10:57:12 AM  

Thunderpipes: So, I dare one person here to tell me how Obama will fix things. Use numbers and such. I dare you.

Oh, you cannot, because we are screwed. You are happy your guy won, want to attack people with jobs, and who cares....


We fix it with stimulus/domestic spending
 
2012-11-12 10:57:15 AM  

Thunderpipes: Philip Francis Queeg: Thunderpipes: Headso: Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?

Well, considering that they ran on that, well, ya.

I just wish liberals would actually care and think about solutions, instead of how to use tax dollars to stay in power. The deficit crisis is bad, and getting much worse each day, and none of you care. Are any of you parents? Don't you care that in 10-20 years we will be in deep, deep trouble with no way out?

How much do you think we need to cut taxes on the job creators to fully solve our debt problem? 20%? 50%?

A slight tax cut would be nice. But that alone would not do it. We need massive cuts in domestic spending, military and social. We need to reform the big entitlements. We need to make being poor hard, and put unemployment back to what it should be, emergency fund to get back to work.

Democrats want to do one thing and one thing only, tax the rich. Best estimate on that are a drop in the bucket and don't take into effect growth slowdown because of pressure on business owners. Love Obamacare or not, that is another giant lump of costs thrown onto employers. I mean, really, what is Obama's plan? Instead of 1 trillion dollar deficits, we tax the rich and have 900 billion dollar deficits. I am not a math buy, but adding 900 billion a year to debt is bad, yes? Everything you guys believe in is simply to win elections and gain in numbers for your party. Not a single thing is for the good of the country, not one. Even the auto bailout was nothing but a huge taxpayer campaign fund.

You won an election by convincing half the people that being successful is bad and we need to punish that. How far we have sunk as a people...


I'm glad you're deep inside your echo chamber, but come on out so you can get some fresh air.

Unfortunately, you are misguided about many, many things about Democrats. Apparently you think we only want to tax the rich. Well, last week, all we wanted to do was make every woman have an abortion. The week before that the only thing we wanted to do was replace all of Gideon's Bible's with Achmed's Koran's.

You really need to keep up with the times.

But, in truth, I already know your tactic: Always keep moving. Address a point by shifting it sideways to a tangential part of the argument, and continually move the yardstick. By doing this you can successfully claim "The Dems can't answer my hard questions" when in truth we put them to rest and ask you to show where your faulty logic is coming from, at which point you jump to another subject.

You will never be satisfied with the answers provided, even when you are proven wrong in all ways. Go ahead and start filling up your ignore list before we start a verbal rape gang on you.
 
2012-11-12 10:58:01 AM  

Thunderpipes: Philip Francis Queeg: Thunderpipes: Headso: Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?

Well, considering that they ran on that, well, ya.

I just wish liberals would actually care and think about solutions, instead of how to use tax dollars to stay in power. The deficit crisis is bad, and getting much worse each day, and none of you care. Are any of you parents? Don't you care that in 10-20 years we will be in deep, deep trouble with no way out?

How much do you think we need to cut taxes on the job creators to fully solve our debt problem? 20%? 50%?

A slight tax cut would be nice. But that alone would not do it. We need massive cuts in domestic spending, military and social. We need to reform the big entitlements. We need to make being poor hard, and put unemployment back to what it should be, emergency fund to get back to work.

Democrats want to do one thing and one thing only, tax the rich. Best estimate on that are a drop in the bucket and don't take into effect growth slowdown because of pressure on business owners. Love Obamacare or not, that is another giant lump of costs thrown onto employers. I mean, really, what is Obama's plan? Instead of 1 trillion dollar deficits, we tax the rich and have 900 billion dollar deficits. I am not a math buy, but adding 900 billion a year to debt is bad, yes? Everything you guys believe in is simply to win elections and gain in numbers for your party. Not a single thing is for the good of the country, not one. Even the auto bailout was nothing but a huge taxpayer campaign fund.

You won an election by convincing half the people that being successful is bad and we need to punish that. How far we have sunk as a people...


Yes, because the country went under when Clinton raised the top tax rate to 39.2 percent. Of course, in your narrow vision, you can't see that the Democrats have only made that one part of the plan, but because that's a non-starter for Republicans, you won't even pay attention to cuts that the Democrats propose. Not to mention that Republicans are proposing massive military spending increases, far dwarfing the token cuts that you've proposed (NPR, PP, teleprompter) and you attacked Obama for "cutting Medicare". So no, Republicans have no f*cking plan to attack the deficits other than the usual "TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY AND PIXIE DUST"
 
2012-11-12 10:58:29 AM  

Thunderpipes: Philip Francis Queeg: Thunderpipes: Headso: Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?

Well, considering that they ran on that, well, ya.

I just wish liberals would actually care and think about solutions, instead of how to use tax dollars to stay in power. The deficit crisis is bad, and getting much worse each day, and none of you care. Are any of you parents? Don't you care that in 10-20 years we will be in deep, deep trouble with no way out?

How much do you think we need to cut taxes on the job creators to fully solve our debt problem? 20%? 50%?

A slight tax cut would be nice. But that alone would not do it. We need massive cuts in domestic spending, military and social. We need to reform the big entitlements. We need to make being poor hard, and put unemployment back to what it should be, emergency fund to get back to work.

Democrats want to do one thing and one thing only, tax the rich. Best estimate on that are a drop in the bucket and don't take into effect growth slowdown because of pressure on business owners. Love Obamacare or not, that is another giant lump of costs thrown onto employers. I mean, really, what is Obama's plan? Instead of 1 trillion dollar deficits, we tax the rich and have 900 billion dollar deficits. I am not a math buy, but adding 900 billion a year to debt is bad, yes? Everything you guys believe in is simply to win elections and gain in numbers for your party. Not a single thing is for the good of the country, not one. Even the auto bailout was nothing but a huge taxpayer campaign fund.

You won an election by convincing half the people that being successful is bad and we need to punish that. How far we have sunk as a people...


Yeah being poor is really fabulous these days. It's too bad that the poor aren't punished enough with illnesses and malnutrition. We will only prosper as a nation when childhood malnutrition is as common as it was 100 years ago. I weep bitterly for the unprecedented suffering that the wealthy in this country endure.
 
2012-11-12 10:59:58 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Obama won but if he didn't Romney would have won (Thanks Breitfart)
 
2012-11-12 11:01:40 AM  

Thunderpipes: Skw33tis: Thunderpipes: ...Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff...

Oh, but Republicans aren't racists, and the Democrats are the real racists for saying so. Right.

No doubt, it's an isolated incident.

What do facts have to do with racism? You are aware of the facts about demographics, right? Democrats, but even more now that Obama is the Messiah, get the overwhelming majority of minority votes. This is a fact. They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.


I missed all those promises of free stuff.
 
2012-11-12 11:01:47 AM  

Thunderpipes: Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.


The shortest route to having too few successful people to tax is by continuing to think trickle down economics works. When no one but the uber rich has any money, there is no one left to tax.
 
2012-11-12 11:02:09 AM  
assets.amuniversal.com
 
2012-11-12 11:03:01 AM  
GOP = Handle it!!

SFW

Link
 
2012-11-12 11:07:25 AM  

Thunderpipes: So, I dare one person here to tell me how Obama will fix things. Use numbers and such. I dare you.

Oh, you cannot, because we are screwed. You are happy your guy won, want to attack people with jobs, and who cares....


There was that deficit reduction plan early last year in which Boehner said he got 90% of what he wanted that included very modest revenue increases and LOTs of spending cuts. It is what is known as a compromise. The tea party economic terrorists in the House poo-poo'd it. The GOP is holding the economy of this country hostage and it is disgusting to see and instead of recognizing that the Dems gave the GOP 90% of what they wanted you cry like a little biatch about 'punishing' the wealthy which is nothing more than paying the same rates they paid in the 90s. Acknowledge the deal that was on the table where the Dems gave a lot and the GOP gave nothing. THAT is why things are so dire today, because of the GOP. Look in the farking mirror and open your goddamned eyes!
 
2012-11-12 11:12:50 AM  

Thunderpipes: We need to reform the big entitlements.


If you take the same amount of taxes for SS, Medicare, etc, but slash the benefits, isn't that "raising taxes" under the new conservative definition? Why do you want to raise taxes?
 
2012-11-12 11:16:37 AM  

Thunderpipes: So, I dare one person here to tell me how Obama will fix things. Use numbers and such. I dare you.

Oh, you cannot, because we are screwed. You are happy your guy won, want to attack people with jobs, and who cares....


I'll leave it to someone else to post the dozen or so charts of unemployment steadily dropping for 3 years straight, manufacturing growing, the DOW climbing, and all those other pretty economic indicators that show us improving steadily.

We drove into a ditch, it's not like hitting a speed bump, it takes time and effort to climb out.
 
2012-11-12 11:17:04 AM  
Rather funny the Republicans are whining about the Electoral College being unfair, since it was a key plank in their platform this year:

From the 2012 Republican Platform (Link)
"The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College (Top)

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency."

In other words, they thought they would get an EC win, and just in case Obama won the popular vote they were wanting to set up their opposition to changing to a popular vote system.

They'll turn their backs on their own party platform in a moment if they think it'll increase their odds of being elected, they don't care about platform or positions or principles, only power for powers sake.
 
2012-11-12 11:19:02 AM  

Thunderpipes: We really are done as a country unless something changes. Minorities really do breed much faster.


Why is a relative increase in the proportion of people with dark skin a sign that we "really are done as a country"?

(I mean, other than the fact that you're 26 minutes late for your Klan rally.)

In the 1950s, population growth was much faster than it was today-- ~3.6% annual instead of the current rate of 1.9%. Why are we "done" when population growth is near historical lows?

Also, from the 2010 census data:

The US total fertility rate as of 2010 is 1.93:

1.948 for White Americans (including white Hispanics)
1.958 for Black Americans (including black Hispanics)
1.404 for Native Americans (including Hispanics)
1.689 for Asian Americans (including Hispanics)

Care to reassess your assumptions about "breeding"?
 
2012-11-12 11:21:39 AM  

Thunderpipes: . We need to make being poor hard,


Know how I know you don't know what the fark you're talking about?
 
2012-11-12 11:21:54 AM  

Thunderpipes: I mean, really, what is Obama's plan?


Continue exposing you racist fossils as unhinged and impotent. Oh look, it's working.
 
2012-11-12 11:22:09 AM  

theknuckler_33: There was that deficit reduction plan early last year in which Boehner said he got 90% of what he wanted...



98%

When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy.
 
2012-11-12 11:23:23 AM  

GoodyearPimp: Thunderpipes: We need to reform the big entitlements.

If you take the same amount of taxes for SS, Medicare, etc, but slash the benefits, isn't that "raising taxes" under the new conservative definition? Why do you want to raise taxes?


Both parties are insulting our intelligence right now. They are both saying that they want to leave the tax rates the same (Obama wants to slightly increase the rate for very wealthy citizens). However, they want to eliminated the more common tax deductions, so that tax will be pain of more of our income. Yet they expect us to accept the lie that this is not, of itself, a tax increase. The bottom line is that once again, the middle class is going to get screwed.
 
2012-11-12 11:23:32 AM  

coeyagi: ((47% people mooching x 3/5th a person voting x 12 million jobs Romney would create - 6016 years the Earth has been around) / 10 (number of Huntsman and Romney children)) - (Atari 7800) = 330,000

Math, using bullshiat, false or sad facts. Plus Atari (well, minus Atari really).


Atari as matt wow that's just like beautiful.

*wipes a tear* Beautiful man.
 
2012-11-12 11:24:12 AM  

Thunderpipes: Skw33tis: Thunderpipes: ...Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff...

Oh, but Republicans aren't racists, and the Democrats are the real racists for saying so. Right.

No doubt, it's an isolated incident.

What do facts have to do with racism? You are aware of the facts about demographics, right? Democrats, but even more now that Obama is the Messiah, get the overwhelming majority of minority votes. This is a fact. They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.


I don't think anyone will dispute that some demographic groups are statistically growing faster. There's no inherent racism in acknowledging that. However, here's where you are a racist: "They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff. The part that makes that line especially offensive is the implication that all minorities are welfare leeches, when anyone with even an iota of experience with the world could provide at least a couple of anecdotal examples to the contrary. It was racism when Ronald Reagan trotted out his line about "welfare queens," and it's racism when you repeat it in a veiled fashion.

Also, like several others in this thread, I seem to have missed Democratic campaign promises of free "stuff" for minorities. Feel free to provide examples.
 
2012-11-12 11:24:40 AM  

Sybarite: Like my grandmother used to tell me "If the dog hadn't stopped to lick his balls, he would have caught the rabbit."

/totally serious


I like your gramma. I want to be like that when I grow old.
 
2012-11-12 11:25:09 AM  

JackieRabbit: GoodyearPimp: Thunderpipes: We need to reform the big entitlements.

If you take the same amount of taxes for SS, Medicare, etc, but slash the benefits, isn't that "raising taxes" under the new conservative definition? Why do you want to raise taxes?

Both parties are insulting our intelligence right now. They are both saying that they want to leave the tax rates the same (Obama wants to slightly increase the rate for very wealthy citizens). However, they want to eliminated the more common tax deductions, so that tax will be pain of more of our income. Yet they expect us to accept the lie that this is not, of itself, a tax increase. The bottom line is that once again, the middle class is going to get screwed.


Really? When did Obama say he wanted to screw with deductions? I am not saying he didn't, just saying I haven't seen it.
 
2012-11-12 11:26:40 AM  

coeyagi: Really? When did Obama say he wanted to screw with deductions? I am not saying he didn't, just saying I haven't seen it.


He's black. He'll screw anything.
 
2012-11-12 11:28:12 AM  

JackieRabbit: However, they want to eliminated the more common tax deductions


Bzzt! Wrong. That was a part of Romney's tax plan, not Obama's. Educate yourself, son.
 
2012-11-12 11:29:46 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Continue exposing you racist fossils as unhinged and impotent. Oh look, it's working.


Over the weekend, while debating this, I proved to the person they're a racist and they failed to see it. They said Social Services only enable minorities. I brought up single mothers into the argument and he said it was because they were impregnated by 'lazy, do nothing black men' and they deserved this for having a mulatto kid, but with Obama at least they can tell the kid he can grow up to be president.

So, I went out of my way, coaxing the debate until he said: "Helping minorities with social programs only adds to the problem." I got them to confess adding money into the system through labor works, and then said that putting the poor to work through knowledge is the key to helping us then. He replied: "Minorities don't deserve money." He honestly couldn't see how this is a racist statement. Working for proper wages is something reserved for White People, minorities should be paid less. This was his revelation, and pointing it out, failed to see how this was a racist statement.

I could write a thesis on this, but I'm waiting for Thunderpipes to come make some more ridiculous statements.
 
2012-11-12 11:31:01 AM  

mrshowrules: I have another pair of numbers: 17% and 50.3%.

The former is the Congressional Approval and latter is Obama's.


Who the fark are those 17%, anyway?
 
2012-11-12 11:31:19 AM  

chimp_ninja: Thunderpipes: We really are done as a country unless something changes. Minorities really do breed much faster.

Why is a relative increase in the proportion of people with dark skin a sign that we "really are done as a country"?

(I mean, other than the fact that you're 26 minutes late for your Klan rally.)

In the 1950s, population growth was much faster than it was today-- ~3.6% annual instead of the current rate of 1.9%. Why are we "done" when population growth is near historical lows?

Also, from the 2010 census data:

The US total fertility rate as of 2010 is 1.93:

1.948 for White Americans (including white Hispanics)
1.958 for Black Americans (including black Hispanics)
1.404 for Native Americans (including Hispanics)
1.689 for Asian Americans (including Hispanics)

Care to reassess your assumptions about "breeding"?


Uh why are the Hispanics included in everyone elses census stats? Really curious as I thought Hispanic was one of the separate races on the census
 
2012-11-12 11:32:06 AM  

Jackson Herring: Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff...

[i.imgur.com image 454x340]


Poe's Law gets more and more true with each passing day, but I don't get that vibe here. I think Thunderpipes is genuine, based on some of his past posts, though more than anything I feel sorry for him. I get the impression that he's basically a regular guy who has suffered in his life at the hands of authority figures, and has a bit too much of an authoritarian streak to be able to realize it.

I could be wrong, though.
 
2012-11-12 11:32:30 AM  

yousaywut: coeyagi: ((47% people mooching x 3/5th a person voting x 12 million jobs Romney would create - 6016 years the Earth has been around) / 10 (number of Huntsman and Romney children)) - (Atari 7800) = 330,000

Math, using bullshiat, false or sad facts. Plus Atari (well, minus Atari really).

Atari as matt wow that's just like beautiful.

*wipes a tear* Beautiful man.


Math damn it not matt
 
2012-11-12 11:34:03 AM  
The poor get SO MUCH in free stuff, DunderPipes.

Let's give them $1 BILLION in free stuff each year! What? That's only $3.34 per person per year in the US? Less than 1 penny a day?

Let's move the goalposts like you frequently do:

$10 BILLION? $33.40/year. Less than 1 dime a day.
$100 BILLION???? $334/year. Less than 1 dollar a day.

ARE YOU TOO FARKING CHEAP TO HELP OUT THE POOR IN A WORST CASE SCENARIO OF $1 A DAY?
 
2012-11-12 11:35:25 AM  

BMFPitt: mrshowrules: I have another pair of numbers: 17% and 50.3%.

The former is the Congressional Approval and latter is Obama's.

Who the fark are those 17%, anyway?


My guess is it's people who answer yes just because, or didn't understand the question and maybe thought it was about their representative.
 
2012-11-12 11:36:49 AM  

coeyagi: JackieRabbit: GoodyearPimp: Thunderpipes: We need to reform the big entitlements.

If you take the same amount of taxes for SS, Medicare, etc, but slash the benefits, isn't that "raising taxes" under the new conservative definition? Why do you want to raise taxes?

Both parties are insulting our intelligence right now. They are both saying that they want to leave the tax rates the same (Obama wants to slightly increase the rate for very wealthy citizens). However, they want to eliminated the more common tax deductions, so that tax will be pain of more of our income. Yet they expect us to accept the lie that this is not, of itself, a tax increase. The bottom line is that once again, the middle class is going to get screwed.

Really? When did Obama say he wanted to screw with deductions? I am not saying he didn't, just saying I haven't seen it.


Obama said last Friday that he is open to hearing options and that one of the options he would consider is eliminating some common deductions. He spun it as deduction common to the wealthy, but the CBO states that the ones batted around thus far are common to both the wealthy and the middle class (mortgage interest being one of the primary). The Democratic leadership has said that this is a bipartisan issue and that they can come to terms with the Republicans on this option.
 
2012-11-12 11:36:58 AM  

Thunderpipes: Headso: Thunderpipes: They breed faster, also a fact. Democrats can remain in power, and even gain in power simply by promising free stuff.

what if they promise free abortions? did I just blow your mind?

Well, considering that they ran on that, well, ya.

I just wish liberals would actually care and think about solutions, instead of how to use tax dollars to stay in power. The deficit crisis is bad, and getting much worse each day, and none of you care. Are any of you parents? Don't you care that in 10-20 years we will be in deep, deep trouble with no way out?


I wish Republicans would think about long term issues instead of short term gains.  Allow environmental destruction for short term gain? Sure, why not. Yeah, we only get one earth, and our children and grandchildren only have what we leave them, but we have fiscal year profit margins to consider. Yes, oil and coal have an expiration date, but why even attempt to build an economy that isn't hamstrung by dependence on these, when we have short-term growth to consider. Large corporations are great for your pocket book if you're in your 50's or 60's, and have your future income tied up in stocks, but this massive shift of commerce to only the largest players chokes out small businesses, the entrepreneurial first steps that the young will need to build THEIR futures.

I look at a city like San Francisco, and I see that 85% are employed by businesses with
How many of our most promising minds have been born into families of limited means, educated in underfunded schools, been subjected to limited nutrition and toxic civic life, while dull minds born to the 'right' families have arrived to positions of influence instead?

The Democratic party has its flaws - our nation essentially has a multiparty system, and the minority parties cobble together two big-tent coalitions. I find the devotion to affirmative action particularly damaging, as it encourages a cheap band-aid approach to diversity, rather than the more expensive (in the short term) investments in minority/underprivileged communities which would allow them to compete fairly in the future.

It's still a stark improvement over the Republican vision. All this "durrr Soshulizm! Redistribution!" nonsense is cynical and disheartening - We need to ensure that the playing field is balanced to allow small businesses to compete (corporate regulation and monopoly busting), to encourage upstarts (social safety net, stable healthcare), to ensure that more people can be fully invested in our society, have skin in the game, so to speak.

But, anything that interferes with the ability of boomers to retire with healthy dividends on their 401Ks and live out their golden years in homogenous, gated communities is clearly the end of the American Dream. I vote to built a country for my kids and future grandchildren, not help boomers cash out this country in a grand sell-off.
 
2012-11-12 11:37:11 AM  

mainstreet62: The poor get SO MUCH in free stuff, DunderPipes.

Let's give them $1 BILLION in free stuff each year! What? That's only $3.34 per person per year in the US? Less than 1 penny a day?

Let's move the goalposts like you frequently do:

$10 BILLION? $33.40/year. Less than 1 dime a day.
$100 BILLION???? $334/year. Less than 1 dollar a day.

ARE YOU TOO FARKING CHEAP TO HELP OUT THE POOR IN A WORST CASE SCENARIO OF $1 A DAY?


Uh bad math I think. You should define poor and then delegate the money because for now not every person in America is poor. So it should be like 2 dollars a day or something on your high end. might even be $2.01 using Romney math of 47%.
 
2012-11-12 11:40:55 AM  

AntonChigger: Krymson Tyde: The obvious response for republicans is to dial up the derp, that should get them the results they want.

Palin/Santorum 2016

Come on, Palin is so 2008 bro

/Bachmann/Santorum 2016


Probably wouldn't turn down creating some santorum with either Palin or Bachamann...

/milfs
//not picky
 
2012-11-12 11:42:28 AM  

yousaywut: mainstreet62: The poor get SO MUCH in free stuff, DunderPipes.

Let's give them $1 BILLION in free stuff each year! What? That's only $3.34 per person per year in the US? Less than 1 penny a day?

Let's move the goalposts like you frequently do:

$10 BILLION? $33.40/year. Less than 1 dime a day.
$100 BILLION???? $334/year. Less than 1 dollar a day.

ARE YOU TOO FARKING CHEAP TO HELP OUT THE POOR IN A WORST CASE SCENARIO OF $1 A DAY?

Uh bad math I think. You should define poor and then delegate the money because for now not every person in America is poor. So it should be like 2 dollars a day or something on your high end. might even be $2.01 using Romney math of 47%.


Point taken, let's double everything to account for, say, 50% of our population not contributing to taxes, to make the math easier.

So:

$1 billion: $6.68
$10 billion: $66.80
$100 billion: $668/year ($1.83/day)

Big whoop. Republicans are still cheap assholes, especially the rich ones. R-tards are making it sound like we are stealing their Bentleys.
 
2012-11-12 11:42:53 AM  
I'll see your 333,000 and raise you 1 supreme court judge that would have given Al Gore the presidency.
 
2012-11-12 11:44:41 AM  
Interpret this as you will, but it would take 1.35 million votes in the right states to swing the election to a 404 EV landslide. I looked at Nate Silver's list of states in order of vote margin and checked for the closest tipping-point state to 400, which was Arizona for 404, then I spot-checked a few states further down to see if there was a more efficient path to 400. I think this is the likeliest scenario to get to 400+.

In order of increasing feasibility:

97,465 votes would swing North Carolina- 347-191
202,202 more votes would swing Arizona- 358-180
203,751 more votes would swing South Carolina- 367-171
263,930 more votes would swing Missouri- 377-161
272,195 more votes would swing Indiana- 388-150
308,460 more votes would swing Georgia- 404-134

1.35 million more votes total.

Others ways of looking at this:

It would have taken an across-the-board 4.7% shift to swing the 66 EVs necessary for Romney to win, which represents 2.8 million votes.

It would have taken an across-the-board 11.1% shift to swing the 72 EVs necessary for Obama to win, which represents 6.9 million votes.

Romney would have had an easier time winning the election than Obama would have had winning a 404 EV landslide, even though the EV swing is roughly similar. This is true whether your metric is cherry-picking state votes (stupid) or an overall swing in popular votes (more likely).

My feeling is that this represents a combination of a well-executed campaign for Obama and a poor one for Romney. Obama's ceiling was realistically 347 EVs. Let's assume that Romney could have won, and assume that the final result was the mean of a population of outcomes with a possible +/- 4.7% across-the board swing. In this scenario, realistic outcomes for the election were anywhere from Romney barely winning to Obama reaching his EV ceiling (which is likely why any thinking person called the election for Obama).

This Breitbart article actually makes me lean toward interpreting this as a well-executed Obama campaign, since he won precisely the votes that he needed to win. The road to an Obama 404 EV landslide would be rough: almost twice as many votes as it would take for Romney to have won. But Romney winning was well within his reach, and he failed to convince the few million voters it would have taken to win. So, in reality, the score was decisive, but Romney realistically could have executed a win. I read way to much fivethirtyeight over the past few months, but I liked the field goal analogy. Romney lost by a field goal, and, on the surface, a field goal is easy to execute. But, in the end, Obama's team had the ball (after the post-debates, Sandy "turnover"), called the victory formation, and put a few knees down to win.

I think it's worth noting that even if we switched to another metric, perhaps offensive yards instead of points (because it gives every offensive yard a voice in the outcome, whether it was in a scoring drive or not, darnit!), Obama still won. And, in the end, his offense had the ball, and Romney's offense wasn't gaining yards.

/Offensive yards = popular vote in case I made a poor case for this analogy.
 
2012-11-12 11:46:25 AM  

Skw33tis: SwiftFox: nekom: Skw33tis: I also sympathize with the argument that, under a pure popular-vote system, populous states like New York, California, and Texas would have disproportionate influence. To be fair, if most of the population lives in a few states, those states probably should be disproportionally influential, but smaller states shouldn't be de-facto shut out of the process, either.

Yeah, I can certainly understand a small state's desire to appear relevant, but as you said it's also easy to argue that a state with a higher population rightfully SHOULD have more clout.

I always figured perhaps it once made sense in logistics in the days when ballots were carried on horseback or whatever.

Um, so "disproportionally" means everyone's vote means the same and "proportionally" means the vote of the guy in the littlest state (population) has a lot more influence?

I used the term "disproportionally" to refer to the influence of populous states over sparsely populated states under a pure popular-vote system. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the issue.

The electoral college was designed as a way for states, not individuals, to select a president. Of course, this was designed this way because, in the 18th century, a president was little more than a foreign-policy interface between the states and the rest of the world. Now that the scope of the office is so much larger, I think there is an argument for updating the system. However, given that I'm somewhat temperamentally (though not really politically, anymore) conservative, I tend to favor updating with smaller, incremental changes.


And that's what it's all about. What we have is a blend of both sides of the houses of Congress, Senate elected by state. House of Representatives elected by population. President a 20/87 blend of the two, with 4.35 times as much influence for the whole population as the collective voters of each state. Each state's Senate influence keeps everyone from running roughshod over the rights of minorities, House of Representatives keeps things democratic with a small "d" plus has to propose taxes by population-only influence, but still needing approval of the states-apportioned Senate.

And the President is a blend of that. Mainly beholden to the population as a whole, but kept mindful of the small states.

Nah, I don't think anyone's going to improve on that much.
 
2012-11-12 11:47:32 AM  

jcb274:

It would have taken an across-the-board 11.1% shift to swing the 72 EVs necessary for Obama to win a landslide, which represents 6.9 million votes.

 
2012-11-12 11:54:23 AM  

Silverstaff: Rather funny the Republicans are whining about the Electoral College being unfair, since it was a key plank in their platform this year:

From the 2012 Republican Platform (Link)
"The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College (Top)

We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose "national popular vote" would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency."

In other words, they thought they would get an EC win, and just in case Obama won the popular vote they were wanting to set up their opposition to changing to a popular vote system.

They'll turn their backs on their own party platform in a moment if they think it'll increase their odds of being elected, they don't care about platform or positions or principles, only power for powers sake.


I agree right up to the end. The power is not for its own sake, its for the sake of a money grab.

Think of fishing. Dems want to stock the pond and cast their lines and reel in your money one fish at a time. Repubs are the guys fishing with dynamite.
 
2012-11-12 12:18:24 PM  
Just curious, how many miliatry votes were thrown away/not gotten to the troops overseas?
 
2012-11-12 12:21:34 PM  

dustygrimp: Think of fishing. Dems want to stock the pond and cast their lines and reel in your money one fish at a time. Repubs are the guys fishing with dynamite trying to hijack the tanker truck before it gets to the lake.

 
2012-11-12 12:22:09 PM  

meta1hed: Just curious, how many miliatry votes were thrown away/not gotten to the troops overseas?


42. The answer is always 42.
 
2012-11-12 12:24:08 PM  
UNLIKEY tag is right.

Yeah yeah yeah you'll boo and hiss, but this election was so clearly stolen, it's a wonder that even Cuba doesn't laugh at us for being Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
 
2012-11-12 12:25:14 PM  

meta1hed: Just curious, how many miliatry votes were thrown away/not gotten to the troops overseas?


all of them, it was part of the election conspiracy that also allowed a brazillion mezzicans to vote for the keyan without ID.
 
2012-11-12 12:26:06 PM  
...but he didn't get them and be lost. You might want to go to the doctor if your butt still hurts this badly this week.
 
2012-11-12 12:26:54 PM  
The pundits all say, he'd have made Whitefish bay,
if he'd put 15 more miles behind him...
 
2012-11-12 12:33:21 PM  

meta1hed: Just curious, how many miliatry votes were thrown away/not gotten to the troops overseas?


Well, since troops overseas can vote absentee, the DoD made a big drive to make sure every servicemember who wanted to vote did, and that they could send in their absentee ballots months in advance, probably not a lot.

I know that the Republicans are whining and crying and soiling their diapers that they lost, that they were convinced right up to the very end (despite poll numbers saying otherwise) that Romney was going to win, so they are trying to look for why it didn't happen, certain that somehow some trickery is why it didn't happen.

The Republicans went out of their way to suppress low-income voters through Voter ID laws, tried to reduce/eliminate early voting which let people working odd hours vote at more convenient times, spent over a half-billion dollars on campaigning (including a ridiculous amount of TV and radio ads), lied so much that every other word out of their mouths was a prevarication, slung mud, tried to have priests and preachers tell parishioners they were going to Hell if they voted for Obama, used fear constantly by implying that if they lost the USA would instantly turn into a Stalinist-style Communist state, and pandered heavily to whites, Evangelical Christians, the wealthy and the elderly. . .they did everything they could to win the election other than appealing to the majority of the American people. . . and they still lost clearly in both the popular vote and EC.

They don't get it, and that's why they failed.
 
2012-11-12 12:40:20 PM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.

That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken


Your chicken would like you to stop farking it.
 
2012-11-12 12:40:49 PM  

maddogdelta: Krymson Tyde: Palin/Santorum 2016

Santorum/Palin. We can't have a woman being anything other than submissive to a man.

// Which is why Coulter/Bachman would work...


Good point.
 
2012-11-12 12:44:40 PM  
If Romney ran as white Obama for the entire election instead of just the last few weeks he would've won then too. Of course, Obama ran as black Romney so who knows.
 
2012-11-12 12:51:14 PM  

Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.


That adds up to about 60 million people, in a country of over 300 million. Without the EC, it's hard to imagine a scenario where campaigning only to about 20% of the total electorate would be a winning strategy.
 
2012-11-12 12:58:53 PM  
Yeah, but they didn't.

The GOP still won more square miles, though. Which is nice.
 
2012-11-12 01:04:34 PM  

brobdiggy: Not protesting Obama or anything, but the Electoral College "winner take all" system is absolutely stupid.

Every election we hear the "your vote counts" garbage. That's not true. The message should be "your vote counts if you live in Ohio or Florida".

I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.


Two words for you: Gerry. Mander.

/No f-ing way. Popular vote or fark yourself, you Republican shill.
 
2012-11-12 01:14:39 PM  
If only she'd have said yes, then she wouldn't have said no. So it's totally the same as me getting laid, cuz only two letters stood between me and the poon.
 
2012-11-12 01:23:33 PM  
Derpers don't want to hear they didn't get a mandate.
 
2012-11-12 01:42:07 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: PunGent: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?

It's not a democracy. It's a representative republic.

Pretty sure he was making fun of Trump's Twitter feed there...

Oh, sorry, I don't bother following Trump's twitter feed. Not sure why anyone would.


Normally I wouldn't...but his post-election meltdown was pretty funny :)
 
2012-11-12 01:47:37 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: MrVeach: How is it a democracy if half the people want someone else as president? Maybe they should split the term percentagewise based on votes. Obama first 25 months, Romney last 23? Stagger it?

It's not a democracy. It's a representative republic.


The two are not mutually exclusive. I am sick of this false dichotomy.
 
2012-11-12 01:50:15 PM  

Thunderpipes: swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Really is, 4-5 states should not decide an election. Candidates not even needing to campaign in the largest states as well is just silly. And it does stifle voter turnout. If you live in CA and are not a Democrat, Texas and not a Pub, you know your vote is thrown out, so why do it? Same here in VT, unless you are a Democrat, your vote is useless.


If that's where the majority of people live, it makes perfect sense.
 
2012-11-12 01:50:18 PM  
FTFA:

Obama's victory doesn't constitute a mandate for his far left agenda to "transform America" into some nightmarish amalgam combining the worst features of a European socialist state with an Indonesian oligarchy.

img204.imageshack.us

I think it's embarrassing that so many Americans cannot differentiate between people who are delusional and people who are rational.

/seriously, it's scary
//cause you have all the bombs
 
2012-11-12 01:57:40 PM  
If Mondale had gotten another 28,468,835 across 27 states, he could have beaten Reagan!!!
 
2012-11-12 02:12:19 PM  
And if the USS Enterprise had been at the Battle of Endor, it would have prevented the Andromeda from taking over Babylon 5 and saved The Doctor from being captured and sent to Battlestar Galactica.

/you lost, Republicans. Accept it and move on
 
2012-11-12 02:14:49 PM  

swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.


The older I get the more I think it's reasonable for rural areas to have extra representation relative to sheer number of votes. There really is a reason to care about farms, mines, and other natural resources that we can't yet import wholesale from China.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that the divisions between North and South Dakota, Vermont and New Hampshire, and West Virginia and Kentucky are long outdated thanks to the introduction of that newfangled automobile thing. Some consolidation, possibly accompanied by splitting off Jefferson and maybe adding Puerto Rico, would go a long way toward fixing some of the extreme rural over-representation of the Senate. Not that this would ever happen.

I'd also put Oregon/Washington there, as both would be more coherent with an East/West split than North/South, but they have the whole division between income and sales taxes that no one would ever be able to agree on, which would also be a problem for VT/NH.
 
2012-11-12 02:19:24 PM  

foxyshadis: The older I get the more I think it's reasonable for rural areas to have extra representation relative to sheer number of votes. There really is a reason to care about farms, mines, and other natural resources that we can't yet import wholesale from China.


Do you really think giving these bumpkins more say is good for our farms, mines, and other natural resources?
 
2012-11-12 02:20:22 PM  
Is this the math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?
 
2012-11-12 02:20:25 PM  
You know those people that never get the hint to shut the fark up?
 
2012-11-12 02:44:45 PM  
I read that as 333,000 volts. Not sure how that would work.
 
2012-11-12 03:03:26 PM  
Obama's victory doesn't constitute a mandate for his far left agenda to "transform America" into some nightmarish amalgam combining the worst features of a European socialist state with an Indonesian oligarchy.

Well, yes. In the same vein, when I get a wardrobe, it is not inherently assumed I will travel to Narnia.
 
2012-11-12 03:15:09 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-12 04:09:55 PM  
The DERP equivalent of a football commentator's insightful post-game analysis of: 

"You know, all they needed to do to win this game was put a few more touch-downs on the board..."
 
2012-11-12 04:22:57 PM  
The GOP lost because they broke the rule that's been around for centuries.

Don't fark with the poor, they have a habit of farking you back.

The 47% comment, the GOP attitude that the poor are loathsome ( Esp if they are not white ), When Romney pronounced " poor " like " pour " you could hear his contempt in his voice, Blatant voter suppression in minority districts. People came out in droves just to tell the GOP to stick it where the sun don't shine.
At least Bush and Reagan were really good at pretending like they cared
 
2012-11-12 04:45:09 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: When Romney pronounced " poor " like " pour "


They're both pronounced the same way, aren't they?

The only 'poor' people I want to hear about are the people that tend to my pores at the spa.
 
2012-11-12 04:46:26 PM  

Slaxl: ItchyMcDoogle: When Romney pronounced " poor " like " pour "

They're both pronounced the same way, aren't they?

The only 'poor' people I want to hear about are the people that tend to my pores pours at the spa bar.


ftfy
 
2012-11-12 04:55:05 PM  

SpaceButler: Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.

That adds up to about 60 million people, in a country of over 300 million. Without the EC, it's hard to imagine a scenario where campaigning only to about 20% of the total electorate would be a winning strategy.


Also, for the truly super small states right now, (ie, under 6 EV, which is 17 states), other than New Hampshire, nobody campaigns in those states because they are so red or blue it doesn't matter, in addition to the EV sizes are small.

The benefit I see with getting rid of EV is that MORE metro areas that are currently ignored will be "spoken to". I find it interesting that people bring up your point.... and right now, those 5 metro area's get essentially NO attention from the candidates, since they are all in non-swing states (even Philly, despite what the GOP had hoped, is barely a swing state anymore). Which seems crazy, think about that in any other election for anything else... would the candidate be ignoring the largest population centers when they run? Yet, that is exactly how we line up the Presidential Election with the E.C.

Right now, the largest metro area that is at least partially within a "swing state" is the Washington DC area (Virginia), which is 7th largest. Miami is 8th. Detroit is 13th (Barely a swing state as of late), then down to 18th with Tampa, and 21st with Denver.

So, right now, you've basically considered at least 16 of the 21 largest metro areas in the country as "unnecessary" to really talk to for the purposes of winning the E.V. How does that make any sense?
 
2012-11-12 04:58:49 PM  

foxyshadis: swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

The older I get the more I think it's reasonable for rural areas to have extra representation relative to sheer number of votes. There really is a reason to care about farms, mines, and other natural resources that we can't yet import wholesale from China.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that the divisions between North and South Dakota, Vermont and New Hampshire, and West Virginia and Kentucky are long outdated thanks to the introduction of that newfangled automobile thing. Some consolidation, possibly accompanied by splitting off Jefferson and maybe adding Puerto Rico, would go a long way toward fixing some of the extreme rural over-representation of the Senate. Not that this would ever happen.

I'd also put Oregon/Washington there, as both would be more coherent with an East/West split than North/South, but they have the whole division between income and sales taxes that no one would ever be able to agree on, which would also be a problem for VT/NH.


Does that mean Oregon gets to smoke the weed all legal like? and washington can lose it's sales tax too?

/cause I'm ok with both of those
 
2012-11-12 05:16:31 PM  
What if?! What if Romney wasn't a pathological liar? What if Romney was likable?

Still wouldn't have helped... Republicans, your platform sucks... a lot. That's why you lost. Your platform resulted in a shiatty candidate because that's the only kind of candidate who would subscribe to your platform. You're going to lose big again in 2014 because you still haven't learned your lesson. You won't change your ways. You won't learn. You won't govern honestly or with good intent with what little power still remains in your grasp. By 2016, I'm hoping that the entire Republican party is dissolved and that a new political party rises up and tries to work together with their fellow Americans to solve our problems instead of against them. I want more options, not less... and your party is no longer an option.
 
2012-11-12 05:23:05 PM  

JohnnyC: What if?! What if Romney wasn't a pathological liar? What if Romney was likable?


He wouldn't have been a politician.

Thank you, I'm here all week.
 
2012-11-12 05:39:01 PM  
Yeah, and if I had received 52 million more votes than I did then I would have been President.
 
2012-11-12 05:40:45 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.

Your argument would make more sense if electoral votes weren't handed out based on state population. As it ALREADY STANDS, the system is setup to roughly approximate a popular vote solution.

We all share this country...sorry. I don't think you know what "disenfranchise" means.


AssAsInAssassin: Thunderpipes: swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Really is, 4-5 states should not decide an election. Candidates not even needing to campaign in the largest states as well is just silly. And it does stifle voter turnout. If you live in CA and are not a Democrat, Texas and not a Pub, you know your vote is thrown out, so why do it? Same here in VT, unless you are a Democrat, your vote is useless.

If that's where the majority of people live, it makes perfect sense.


I've noticed that people in favor of retaining the Electoral College are incapable of making sense. They cannot get their heads around the idea that it's not "the most populous states" or "the biggest cities" dominating the vote (although in fairness, that is good language to use if the goal is intentionally to obfuscate). They also seem to struggle with the basic math of the EV not reflecting population, and with the basic fact of votes not mattering at all in a long list of non-swing states. It just bounces off of them.

States don't vote. Cities don't vote. Only individual people vote.

Here is the basic concept that they either don't understand or choose to ignore: If there are 10M voters in City X and 5.3M vote for Obama while 4.7M vote for Romney, Obama gets +0.6M votes, not +10M. Yet their arguments against Popular Vote only make sense if the latter were true, i.e. "City X will dominate the election because it has 10M voters".

Sure, candidates might focus their campaigning on locations with the densest populations, where they get the most bang for the buck on getting out their vote. But suggesting that is worse than focusing their campaigning on the few counties in a few states that might tip is, to put it politely, disingenuous. And suggesting that it means that campaigns will boil down to a handful of cities is frankly dishonest.

Oh, and I have zero patience for the "republic vs. democracy" word game. That is just another way of stating the question, not an answer.
 
2012-11-12 06:36:03 PM  

czetie: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.

Your argument would make more sense if electoral votes weren't handed out based on state population. As it ALREADY STANDS, the system is setup to roughly approximate a popular vote solution.

We all share this country...sorry. I don't think you know what "disenfranchise" means.

AssAsInAssassin: Thunderpipes: swaniefrmreddeer: And he would have lost the popular vote still by a large margin. The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Really is, 4-5 states should not decide an election. Candidates not even needing to campaign in the largest states as well is just silly. And it does stifle voter turnout. If you live in CA and are not a Democrat, Texas and not a Pub, you know your vote is thrown out, so why do it? Same here in VT, unless you are a Democrat, your vote is useless.

If that's where the majority of people live, it makes perfect sense.

I've noticed that people in favor of retaining the Electoral College are incapable of making sense. They cannot get their heads around the idea that it's not "the most populous states" or "the biggest cities" dominating the vote (although in fairness, that is good language to use if the goal is intentionally to obfuscate). They also seem to struggle with the basic math of the EV not reflecting population, and with the basic fact of votes not mattering at all in a long list of non-swing states. It just bounces off of them.

States don't vote. Cities don't vote. Only individual people vote.

Here is the basic concept that they either don't understand or choose to ignore: If there are 10M voters in City X and 5.3M vote for Obama while ...


I'm not in favor of the EC. I was hoping Obama would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote, so we could start seriously talking about getting rid of the EC. It used to make sense--200+ years ago--but now it's an anachronism. My comment was this: If the majority of the people live in a few states, then it makes sense that those few states could decide the election. Square miles don't vote; people do. In 2008, Fox "News" pundidiots liked to hold up a map of the US to show how much more red it was than blue, and therefore, how "unfair" the election was, and that Obama didn't have a mandate. Problem is, as I said, square miles don't vote. People do.

So we agree.
 
2012-11-12 06:58:07 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: I'm not in favor of the EC. I was hoping Obama would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote, so we could start seriously talking about getting rid of the EC.


Considering it would take a 3/4's vote of Congress to pass you can pretty much forget about it happening. It's a moot argument.
 
2012-11-12 08:15:33 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: AssAsInAssassin: I'm not in favor of the EC. I was hoping Obama would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote, so we could start seriously talking about getting rid of the EC.

Considering it would take a 3/4's vote of Congress to pass you can pretty much forget about it happening. It's a moot argument.


It wouldn't happen overnight, granted. But it can happen. Or do you think the 17 amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights are all moot arguments?

It used to be senators were appointed by the party. Was that a moot argument?

It used to be women couldn't vote. Was that a moot argument?

Abolition of slavery: moot?

You get the point.
 
2012-11-13 10:46:45 AM  

AssAsInAssassin: Snowflake Tubbybottom: AssAsInAssassin: I'm not in favor of the EC. I was hoping Obama would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote, so we could start seriously talking about getting rid of the EC.

Considering it would take a 3/4's vote of Congress to pass you can pretty much forget about it happening. It's a moot argument.

It wouldn't happen overnight, granted. But it can happen. Or do you think the 17 amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights are all moot arguments?

It used to be senators were appointed by the party. Was that a moot argument?

It used to be women couldn't vote. Was that a moot argument?

Abolition of slavery: moot?

You get the point.


No it is a moo point Link
 
2012-11-13 02:45:38 PM  
Republicans are working hard with vagina regulations, district serpentining and voter fraud
They should just work harder and have an appeal!
 
2012-11-14 01:52:59 PM  

dletter: SpaceButler: Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.

That adds up to about 60 million people, in a country of over 300 million. Without the EC, it's hard to imagine a scenario where campaigning only to about 20% of the total electorate would be a winning strategy.

Also, for the truly super small states right now, (ie, under 6 EV, which is 17 states), other than New Hampshire, nobody campaigns in those states because they are so red or blue it doesn't matter, in addition to the EV sizes are small.

The benefit I see with getting rid of EV is that MORE metro areas that are currently ignored will be "spoken to". I find it interesting that people bring up your point.... and right now, those 5 metro area's get essentially NO attention from the candidates, since they are all in non-swing states (even Philly, despite what the GOP had hoped, is barely a swing state anymore). Which seems crazy, think about that in any other election for anything else... would the candidate be ignoring the largest population centers when they run? Yet, that is exactly how we line up the Presidential Election with the E.C.

Right now, the largest metro area that is at least partially within a "swing state" is the Washington DC area (Virginia), which is 7th largest. Miami is 8th. Detroit is 13th (Barely a swing state as of late), then down to 18th with Tampa, and 21st with Denver.

So, right now, you've basically considered at least 16 of the 21 largest metro areas in the country as "unnecessary" to really talk to for the purposes of winning the E.V. How does that make any sense?


I doubt anyone's still reading this thread, but I had an odd thought while reading your post. The large metro areas are involved in the elections, in that they're great sources of campaign donations, and politicians will want to make their resident people and corps happy so they will donate.

So with the EC system working as it does now, the ridiculous expense of running for office is actually one of the only things helping to counteract the disproportionate influence of the swing states in a Presidential election.
 
Displayed 323 of 323 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report