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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

50,000 votes in one state would have given Kerry the election in 2004, what's the point?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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"?

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!

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,

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...

If you just replace "lost" with "won", then Romney would have "won" the election.

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)

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.

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



Nos encantan los coches de payaso

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.

"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.

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

Oh, look! More butthurt.

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

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.

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

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..."

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

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.



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

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

42. The answer is always 42.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Thunderpipes: . We need to make being poor hard,

Know how I know you don't know what the fark you're talking about?

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?

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.

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.

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"

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?

((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).

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%?

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

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...

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?

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.

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, only 270 more electoral votes would have given ME the presidency, and I didn't even run. Also, 270 is less than 330,000.

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!

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.

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.

A change in just six of the numbers to the winning ones on my Megamillions quick pick and I would now be a millionaire.

You know what twice 333,000 is? 666,000!!1!eleventyone!

Does that mean RMoney is half the anti-christ?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

'Is that some kind of Math You Do As A Republican To Make Yourself Feel Better?'

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.

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.

666 x 500 = 330,000

They just needed more devil worshipers to vote.

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!

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.

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.

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.

If Romney had been born a Mexican , his life would have been a lot easier.

Obama won by ~3.3 Million popular votes.


Handle it, Repugs!!

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.

If frogs had wings, they'd be getting pigeon pussy.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"Free Candy" is the only platform that can win from now on.

And if Rove had just gotten $390,000,001 from donors, Republicans would've won everything!

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.

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

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

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