Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Happy with the results upon waking up this morning. Also, here in MN, we were the first state to defeat a constitutional ammendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. I feel proud.
Actually your name reminds me of a joke in the British press at the time of Obama's first election..I am not sure if " ding dong " has the same meaning in the US, but here one of its meanings is an argument...the joke involved the new president having a dispute with the Dalai Lama under the headline " Obama-Lama Ding Dong "..
Yeah, Iran have played that game before. Long story short, they use diplomacy to buy time and further their nuclear programs and technology. You can also see how "waiting on the election" is simply an ultimatum/manipulation. They view Obama as weak and malleable.
See 2002 onwards, particularly until 2006. Those were a very productive 4 years for Iran's nuclear program regardless of numerous sanctions, treaties (signed by Iran) and attempts at engagement, mostly by the IAEA, UN and the EU.
Your cursory understanding of the complex issue leads you to recurring inaccuracies.
the MN marriage amendment was hard fought. I hope now that we have something to build on we can continue to move towards what Washington, Maine and Maryland passed last night. Equality for everyone.
I thought both Obama and Romney gave excellent speeches last night. I am glad Obama won, and I think we will be a different country in 4 years than we are now, for the better. But I also think if the Romney that showed up last night had been present during the last 6 months of his campaign, he probably would have won. It's like he totally lost himself between his nomination and his concession last night. Seems to me like he was trying to go too many different directions in an attempt to win no matter what, when he would have been better off just being himself.
1
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
What I found interesting is what they were saying about the recession of white power in the US. Apparently, Romney won 60% of the white vote, which is the same that George Bush Sr. won in '89, however, Bush won by a great margin and Romney... well... didn't win at all.
So everybody be afraid. The minorities are taking over and America is becoming... well... what America was supposed to be? Guess we're going full circle now. Back into the melting pot with the lot of ya!
What I found interesting is what they were saying about the recession of white power in the US. Apparently, Romney won 60% of the white vote, which is the same that George Bush Sr. won in '89, however, Bush won by a great margin and Romney... well... didn't win at all.
So everybody be afraid. The minorities are taking over and America is becoming... well... what America was supposed to be? Guess we're going full circle now. Back into the melting pot with the lot of ya!
Yeah, this idea seems to be a common perception among many. Bill O'Reilly, for example, apparently went on a racist rant last night about non-whites and women wanting stuff and voting for Obama because they know he'll give it to them unlike 'white establishment' Romney and 'traditional America' (conservative white males, I'm guessing).
Honestly, it drives me crazy and I can't stand it. I can't stand the classism and racism underlying it. I can't stand the lack of understanding of our history and the systemic discrimination embedded into many of our institutions and psyche. I can't stand the lack of compassion. And I can't stand the blatantly negative attitudes surrounding minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance in general, as if they're all just a bunch of lazy pieces of shit. There are ways to fix these problems, but that'll never happen if people continue to pretend that there isn't a problem, or that the problem is simply that blacks and poor people are simply lazy leeches who abuse the system and need to be cut off.
Taking a broader look at American history, I think it's hard to miss that systemic discrimination has been embedded into many of our institutions and psyche; and even though things are more equal now than in the past, there's still a lot of work to be done. Sure, slavery is no more and women can now vote; but women still get paid less than men and blacks still face disproportionate police discrimination (our local police bureau even admitted that racism may be a factor behind the persistent disparity between how often whites and blacks in Portland are stopped and then searched).
In essence, to say what O'Reilly said while seemingly ignoring systematic problems and social prejudices that many don't think exist gives an incomplete picture of the problem, which I believe will distort the effectiveness of any proposed solutions. Cutting people off of government assistance at a certain time, for example, which is something many conservatives favour, won't make it any easier for those people to get a decent education or a job that can actually support them without any additional assistance in a society that still makes it more difficult for some than others.
To take just one example, the unemployment rate among black college graduates is almost double that of whites, and I sincerely doubt it's because all those black grads are just lazy, so just imagine how difficult it must be for someone without a college degree who also happens to be black to find work. And many of those who do manage find employment, regardless of the gender, race, etc., aren't being paid enough to support themselves without help. Minimum wage just isn't enough.
Another issue I see besides these negative attitudes surrounding minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance is that many Americans are adverse to a lot of the things that can potentially help, like truly universal, single-payer healthcare, solidly-funded K-college education for all, stricter lobbying laws, instant runoff voting, an amendment ending corporate personhood (which gives corporations many of the same rights as citizens) and the institution of campaign finance reforms, stronger banking regulations, and even more radical things like a universal basic income, etc.
Historically speaking, less taxes on the wealthy, more privatization and deregulation, and supply-side economics haven't really worked that well for us in the past. And for all the negative talk about things like the evil, socialist Scandinavian welfare states, they're actually pretty prosperous all-around and are weathering the current crisis relatively well, which is arguably due in part to their strong safety nets and tough regulations on the banking sector (same for Canada).
But leaving the economic aspect of the discussion aside, I think the prevalence of racist and negative attitudes towards minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance in general exemplified by people like O'Reilly are ultimately an impediments to our material and spiritual growth as a nation.
It's sad, how much they want to hang onto "white America" yet they claim they aren't racist, and claim we are misunderstanding them. How, exactly, are we misunderstanding? Some analyst this morning said if the GOP doesn't do something to change their stance on minorities and immigration, they'll never see another presidency. I can't say that makes me sad, lol, but I'd rather they change their feelings and opinions on the issue. It's going to have to be forced, and I think we're seeing the start of it. I hope. I might still be high off all the wins my "side" got, and delirious because I was up until 3am waiting for results from our state election to come in...but I am still hopeful.
I do, however, feel a bit like a kid on Christmas because I went into the election hoping for 50% of what I wanted to see in the results, and got 100%, and then some with Baldwin and Warren getting elected and the pot legalizations. Except the fact my state (not my district, thank goodness) re-elected the cancer that is Michelle Bachmann. I realize that isn't very nice sounding, but that woman is a witch who has contributed to the bullying of students in her district and since her area was redistricted I was hoping she'd go away.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Oh Bachmann.... How did that happen? Anyways... at least Akin was defeated.
I have to admit, I felt pretty confident going into the election. If and when the GOP finds a more socially liberal candidate, that's when it will get interesting. Romney started off that way... then he became the complete opposite of what he was while governor of Massachusetts. It was interesting to see Massachusetts favor Obama with a whopping 60.9% vs. 37.5%. A lot of the complaints I heard were that even if people weren't happy with Obama, Romney was just too far right for people to consider voting for him. I hope this means that the number of fundamentalists in the country are receding. Maybe candidates can really get down to business instead of just being able to throw the fear of the homosexuals into the mix and win votes.
...Some analyst this morning said if the GOP doesn't do something to change their stance on minorities and immigration, they'll never see another presidency. ...
We always hear that kind of statement about political parties after they lose, and yet, when you look back at who has occupied the White House over time, it's somewhat even.
After the Republican debacle of Goldwater in 1964, analysts were saying that the Republican party was through. Until 4 years later when Nixon won.
After the Democrat debacle of McGovern in 1972, analysts were saying that the Democrat Party was through. Until 4 years later when Jimmy Carter won.
There were those who said that the 2 term presidency of Bill Clinton would lead to a long dynasty of Democrat presidents. Until George Bush won in 2000.
There were those who said that Obama was a transformational president and he couldn't be defeated, and yet, in terms of last night, it was no landslide for Obama in several of the swing states.
Interesting win! I care more about propositions to be honest.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I'm so glad you guys didn't put Romney in. There is hope for you yet.
I didn't mean it (in my words) as a sense of the party will be through. Just that the party in it's current incarnation is probably getting close to being done. That's what I took away from the comments from the analyst. Not that the party was going anywhere, but that they are going to have to make some major changes in their party to compete anymore.
I didn't mean it (in my words) as a sense of the party will be through. Just that the party in it's current incarnation is probably getting close to being done. That's what I took away from the comments from the analyst. Not that the party was going anywhere, but that they are going to have to make some major changes in their party to compete anymore.
I don't know... Romney is still in the lead with the popular vote, though it's really close... It's not the Obama landslide I think many were expecting. That doesn't read, to me, as close to being done. But only time will really tell.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The Tea Party put up a few canditates for congress against beatable democrats and lost. If the republicans keep moving to the extreme right they will turn off many middle of the road Americans. Along with that the demographics of the US are steadily trending to a larger minority non-white population. If the republican party doesn't change they are quickly going to find themselves totally on the sidelines.
Having said that, if they lose power they will definately change. Hopefully this country can make a move back to the left.
I don't know... Romney is still in the lead with the popular vote, though it's really close... It's not the Obama landslide I think many were expecting. That doesn't read, to me, as close to being done. But only time will really tell.
I don't know where you're getting you data, but Romney has been behind in the popular vote since last night, currently by over 2 million votes.
If the next dem is not as charismatic as Obama they might not be able to connect with voters. Also I feel Obama is a symbol of the american dream applying to all regardless of whether a star belly sneetch or plain belly (Dr. Seuss book reference added for spice). That is an appealing connection with black and other non-white races. It may appeal to liberals in general. The next democratic candidate (Joe Biden?) will not have that quality to connect with both charisma and as a symbol.
@RebeccaS is right that the election was close. And the above ^^ could make next election in the favor of republicans.
The counterpoint to that is that the latino population (etc..) will continue to grow and I feel on many social issues we will come out of the dark ages. For many young people (I raise hand) who grew up with openly gay friends they view that as no different from being left handed. That's just an example and I also feel republicans have a certain vibe that is off putting to at least myself. I might feel it important to take care of the national debt, but there is something off putting about republicans for me and it relates to a certain vibe they have, a tone, which is not even going into the differences in how I think the debt should be handled.
If the economy wasn't such an issue, the social issues would have had more of a play in the national election, I think. Biden has actually said this election will not be the last vote he'll cast for himself, so he's thinking about running for something, not necessarily president though.
The Latino vote in the US was 10% of our vote last night and increasing every year. The Republicans continue to overwhelmingly alienate that population because of their immigration policy. Many of those voters have illegal alien friends, family, and family still waiting back home to be able to come here. Offending them is not the way to go. Allowing people like Michelle Bachman, Bill O'Reilly, and Donald Trump to be the voice of your party when they do not resonate with the average republican voter, is a mistake as well. Their party is pretty split, and even many who did vote for Romney did not support the majority of his ideals and policies, they placed their vote against Obama, not FOR Romney.
And currently Obama is up by almost 3 million votes with 99% reporting. Close yes, for sure. But Romney is not in the lead.
I did get a kick out of the international poll that showed the only major nation who supported Obama (and only only by 52%) was China. Otherwise, Obama had almost 80% of the vote, even in Israel where he hasn't done the best job at working on relations. They don't agree with everything he's done and his policies, but they think Romney would be a step in the wrong direction, as does most of the rest of the world.
Let's hope the Republicans view this loss as a wake-up call to start thinking about all Americans, not just the 1%. But i confess I am not hopeful. They may swing even farther right - if that is possible.
@Jeffrey that could be, the one I read was just a poll conducted on just over half a million people by...Newsweek? Something like that. I don't think they covered Pakistan.
For lost and fretful white men, unwilling to accept the terms of a new America, Congress is the last barricade against practical and inevitable change. But there, too, the demographic inevitabilities are all in play. All the gerrymandering in this world won’t make those other Americans, those different Americans, go away.
Hard times are still to come for all of us. Rear guard actions will be fought at every political crossroad. But make no mistake: Change is a motherfucker when you run from it.
It's really difficult to see and understand the privilege you have. But, once you see it, you can't unsee it, and it makes temper-tantrums by people like O'Reilly, Trump, and Limbaugh unbelievably nauseating to behold.
from the link @Lincoln posted: This election marks a moment in which the racial and social hierarchy of America is upended forever.
That is exactly the phrase I have been feeling since last night. I think so too. I think we are forever changed by this election. That doesn't mean change will come quickly or suddenly. But there is no going back. When Obama was elected in 2008, a friend sent me a text saying "Welcome to a new America." I think she was right, but it took 4 more years to really get the feeling to go with it. Doesn't mean it'll be easy or fun though, lol.
from the link @Lincoln posted: This election marks a moment in which the racial and social hierarchy of America is upended forever.
That is exactly the phrase I have been feeling since last night. I think so too. I think we are forever changed by this election. That doesn't mean change will come quickly or suddenly. But there is no going back. When Obama was elected in 2008, a friend sent me a text saying "Welcome to a new America." I think she was right, but it took 4 more years to really get the feeling to go with it. Doesn't mean it'll be easy or fun though, lol.
Beware. Most national elections seems to be prophetic the day after, but usually turn out to be rather traditional when viewed from a different point in time.
well, from a Buddhist point of view, every person is different from one moment to another. I am not the same person I was when I was sitting here 12 hours ago. Neither is the nation as a whole. Sometimes the leap is bigger than others.
I don't know... Romney is still in the lead with the popular vote, though it's really close... It's not the Obama landslide I think many were expecting. That doesn't read, to me, as close to being done. But only time will really tell.
I don't know where you're getting you data, but Romney has been behind in the popular vote since last night, currently by over 2 million votes.
Really? Must have read something from yesterday then.
As of 2:30 p.m. ET on Wednesday, Obama has widened his popular vote lead: 60,193,076 or 50.4 percent to Romney's 57,468,587 or 48.1 percent with nearly all precincts reporting, according to The Huffington Post. The report added that population centers in California and other western states have boosted Obama's number of popular votes significantly. Read more at http://www.enstarz.com/articles/9040/20121107/popular-vote-2012-obama-widens-margin-over-romney.htm#RsWK0Kl1vwRHvxEw.99
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Although Obama won both the electoral and the popular vote... I have to agree with what @Rebecca said... I was surprised how close the popular was. The electoral vote was a landslide, but if it was based on popular vote? It would have been a lot more nerve wracking.
The whole electoral college thing is still odd to me whether it ends up in my favor or not. (Don't forget, if we went by popular vote, we never would have had to deal with GWB)
(Don't forget, if we went by popular vote, we never would have had to deal with GWB)
Actually, the issue in 2000 was that the Supreme Court got involved and ended the Florida recount when they likely had to no right to do so (I believe even some members who voted for it now regret the overreach). Had the recount continued, it's very likely Gore would have won.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
(Don't forget, if we went by popular vote, we never would have had to deal with GWB)
Actually, the issue in 2000 was that the Supreme Court got involved and ended the Florida recount when they likely had to no right to do so (I believe even some members who voted for it now regret the overreach). Had the recount continued, it's very likely Gore would have won.
Oh right. Good point. 2004 was the first election I was able to participate in, so I think I forgot about that part of it as I was only 15 at the time.
Sometimes I wish we didn't have to use the electoral college, but the easiest solution of a popular vote really does not serve the US well at all.
Why not? Just curious. Since the states are given electoral college votes in rough proportion to their population anyway, surely a popular vote nationwide simple 'cuts out the middle man' and avoids the awkwardness of a 'winning the colleges/losing the popular vote' scenario..
We are not a democracy. We are a republic. I think there was a lot of thought put into things in the 1700s. There is a reason for congress being split between 2 senators for each state and a number of representatives scaled for population.
I thought you were both? To me, 'republic' means 'not ruled by a royal family' - hence USA is a republic, but the UK is not. Democracy means the people get to vote for their leaders - which can be done in many different ways.
Because of population. If population was the only thing that elected the president, where do you think they would campaign? How many people would stop in Montana, or Wyoming? North and South Dakota? None of them, or not many. The low population states would not have nearly an equal say in the election. The candidates will focus on the east and west coast, and the concerns of the less populated middle would be largely ignored. Considering how much the midwest contributes to the operation of the country, leaving them ignored would not be a good idea. The electoral college was, in part, set up for that reason. So that large states did not have the only control in the country.
Yes, but when you have candidates who are going to ignore the entire middle section of the country (don't forget Alaska, Hawaii, and potentially PR in the future) then the concerns that matter to them, never get attention. They don't get a voice. They get a VOTE, yes. But not a voice. Another part of the reason that electors were put into place was because of the low education level of citizens at the time. They wanted to ensure the people who chose understood the challenges, and the issues. Thus their job is to listen to the rest of us (who are better educated, but still have a pretty crappy understanding of how government works) and then take our voices to the voting table (ideally, anyhow). There would be a total break down of communication between the less populated states and Washington that does not occur with the current system nearly as much as it would with a popular system.
Since the states are given electoral college votes in rough proportion to their population anyway
That's not really true.
The formula is that you get Electoral College votes equal to your number of Senators + number of Representatives. The Representatives are roughly based on population (though the minimum of 1 does skew it to smaller states), but Senators are 2 per state. Therefore, your state minimum is 3 votes. A state could have double the population of a 3-vote state and only have 4 votes.
The system reflects our Federalist system, where most of the power is reserved to the states. After the Civil War, we started identifying primarily as Americans, but that wasn't the case beforehand. It's not really a democratic system at all, it's a system of States electing a common leader.
One reason cited for the original College setup was expressly to insulate it from the masses. Assignment of electors (the people who actually cast the Electoral College votes) weren't even originally bound to the popular vote of the state. Most states have made it so now, but that's only *assignment*. Electors are still allowed to cast their ballot for whomever they wish! The party in the state picks electors they are confident will be faithful. This is why they talk about the "danger of a faithless elector" in the case of an electoral tie.
You can argue the system is outdated and antiquated and out-of-touch with modern America and I'd agree to an extent. However, I doubt whether I would be in favor of abolishing a system that maintains the power of states and still includes a few fail-safes against a popular election gone awry.
Plus, it's just arithmetic why reform won't happen:
It would require amendng the US Constitution which ultimately requires 3/4 of all states (38) to ratify it.
17 states have 5 or less Electoral votes, meaning their influence in presidential elections would be diminished by nearly 50% or more by such an action. So at least 5 of those states would have to say "yeah sure great idea".
Anyone who suggests the Electoral College has a serious chance at reform has probably never seriously read the Constitution. It is a game for TV pundits and people who enjoy arguing in pubs.
So yes, in the current system, the regional interests will not get blocked out by the votes of larger states. However, the votes related to non-regional issues will get blocked out. Any voter that is more progressive than the democrats has bad luck. He or she can either vote democrats (not progressive enough to his or her taste) or vote for one of the parties that will end up winning 0 states (hence the vote basically is lost). Of course the voters that are more conservative than the republicans are in the same situation. I think this amounts to a considerable number of voters that have no voice.
I don't disagree, I didn't say the system was perfect, or even good. I'd prefer to see 3rd party candidates get a fair shake, and get to participate in debates. I've voted for 3rd party candidates in the past, one of them even won our governorship. I tend towards the Green Party myself but I really like Obama and I liked Clinton a lot too (except for his personal indecencies.) I don't like all democrats equally, however. Anyhow, yes, there are definitely people who don't have a vote because of where they fall in their political beliefs. But when you consider the population combined of the less important states (in a popular vote system) it's a much bigger chunk of the US that wouldn't have a voice. The top 10 states hold 50% of our countries population. The top 20 states have 70% of our population. That basically leaves the bottom 30 states with a population of about 77 million people, not mattering to candidates. The rules about who is allowed to debate need to change, when 60+% of Americans want these people in the debates, then that should count more than the 15% requirement that the commission has. Perhaps it needs to be a combined 15% rather than 15% for each candidate. I don't know.
To be clear, the debates are not a matter of federal law or the Constitution or enfranchisement. As far as I know, they're a privately-organized event series by the Republican and Democratic national committees that adopt arbitrary rules to keep other parties out. The debates are not where a change is going to start.
The debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The are funded by sponsors, usually big companies like Anheuser-Busch, Ford, airlines, Discovery channel, etc. The rules about a candidate needing 15% support in national polls didn't come into play until 2000. I have no doubt that the 2 major parties work to keep others out, but the CPD isn't funded by them, that I can tell anyhow.
Comments
Anyhoo...well done America.
I thought both Obama and Romney gave excellent speeches last night. I am glad Obama won, and I think we will be a different country in 4 years than we are now, for the better. But I also think if the Romney that showed up last night had been present during the last 6 months of his campaign, he probably would have won. It's like he totally lost himself between his nomination and his concession last night. Seems to me like he was trying to go too many different directions in an attempt to win no matter what, when he would have been better off just being himself.
So everybody be afraid. The minorities are taking over and America is becoming... well... what America was supposed to be? Guess we're going full circle now. Back into the melting pot with the lot of ya!
Honestly, it drives me crazy and I can't stand it. I can't stand the classism and racism underlying it. I can't stand the lack of understanding of our history and the systemic discrimination embedded into many of our institutions and psyche. I can't stand the lack of compassion. And I can't stand the blatantly negative attitudes surrounding minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance in general, as if they're all just a bunch of lazy pieces of shit. There are ways to fix these problems, but that'll never happen if people continue to pretend that there isn't a problem, or that the problem is simply that blacks and poor people are simply lazy leeches who abuse the system and need to be cut off.
Taking a broader look at American history, I think it's hard to miss that systemic discrimination has been embedded into many of our institutions and psyche; and even though things are more equal now than in the past, there's still a lot of work to be done. Sure, slavery is no more and women can now vote; but women still get paid less than men and blacks still face disproportionate police discrimination (our local police bureau even admitted that racism may be a factor behind the persistent disparity between how often whites and blacks in Portland are stopped and then searched).
In essence, to say what O'Reilly said while seemingly ignoring systematic problems and social prejudices that many don't think exist gives an incomplete picture of the problem, which I believe will distort the effectiveness of any proposed solutions. Cutting people off of government assistance at a certain time, for example, which is something many conservatives favour, won't make it any easier for those people to get a decent education or a job that can actually support them without any additional assistance in a society that still makes it more difficult for some than others.
To take just one example, the unemployment rate among black college graduates is almost double that of whites, and I sincerely doubt it's because all those black grads are just lazy, so just imagine how difficult it must be for someone without a college degree who also happens to be black to find work. And many of those who do manage find employment, regardless of the gender, race, etc., aren't being paid enough to support themselves without help. Minimum wage just isn't enough.
Another issue I see besides these negative attitudes surrounding minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance is that many Americans are adverse to a lot of the things that can potentially help, like truly universal, single-payer healthcare, solidly-funded K-college education for all, stricter lobbying laws, instant runoff voting, an amendment ending corporate personhood (which gives corporations many of the same rights as citizens) and the institution of campaign finance reforms, stronger banking regulations, and even more radical things like a universal basic income, etc.
Historically speaking, less taxes on the wealthy, more privatization and deregulation, and supply-side economics haven't really worked that well for us in the past. And for all the negative talk about things like the evil, socialist Scandinavian welfare states, they're actually pretty prosperous all-around and are weathering the current crisis relatively well, which is arguably due in part to their strong safety nets and tough regulations on the banking sector (same for Canada).
But leaving the economic aspect of the discussion aside, I think the prevalence of racist and negative attitudes towards minorities, the poor, and anyone receiving government assistance in general exemplified by people like O'Reilly are ultimately an impediments to our material and spiritual growth as a nation.
I do, however, feel a bit like a kid on Christmas because I went into the election hoping for 50% of what I wanted to see in the results, and got 100%, and then some with Baldwin and Warren getting elected and the pot legalizations. Except the fact my state (not my district, thank goodness) re-elected the cancer that is Michelle Bachmann. I realize that isn't very nice sounding, but that woman is a witch who has contributed to the bullying of students in her district and since her area was redistricted I was hoping she'd go away.
I have to admit, I felt pretty confident going into the election. If and when the GOP finds a more socially liberal candidate, that's when it will get interesting. Romney started off that way... then he became the complete opposite of what he was while governor of Massachusetts. It was interesting to see Massachusetts favor Obama with a whopping 60.9% vs. 37.5%. A lot of the complaints I heard were that even if people weren't happy with Obama, Romney was just too far right for people to consider voting for him. I hope this means that the number of fundamentalists in the country are receding. Maybe candidates can really get down to business instead of just being able to throw the fear of the homosexuals into the mix and win votes.
After the Republican debacle of Goldwater in 1964, analysts were saying that the Republican party was through. Until 4 years later when Nixon won.
After the Democrat debacle of McGovern in 1972, analysts were saying that the Democrat Party was through. Until 4 years later when Jimmy Carter won.
There were those who said that the 2 term presidency of Bill Clinton would lead to a long dynasty of Democrat presidents. Until George Bush won in 2000.
There were those who said that Obama was a transformational president and he couldn't be defeated, and yet, in terms of last night, it was no landslide for Obama in several of the swing states.
Analysts always overstate these types of things.
minoritynon-white population. If the republican party doesn't change they are quickly going to find themselves totally on the sidelines.Having said that, if they lose power they will definately change. Hopefully this country can make a move back to the left.
@RebeccaS is right that the election was close. And the above ^^ could make next election in the favor of republicans.
The counterpoint to that is that the latino population (etc..) will continue to grow and I feel on many social issues we will come out of the dark ages. For many young people (I raise hand) who grew up with openly gay friends they view that as no different from being left handed. That's just an example and I also feel republicans have a certain vibe that is off putting to at least myself. I might feel it important to take care of the national debt, but there is something off putting about republicans for me and it relates to a certain vibe they have, a tone, which is not even going into the differences in how I think the debt should be handled.
The Latino vote in the US was 10% of our vote last night and increasing every year. The Republicans continue to overwhelmingly alienate that population because of their immigration policy. Many of those voters have illegal alien friends, family, and family still waiting back home to be able to come here. Offending them is not the way to go. Allowing people like Michelle Bachman, Bill O'Reilly, and Donald Trump to be the voice of your party when they do not resonate with the average republican voter, is a mistake as well. Their party is pretty split, and even many who did vote for Romney did not support the majority of his ideals and policies, they placed their vote against Obama, not FOR Romney.
And currently Obama is up by almost 3 million votes with 99% reporting. Close yes, for sure. But Romney is not in the lead.
I did get a kick out of the international poll that showed the only major nation who supported Obama (and only only by 52%) was China. Otherwise, Obama had almost 80% of the vote, even in Israel where he hasn't done the best job at working on relations. They don't agree with everything he's done and his policies, but they think Romney would be a step in the wrong direction, as does most of the rest of the world.
This election marks a moment in which the racial and social hierarchy of America is upended forever.
That is exactly the phrase I have been feeling since last night. I think so too. I think we are forever changed by this election. That doesn't mean change will come quickly or suddenly. But there is no going back. When Obama was elected in 2008, a friend sent me a text saying "Welcome to a new America." I think she was right, but it took 4 more years to really get the feeling to go with it. Doesn't mean it'll be easy or fun though, lol.
Back to the cushion.
http://www.enstarz.com/articles/9040/20121107/popular-vote-2012-obama-widens-margin-over-romney.htm
The whole electoral college thing is still odd to me whether it ends up in my favor or not. (Don't forget, if we went by popular vote, we never would have had to deal with GWB)
California has 55, Florida 29, Hawaii 4 etc etc.
So making it a popular vote won't change that.
(EDIT: By 'that' i mean the amount of attention each state receives.)
The formula is that you get Electoral College votes equal to your number of Senators + number of Representatives. The Representatives are roughly based on population (though the minimum of 1 does skew it to smaller states), but Senators are 2 per state. Therefore, your state minimum is 3 votes. A state could have double the population of a 3-vote state and only have 4 votes.
The system reflects our Federalist system, where most of the power is reserved to the states. After the Civil War, we started identifying primarily as Americans, but that wasn't the case beforehand. It's not really a democratic system at all, it's a system of States electing a common leader.
One reason cited for the original College setup was expressly to insulate it from the masses. Assignment of electors (the people who actually cast the Electoral College votes) weren't even originally bound to the popular vote of the state. Most states have made it so now, but that's only *assignment*. Electors are still allowed to cast their ballot for whomever they wish! The party in the state picks electors they are confident will be faithful. This is why they talk about the "danger of a faithless elector" in the case of an electoral tie.
You can argue the system is outdated and antiquated and out-of-touch with modern America and I'd agree to an extent. However, I doubt whether I would be in favor of abolishing a system that maintains the power of states and still includes a few fail-safes against a popular election gone awry.
Each would win about 50% of the time anyway, and think of the money saved!
It would require amendng the US Constitution which ultimately requires 3/4 of all states (38) to ratify it.
17 states have 5 or less Electoral votes, meaning their influence in presidential elections would be diminished by nearly 50% or more by such an action. So at least 5 of those states would have to say "yeah sure great idea".
Anyone who suggests the Electoral College has a serious chance at reform has probably never seriously read the Constitution.