Can Any Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016?

a reply to: beezzer

There you are looking for SOLUTIONS again. How unreasonable of you!

You won't find any of those nasty things in either the GOP or DNC.

a reply to: Montana

I've reached the point where I've stopped looking to government for solutions.

They are only interested in themselves.

I'm of the opinion that if you want to better your lot in life, you'll only have yourself to rely on to do anything about it.

I'd find no better solutions in a fetid dung heap than Washington DC, but then again, I'm being redundant.

a reply to: beezzer

I've reached the point where I've stopped looking to government for solutions.

Sigh Brother Beezer should have never been looking there in the first place.

They are the creators of our problems. Thus they never offer any solutions.

I'm of the opinion that if you want to better your lot in life, you'll only have yourself to rely on to do anything about it.

Amen to that. There is only one person you can count on, who will never screw you over for a vote, and knows your needs, and wants better than anyone else.

You.

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: olaru12

"It's a circus so let's make it entertaining at least; bring in the clowns.... "


They already did - CNN has been reporting that Trump is in the lead.
He even has the $$ billions ...

I wouldn't put to much stock in CNN polls. The smart money is still on Jeb and Clinton.

www.oddschecker.com...

It would be interesting to see The Donald in the debates.

originally posted by: neo96

I agree with dumping the EC or at the very least giving EVERY state EQUAL representation. As the system is set up with some states having more 'say' than others.

Dumping the electoral college, (which I am totally in favor of) won't help the GOP one bit in their quest to regain the White House.

If anything, it would be the "final nail in the coffin" that insured they never would again.

I can't even remember the last GOP POTUS that captured over half the popular vote.

With respect to giving all states an equal say...Why?

States don't vote, People do.

For example, Why should Rd. Island get the same say as Texas, New York, Florida or California when they only have a fraction of their population? That would be insane!

originally posted by: neo96

No the Republicans can not win 2016 acting like Democrat Lite.

Did you mean "Demonic Lite?" Because if you did, I think we finally found something to agree on.

I'm currently 59 yrs. old and I'll just bet the GOP doesn't regain the White House again in my lifetime and by the way, that's one more thing I'm totally in favor of.

All I know is that Inam considered a liberal by all my friends and family and I get shouted down when I say things like, "I believe a woman has a right to choose..." or "I think there needs to be sensible regulations...". Yet here I am a staunch second amendment person who also is very anti illegal immigrant. There just really isn't a place for my vote. The days of being a moderate republican are over for me in these times. It also amazes me that my conservative friends all hold President Reagan as a saint yet would run him out of town on a rail if he ran on what he accomplished in his terms.

At this moment I am reading America in Crises letters my Thomas Payne and all I can do is shake my head. The parallels between the Commissioners in those days to the current GOP are astounding to me.

a reply to: Flatfish

With respect to giving all states an equal say...Why?

Why shouldn't they ?

This is suppose to be a 'democracy'.

Doesn't matter how big or small someone is votes are EQUAL.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flatfish

With respect to giving all states an equal say...Why?

Why shouldn't they ?

This is suppose to be a 'democracy'.

Doesn't matter how big or small someone is votes are EQUAL.

Because States don't vote!

One person = one vote is fair and democratic, one State = one vote is ludicrous.

a reply to: neo96

So...is your solution some kind of anarcho-utopia where everyone just runs around like the movie "The Purge"?

a reply to: Flatfish

Because the way a person live in one state can be radically different from the way a person lives in another. We are not one amorphous mass of people; we are different cultures and different regions who need different solutions to their problems and deserve to be treated with different and equal consideration in their governance.

Why should the people of coastal California be deemed more important than the ones in the heartland who produce most of the nation's food even though there are less of them? Life I the heartland is vastly different than life in coastal Cali and the people have differing needs and desires and deserve to be equally represented by their Chief Executive.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flatfish

With respect to giving all states an equal say...Why?

Why shouldn't they ?

This is suppose to be a 'democracy'.

Doesn't matter how big or small someone is votes are EQUAL.

Because States don't vote!

One person = one vote is fair and democratic, one State = one vote is ludicrous.

Let's examine a one person, one vote system in our government.

The current SCOTUS. There are right now four justices whose votes are NEVER questioned. No one ever analyzes who Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer are going to vote. They are automatically assumed to be a hard and fast block, and everyone knows from the outset which way that block will vote even before arguments begin. Similarly, one could say the same of Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Most people are pretty sure which way they'll go although some thought is devoted to analyzing them because they don't always go the same way as a block, but they usually do.

It's Roberts and Kennedy who get all the time and attention from everyone.

Two men on a court of nine. Two votes who really matter. And in a one person; one vote, so-called fair system, it shouldn't be that way, but it is. So much for ... but in a pure democracy, my vote will finally matter. It will only matter until the nearest block of voters cancels you out.

Or, as my husband (Mr. Ketsuko) puts it:

The president is NOT a direct representative of the people (you, me or anyone else). He/she is the Chief Executive of the United States and as such is elected to be a representative of the state and conductor of business between states. This is supposed to be a buffer intended by the Founders between the Federal Government and the people. He/she is supposed to represent all of the nation and it's institutions from the Federal Government back down to the separate states, but he doesn't represent the People who elect their members of Congress to do that for them.

That's who your Representative is. Your direct Representative to the Federal Government. He/She is supposed to be the one whom you entrust to write the law and carry out the budget and the other primary functions of running the country as well as be a check on the power of the Executive and Judiciary.

Really, this is basic Civics. You should have been taught this.

whenever a side looses the presidential election, their voting base starts to look into the issue

I don't think any democrats favor it, and probably a lot of libertarians are opposed as well.

Last election the Republicans on here said the purpose of the EC is to dilute the power of the big states so that all the Red states with hardly any people can have exaggerated influence in the election.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Flatfish

Because the way a person live in one state can be radically different from the way a person lives in another. We are not one amorphous mass of people; we are different cultures and different regions who need different solutions to their problems and deserve to be treated with different and equal consideration in their governance.

Why should the people of coastal California be deemed more important than the ones in the heartland who produce most of the nation's food even though there are less of them? Life I the heartland is vastly different than life in coastal Cali and the people have differing needs and desires and deserve to be equally represented by their Chief Executive.

For starters, it's not like we live on different continents and the differences you speak of are not that great.

Furthermore, it's not that the people in CA are more important, it's that the current electoral college system for electing the POTUS is intentionally designed to recognize the fact that there are more "people" living there.

It works much the same way as your representation in the House of Representatives works.

Basically, your "area" or "State" is entitled to representation commensurate to the number of people living there who may be affected by future legislation.

That's because it's "People" who are the ones that deserve a vote and/or representation, not cordoned off sections of land.

Many, (myself Not included) would even take that argument further and assume the position that states with a low population density are not entitled to 2 senators in the U.S. Senate.

While I wouldn't ever go that far, I will say that the idea of voting for our POTUS on a 50 state, 50 vote basis is total insanity.

Now, if you want to eliminate the electoral college and convert to a popular vote system where the winner must capture 51% of the national vote, I'm all for it.

But I've got to tell you, it won't help the GOP or their bigotted candidates one bit.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flatfish

With respect to giving all states an equal say...Why?

Why shouldn't they ?

This is suppose to be a 'democracy'.

Doesn't matter how big or small someone is votes are EQUAL.

Because States don't vote!

One person = one vote is fair and democratic, one State = one vote is ludicrous.

Let's examine a one person, one vote system in our government.

The current SCOTUS. There are right now four justices whose votes are NEVER questioned. No one ever analyzes who Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer are going to vote. They are automatically assumed to be a hard and fast block, and everyone knows from the outset which way that block will vote even before arguments begin. Similarly, one could say the same of Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Most people are pretty sure which way they'll go although some thought is devoted to analyzing them because they don't always go the same way as a block, but they usually do.

It's Roberts and Kennedy who get all the time and attention from everyone.

Two men on a court of nine. Two votes who really matter. And in a one person; one vote, so-called fair system, it shouldn't be that way, but it is. So much for ... but in a pure democracy, my vote will finally matter. It will only matter until the nearest block of voters cancels you out.

The SCOTUS has nothing to do with "one man, one vote." This is a total straw man argument.

What you should be concerned with when it comes to the Supreme Court is the fact that even judges who were appointed by Republican Presidents won't support some of these ludicrous GOP challenges being brought before them.

That in itself, should tell you how far the right-wing in this country has gone.

The EC is in effect because It is a union. States can even decide how the votes are proportioned, usually winner take all but not always.
Yea Reagan is a myth. It's a joke for fiscal cons, paleo-cons, and liberts. It's pushed by social cons to make him feel conservative. Reagan is a myth created by social cons to rope in the actual conservatives. Reagan and the moral majority.
Barry Goldwater, an actual conservative warned of the biblethumpers.

As for compromise give me a break. When the parties vote together it means the citizen is getting screwed in some way. One side wants more military and the other wants more welfare, ok we'll increase spending for both in our compromise bill. A lot of bad bills are getting blocked by people like Justin Amash by calling for a roll call vote instead of a voice vote. Reps don't want to be recorded voting for various bills, voice vote allows one to cast a vote in secret.

a reply to: beezzer

The Populist Vote Can and Will Win the GOP the White House in 2016 . Only Problem is , Donald Trump HAS TO Win the Nomination in order for that to happen . Go Figure......

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: beezzer

The Populist Vote Can and Will Win the GOP the White House in 2016 . Only Problem is , Donald Trump HAS TO Win the Nomination in order for that to happen . Go Figure......

I've grown very cynical of what any politician says versus what they actually do.

But I will keep my eyes glued to this season.

a reply to: beezzer

The one thing that Sticks out in my mind is the Fact that Donald Trump is a Self Made Billionaire . A Shrew Business Man in the White House Would Definitely Effect our Economy in a Positive Way along with giving the " Middle Class ' the Chance to Avoid Extinction at the hand of the Progressive Socialists who are presently trying Very Hard to Destroy their Economic Independence . I would surmise if Nominated , the " Middle Class " would Elect him for their Own Good .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

We need a jerk, a total bastard for president.

We don't need a "nice guy" that will appeal to the base.

We need someone that'll do the job. Is it Trump?

Dunno.

I know that he'll piss a lot of people off. Probably piss me off.

But could he do the job, is the question.