"McCain's defeat divides Republicans"

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-588692,00.html


But the Republicans have every reason to conduct a close self-examination. This election is more than a departure from the politics of George W. Bush. The usual promises of tax cuts and less government failed to score with voters this time around.
The Americans are sick of the Republican Party in its current state. And the Republicans don't know how to react to that.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not sick of the Republican Party.

[SteamWake]

The Americans are sick of the Republican Party in its current state. And the Republicans don't know how to react to that

Indeed, they have been a sham for some time now.

Perhaps they had actually stood for coservative values instead of trying to apease the political correct crowd they may have been more sucessfull.

[NealT]

Actually I am sick of politics as a whole...if that makes any sense...

[Skybird]

I'm not sick of the Republican Party.
The voice of free America has spoken! :D

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll burn down under for that one...)

Actually I am sick of politics as a whole...if that makes any sense...Oh, very much so. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not sick of the Republican Party. The voice of free America has spoken! :D

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll burn down under for that one...)

Actually I am sick of politics as a whole...if that makes any sense...Oh, very much so. :up:

No burning for number 1. I have not done poorly under the Republican party. I will leave it at that.

Number 2, as a whole, yes, I'm sick of politics.

[Sea Demon]

I'm not sick of the Republican Party.

I'm not sick of the Republican Party either. I'm sick of the Republican Party that acts like the Democrats. Big government initiatives and wasteful spending coming from a Republican Party is what I'm sick of. Big government and waste is the job of the Democrat Party.

[August]

I'm not sick of the Republican Party.
I'm not sick of the Republican Party either. I'm sick of the Republican Party that acts like the Democrats. Big government initiatives and wasteful spending coming from a Republican Party is what I'm sick of. Big government and waste is the job of the Democrat Party.

Another direct hit on the ol' nail...

[cj95]

Amen to that.....

This election it was like....do I vote for the liberal white guy, or the liberal black guy.....

What difference did it make in the end?

[JALU3]

Not changing my party affiliation, although I have been upset with some of the policies of this present administration, but I am sure there are many many MANY more policies that I will be upset with in this upcoming administration.
We as conservatives, as Republicans, need to return to our conservative philosiphy roots.
We must respect the dignity of the office, while continues to disagree with the decisions of the inexperienced individual. We must fight for our country, and what we believe it.
It is not time to roll over like the Media did, it is time to hold our flag high, flying it upside down if you want to, and fight against those who would rather have us ruled by a caliphate.
There will be other elections, and we will win them. :yep:
Hang in there . . .

[CaptainHaplo]

This "defeat" was needed - though I like most are not happy about it. The fact is the "republican" party has morphed into the "democrat lite" party, and that is why McCain actually started gaining when he picked Palin. She represents the core values that party success was built on.

The fact is that the party needed a defeat like this - not a mortal one - but a humiliating and decisive one. It forces us to "take our medicine" and fix what has been so wrong with the platform for the last 10 years. It was in 96 (maybe 94 or 98) I believe when the last "revolution" occured, thanks to Newt Gingrich. It was then we redefined and stood up for the foundation of what we believed, and in so doing we took over Congress for the first time in something like 40 years. Yet in the time since we have put up a president who was anything BUT conservative in his fiscal policies, as well as a candidate that had demonstrated he wanted to "compromise" more than the true core should accept.

Right now, Obama has 2 years to show real change. In that time, if things are not vastly improved, look for the Congress balance of power to start tipping back toward the right. When it does, it will make it even harder for him to push through truly left wing fringe policy from the bully pulpit. That means in 4 years, he will likely have little to show in real "change" that the American people look at positively. That will open the door for a revitalized and focused conservative leader to step up.

[SUBMAN1]

Amen to that.....

This election it was like....do I vote for the liberal white guy, or the liberal black guy.....

What difference did it make in the end?That about sums it up alright. Palin was the only thing that made me start liking McCain again.

-S

[Skybird]

This "defeat" was needed - though I like most are not happy about it. The fact is the "republican" party has morphed into the "democrat lite" party, and that is why McCain actually started gaining when he picked Palin. She represents the core values that party success was built on.

The fact is that the party needed a defeat like this - not a mortal one - but a humiliating and decisive one. It forces us to "take our medicine" and fix what has been so wrong with the platform for the last 10 years. It was in 96 (maybe 94 or 98) I believe when the last "revolution" occured, thanks to Newt Gingrich. It was then we redefined and stood up for the foundation of what we believed, and in so doing we took over Congress for the first time in something like 40 years. Yet in the time since we have put up a president who was anything BUT conservative in his fiscal policies, as well as a candidate that had demonstrated he wanted to "compromise" more than the true core should accept.

Right now, Obama has 2 years to show real change. In that time, if things are not vastly improved, look for the Congress balance of power to start tipping back toward the right. When it does, it will make it even harder for him to push through truly left wing fringe policy from the bully pulpit. That means in 4 years, he will likely have little to show in real "change" that the American people look at positively. That will open the door for a revitalized and focused conservative leader to step up.
In other words you expect miracles and wonders of him: you want him to clean up a mess and fix the damages done in the past 8 years, and while he is at it, he also should reduce state debts, fix the economy and the trade deficit, and give america back some good reputation in the world that in the past 8 years carelessly have been kicked into the dirt and sacrificed on the altar of extremist party ideology. Oh what a holy superman you want him to be - the calcuation behind it is easy, isn't it. Raise the demands to levels where the man necessarily must fail, and then declare him guilty of the mess that he has found in the White house when he took it over. Giving him just two years for all that must be the ultimate hurdle, then.

To compensate for the desaster of the Bush years, it will take AT LEAST both legislations Obama eventually can get. Destroying things is easy, rebuilding them usually takes much longer. But he is a very inspiring man, a thorough planner and listening thinker, and seem to have the ability to really motivate people, making them move and getting things done. That mixture eventually can work - if given the time needed.

If extremism like yours is shown by just enough people, it will be a guarantee that things will not turn better and the US will remain to be the world's number one problem. Which is ironic, because until not too long ago, just 8-12 years ago or so, it was seen as the world's number one problem solver.

I find this strange. You guys put your ideology and party above your country, like it or not. Even if Obama would establish hardcore republicanism, you would refuse him, simply becasue he has the wrong colour in his party emblem. but wasn't there signs and posters on McCain'S events saying "Country's first?" Okay, here is your chance to prove it.

Have the grandeur to move beyond ideological trench warfare. That is what unity of a nation is about. That is what "Country first" means. Listen to MacCains final appell when he admitted defeat - in delivering that speech he found back to former style and noblesse for which I liked him a bit, once, before he accpeted to turn into a mud-throwing and often unfair campaigner. I really believe that he meant it serious what he said about Obama in that speech.

[mrbeast]

It amuses me that several people on here think that the GOP lost because it wasn't right-wing enough! :lol:

Didn't the US just vote, giving a clear mandate, for one of its most liberal Senators to be the next president? :roll:

Doesn't that tell you something about public opinion in the US at the moment?

I don't see the logic;.......'the Republican party is just not conservative enough for me anymore........so I'm voting for Obama'!? :hmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

This "defeat" was needed - though I like most are not happy about it. The fact is the "republican" party has morphed into the "democrat lite" party, and that is why McCain actually started gaining when he picked Palin. She represents the core values that party success was built on.

The fact is that the party needed a defeat like this - not a mortal one - but a humiliating and decisive one. It forces us to "take our medicine" and fix what has been so wrong with the platform for the last 10 years. It was in 96 (maybe 94 or 98) I believe when the last "revolution" occured, thanks to Newt Gingrich. It was then we redefined and stood up for the foundation of what we believed, and in so doing we took over Congress for the first time in something like 40 years. Yet in the time since we have put up a president who was anything BUT conservative in his fiscal policies, as well as a candidate that had demonstrated he wanted to "compromise" more than the true core should accept.

Right now, Obama has 2 years to show real change. In that time, if things are not vastly improved, look for the Congress balance of power to start tipping back toward the right. When it does, it will make it even harder for him to push through truly left wing fringe policy from the bully pulpit. That means in 4 years, he will likely have little to show in real "change" that the American people look at positively. That will open the door for a revitalized and focused conservative leader to step up. In other words you expect miracles and wonders of him: you want him to clean up a mess and fix the damages done in the past 8 years, and while he is at it, he also should reduce state debts, fix the economy and the trade deficit, and give america back some good reputation in the world that in the past 8 years carelessly have been kicked into the dirt and sacrificed on the altar of extremist party ideology. Oh what a holy superman you want him to be - the calcuation behind it is easy, isn't it. Raise the demands to levels where the man necessarily must fail, and then declare him guilty of the mess that he has found in the White house when he took it over. Giving him just two years for all that must be the ultimate hurdle, then.

To compensate for the desaster of the Bush years, it will take AT LEAST both legislations Obama eventually can get. Destroying things is easy, rebuilding them usually takes much longer. But he is a very inspiring man, a thorough planner and listening thinker, and seem to have the ability to really motivate people, making them move and getting things done. That mixture eventually can work - if given the time needed.

If extremism like yours is shown by just enough people, it will be a guarantee that things will not turn better and the US will remain to be the world's number one problem. Which is ironic, because until not too long ago, just 8-12 years ago or so, it was seen as the world's number one problem solver.

I find this strange. You guys put your ideology and party above your country, like it or not. Even if Obama would establish hardcore republicanism, you would refuse him, simply becasue he has the wrong colour in his party emblem. but wasn't there signs and posters on McCain'S events saying "Country's first?" Okay, here is your chance to prove it.

Have the grandeur to move beyond ideological trench warfare. That is what unity of a nation is about. That is what "Country first" means. Listen to MacCains final appell when he admitted defeat - in delivering that speech he found back to former style and noblesse for which I liked him a bit, once, before he accpeted to turn into a mud-throwing and often unfair campaigner. I really believe that he meant it serious what he said about Obama in that speech.

Yes, I expect all of that from you first paragraph Skybird. After all, he is the One, the Chosen One, Messiah! Are you telling me I was sold a lemon?

[Quillan]

I would hardly call it a clear mandate. The popular vote was very close (though not nearly as close as Bush/Gore in 2000). It was only the electoral college that was lopsided.

[Skybird]

It amuses me that several people on here think that the GOP lost because it wasn't right-wing enough! :lol:

Didn't the US just vote, giving a clear mandate, for one of its most liberal Senators to be the next president? :roll:

Doesn't that tell you something about public opinion in the US at the moment?

I don't see the logic;.......'the Republican party is just not conservative enough for me anymore........so I'm voting for Obama'!? :hmm:
Indeed, and that is what the linked essay also says, like you. A new generation is taking over in the US. The once total dominance of white man in the US is no more. a lot of younger people have moved into once republican, conservative bastion-states, but that they moved there does not mean they adopt conservative agendas. foreign immigration is taking place, changing ethnical patterns in the population structure and no ,onger willingly falling into place in just the two existing party schemes, and with that comes different balances of interests, from south to north, "white" america is in slow but constant decline, while "hispanic" America is growing in influence.

Republicans used to live by the habit of expecting that power is theirs, and that theirs is the dominant view, it was taken as a natural thing, as if given and guaranteed by God's mercy. But time and population have changed, plus the Bush-factor: last but not least the voting has been a loud sounding slap in the face for Bush himself.

"Country first". It's time that conservative Republicans now learn to live up to that slogan of theirs, and look beyond the horizon of their ideologic trenches. I don't know if Palin has a future in their party, or will simply sink back to where she has surfaced from, but I predict that putting your money on a political course represented by her "beliefs", as she put it, will not give success to the Republicans the next time - that era of ultra-hardcore conservatism is over, like is socalled neoconservatism since quite a while already. It began to dominate in the 80s, with Reagan, and now has been brought to an end, in form of the Bush-years. Hasn't Clinton just lend a White House that wasn't his anyway, but by nature and moral legitimiation belonged to the Republicans, always? I currently see it as unlikely that this extreme conservatism will repeat itself so soon. MacCain was on the right way when tending to move away from the extreme right, and more towards the middle. Now his party and the followers of the party have to continue non that road. Their mistake was not that they moved too far into that direction, but not far enough.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would hardly call it a clear mandate. The popular vote was very close (though not nearly as close as Bush/Gore in 2000). It was only the electoral college that was lopsided.

Roger that!

[goldorak]

Yes, I expect all of that from you first paragraph Skybird. After all, he is the One, the Chosen One, Messiah! Are you telling me I was sold a lemon?

He is the one elected (Senator Obama) whether you like it or not.
Are you telling me that 54% of americans choose a lemon ? :rotfl:
If thats true its not very flattering for your country. :lol:

[SteamWake]

It amuses me that several people on here think that the GOP lost because it wasn't right-wing enough! :lol:

Didn't the US just vote, giving a clear mandate, for one of its most liberal Senators to be the next president? :roll:

Doesn't that tell you something about public opinion in the US at the moment?

I don't see the logic;.......'the Republican party is just not conservative enough for me anymore........so I'm voting for Obama'!? :hmm:

It is hard to understand seeing as nearly every other mandate on the ballot was voted for in a conservative way. Banning gay marrige in California and Florida is a good example.

[goldorak]

This election it was like....do I vote for the liberal white guy, or the liberal black guy.....

What difference did it make in the end?That about sums it up alright. Palin was the only thing that made me start liking McCain again.

-S[/QUOTE]

Haha... political analysis will reveal that McCain lost because of Palin.
She alienated all the center voters that were going to choose McCain giving him a real fighting chance against Obama.
And if she is to be the next presidential candidate in 2012 than the good 'ol party is in worst shape than ever.

[Skybird]

I would hardly call it a clear mandate. The popular vote was very close (though not nearly as close as Bush/Gore in 2000).
Strange that suddenly this argument is allowed this way, but was turned down when it aimed the other way around, four and eight years ago.
It was only the electoral college that was lopsided.I certainly would not say that your voting system is en par with the intentions of your constitution. It can only be understood as a system designed like it is by reacting to the needs and circumstanbces of the world in which it was created. But these factors all have changed. A system where it is possible that a majority of voters vote for this candidate, but the other one wins, has some very serious flaws designed into it. such an outcome is nothing else but a total distortion of a democratic legitimiatio0n procedure.America should not allow itself anymore to afford this sub-standard voting system, and fundamentally change it (oh hear the traditionalists yelling...). It reminds of third world niveau, that simple, and is not adequate procedure for values and standards as formulated in the constitution. I mean, every four years the world is both wondering and laughing about it. The needs that influenced the design of the system, are no longer there. Nothing speaks against replacing it, then, without violating the spirit of the constitution and the country a single bit.

[Kapt Z]

I don't see the logic;.......'the Republican party is just not conservative enough for me anymore........so I'm voting for Obama'!? :hmm:

It is hard to understand seeing as nearly every other mandate on the ballot was voted for in a conservative way. Banning gay marrige in California and Florida is a good example.

We elect the first African-American president AND ban gay marriage?!?:doh:

We've come so far...

So far yet to go...:roll:

[JHuschke]

It is really sad that he has won. Only by blacks who voted for him because they were black and white girls voted for him because they thought he was cute. Pfft. :dead: You vote for someone you want to be president because of what changes they want, not if they are cute or they have the same skin color as you.


Yet I look at the NRA card and see what changes he wants to make.
1. No right to use weapon for home defense
2. Need a "federal" license to own a weapon which you pay for monthly
3. 90 % of gun dealer stores shut down
4. Almost ban ALL hunting.
5. Ban the right to bear/own arms.

Not to mention 5 more, which I forgot that I saw on the NRA card.

[JALU3]

I was listening to the radio and something a caller said resonated with me. To paraphrase, 'it feels like we elected the popular basketball jock for student council president instead of the nerdy ROTC kid'.

Yes we say we as a party didn't run as conservative, because the party has been lead by slighty to the right moderates. Therefore, or voting base isn't as energetic. And to hell with the new Generation BS. I am a member of this new generation, growing up in the Reagan, G.H.W.B, and Clinton Administrations. I can say that there are many within my generation who are stantly conservative, even would call me a moderate. However, I don't think we get the media play that those on the other side of the aisle do, and thus because we are so easily molded by popular media, many who don't have a concrete understanding of their beliefs are glade to blindly follow what they are tolled as cool or hip.
My sister is one of them. One year my junior, she said that she didn't know anything about politics, or held any real policy positions without much forethought as to why. However, come election day she was jumping up and down for Obama because she voted for him provisionally in Nevada.

I think the problem is that the public, 52+% of it at least, saw the GOP as the party in power, "the man". Therefore, they blamed all that was negative on my party. Furthermore, everyone loves to bash on President Bush, who given all the circumstances didn't do half bad (certainly note the worst president so far, certainly not the best either). Give it four years, when the President Elect Obama promises go unfulfilled, how his weak foreign policy leads to instability in Iraq and Afghanistan, how his increased taxes causes many companies to force to lay off thousands of workers, and how his liberal immigration policies will cause the working classes wages to stagnat and deflate.

[fatty]

Yet I look at the NRA card and see what changes he wants to make.
1. No right to use weapon for home defense
2. Need a "federal" license to own a weapon which you pay for monthly
3. 90 % of gun dealer stores shut down
4. Almost ban ALL hunting.
5. Ban the right to bear/own arms.

Not to mention 5 more, which I forgot that I saw on the NRA card.

Not that I have any business involving myself in American politics, but have you ever thought to confirm these things independently, preferably from primary sources? You may find your view of the world will change when you stop being spoonfed with information filtered through a source with an obvious agenda.

Here's something to get you started: a (rather depressingly) brief article from Obama's platform on hunting and sports shooting (http://obama.3cdn.net/7d467fe75a3029d7df_hum6injwr.pdf)

[August]

It is hard to understand seeing as nearly every other mandate on the ballot was voted for in a conservative way. Banning gay marrige in California and Florida is a good example.
What that says, I think, is that most of America remains as conservative as it ever was, and that voting in a candidate doesn't mean automatically mean accepting all of his political parties agenda.

Re the NRA Card Check this. (and get rid of that jeezly nazi sig)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

I think the NRA is overdoing it some but there are some things to consider. Obamas denials are usually couched in terms like "not politically practicable" and "I just don't think we can get that done". That doesn't mean he wouldn't try it if he thought he could get away with it politically.

[Skybird]

Latest news is the Republican party is sending lawyers over to Palin, investigating her excessive spending on hair, makeup and dressing. Sounds as if a major part of the party is looking for a pretty head that promises to roll smoothly on the bowling alley.

[SteamWake]

Latest news is the Republican party is sending lawyers over to Palin, investigating her excessive spending on hair, makeup and dressing. Sounds as if a major part of the party is looking for a pretty head that promises to roll smoothly on the bowling alley.

I have to ask... what is to be gained by this?

[August]

I have to ask... what is to be gained by this?

Hey the latest news is the German government is sending lawyers over to Skybird investigating his excessively long posts and arrogant, know it all attitude. This has about as much truth as the crap he just posted...

[Konovalov]

Yet I look at the NRA card and see what changes he wants to make.
1. No right to use weapon for home defense
2. Need a "federal" license to own a weapon which you pay for monthly
3. 90 % of gun dealer stores shut down
4. Almost ban ALL hunting.
5. Ban the right to bear/own arms.

Not to mention 5 more, which I forgot that I saw on the NRA card.

Not that I have any business involving myself in American politics, but have you ever thought to confirm these things independently, preferably from primary sources? You may find your view of the world will change when you stop being spoonfed with information filtered through a source with an obvious agenda.

Here's something to get you started: a (rather depressingly) brief article from Obama's platform on hunting and sports shooting (http://obama.3cdn.net/7d467fe75a3029d7df_hum6injwr.pdf)
You mean like Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, otherwise known to his friends as Joe the plumber. :lol: :lol: ;)

Good post by the way Fatty. :yep:

[Skybird]

Latest news is the Republican party is sending lawyers over to Palin, investigating her excessive spending on hair, makeup and dressing. Sounds as if a major part of the party is looking for a pretty head that promises to roll smoothly on the bowling alley.

I have to ask... what is to be gained by this?
Nine points? I am not familiar with bowling rules.

[Quillan]

I would hardly call it a clear mandate. The popular vote was very close (though not nearly as close as Bush/Gore in 2000). Strange that suddenly this argument is allowed this way, but was turned down when it aimed the other way around, four and eight years ago.

The argument wasn't turned down 8 years ago. Nobody said Bush had a clear mandate. In fact, the argument 8 years ago was that "Gore won the popular vote, he should be President!" Well, that's not how the system works. I don't agree with it, but that's how the system works. If 70% of the people voted for Obama, then you have a clear mandate. As it was, it was around 51% to 47%, which means nearly as many people (only 3-4 million difference if I'm not mistaken) don't feel he was the right choice.

Well, the election is over and the choice has been made. We'll see how he does. Personally, I think he is the wrong choice. I may be wrong. Ask me again in 4 years.

[Sailor Steve]

I would hardly call it a clear mandate. The popular vote was very close (though not nearly as close as Bush/Gore in 2000).
Strange that suddenly this argument is allowed this way, but was turned down when it aimed the other way around, four and eight years ago.
It was only the electoral college that was lopsided.I certainly would not say that your voting system is en par with the intentions of your constitution. It can only be understood as a system designed like it is by reacting to the needs and circumstanbces of the world in which it was created. But these factors all have changed. A system where it is possible that a majority of voters vote for this candidate, but the other one wins, has some very serious flaws designed into it. such an outcome is nothing else but a total distortion of a democratic legitimiatio0n procedure.America should not allow itself anymore to afford this sub-standard voting system, and fundamentally change it (oh hear the traditionalists yelling...). It reminds of third world niveau, that simple, and is not adequate procedure for values and standards as formulated in the constitution. I mean, every four years the world is both wondering and laughing about it. The needs that influenced the design of the system, are no longer there. Nothing speaks against replacing it, then, without violating the spirit of the constitution and the country a single bit.
A quick history lesson on the American Electoral College:

The US Constitution was created by representatives from the thirteen new states, and organized by a handful who recognized that the current government - The Articles Of Confederation - weren't working. For the most part the realized they needed a stronger central government, but most of them also didn't want any such thing. But they had to make it work.

The reason the 'States' in 'The United States' are different from most countries' provinces is just that - the states were there first, and the 'United' part came second. The lower house of Congress - the 'House of Representatives' - was meant to represent the people in the new government. The upper house - the 'Senate' - was supposed to represent the States themselves, so they were not elected at all, but appointed by their respective state legislatures. This was changed by the 17th amendment in 1913; for what reason I don't know, but probably because the people started demanding it.

The whole point was to create a Federal system that would A) Give the central government the power to arbitrate disputes between the states, B) Give the central government the power to raise a military for defense of the whole, and C) Answer the foreign powers (at that time Britain, France and Russia) who refused to sign separate trade treaties with thirteen individual 'nations'. The President was supposed to be the decision-maker in those departments, and as such they really didn't envision him having too much power, or too much to do. So they also didn't believe the people would care too much who the President was or what he did, so long as it didn't interfere with their daily lives and business.

So they created the Electoral College, and gave the State legislatures the power to appoint Electors "....in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." It wasn't long before some of those State legislatures thought it would be a good idea to let the people nominate the Electors, and that brings us to where we are today, with people arguing about Popular versus Electoral Votes. In fact, way back in 1824, Andrew Jackson won both votes, but not by the specified margin, so, as the Constitution dictates, it was decided in the House of Representatives. By judicious campaigning in the House, John Quincy Adams managed to become the Sixth President. I don't know if there was a huge outcry about him "stealing the election", but it looks like that is certainly what happened.

Is it time to do away with the Electoral College? As usual I don't know that either. It truly is up to the people, and if that change does occur in my lifetime I'm sure I'll live with it.

[goldorak]

What is wrong with adopting a system where the voters vote directly for the candidates as is the case in France for (and only for) the presidential election ?
And of course partial results/exit polls would not be discussed until all polling stations closed (in all the states).
Wouldn't that be more "democratic" than the dual system you have now ?

[Quillan]

I had that question answered by a political science professor way back when: it allows the least populated states to have some say in the process. In the US, we have 100 senators (two for each state, so if Puerto Rico ever asks and is granted statehood it'll be 102) and 435 Representatives. The Reps are divided by the population ratios of the states. Each state has Electors equal to the total numbers of Senators and Representatives it has. The least a state can have is thus 3 electoral votes. If it was a strictly popular vote, a candidate who won the super-populated northeast and west coasts wouldn't even need to campaign in the midwest.

[goldorak]

I had that question answered by a political science professor way back when: it allows the least populated states to have some say in the process. In the US, we have 100 senators (two for each state, so if Puerto Rico ever asks and is granted statehood it'll be 102) and 435 Representatives. The Reps are divided by the population ratios of the states. Each state has Electors equal to the total numbers of Senators and Representatives it has. The least a state can have is thus 3 electoral votes. If it was a strictly popular vote, a candidate who won the super-populated northeast and west coasts wouldn't even need to campaign in the midwest.

I don't really agree with this assessment. If the president had "monarch type" power then yes, a representative system via electorial college would have sense. Every state has a say in who the next president will be.
But the situation is different, the us president doesn't have free reign, he needs approval of congress to wage war, to make peace, or to make international treaties etc... He can't have laws enacted without the approval of congress. So in a very practical sense the president is limited in his ability to exercise power.
And the men and women elected to congress are elected on a state by state basis.
So every state is represented in the legislative branch.
I honestly see nothing wrong with doing away with the electorial college system ONLY for the presidential election.

[Sailor Steve]

Good points Quillan. I'm not sure I totally agree, but I'm not a trained expert either.

@ goldorak: There's nothing wrong with wanting change, but major changes are deliberately made difficult in our system. First one house of Congress or the other would have to propose an amendment to the Constitution, or two-thirds of the state legislatures would have to propose it. Then it would have to be debated. Then it would have to be voted on in that house, and pass by a two-thirds margin. Then it would have to go through the same process in the other house, and pass by a two-thirds margin. Then it would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states before it could become law.

The original first two Amendments were not ratified by all the states, which is why we have 10 instead of 12 in the original Bill of Rights.

This is also true of the Equal Rights Amendment, guaranteed women equal treatment under the law. It was first proposed in 1923, and not passed by Congress until 1972. It was only ratified by 35 states, with 38 being the three-fourths required for it to become law.

Good luck getting an amendment that allows Arnold to be eligible for the office of President, or getting the Electoral College thrown out.

I'd like to see one repealing the 16th Amendment and doing away with the Federal Income Tax, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

[MothBalls]

I had that question answered by a political science professor way back when: it allows the least populated states to have some say in the process. In the US, we have 100 senators (two for each state, so if Puerto Rico ever asks and is granted statehood it'll be 102) and 435 Representatives. The Reps are divided by the population ratios of the states. Each state has Electors equal to the total numbers of Senators and Representatives it has. The least a state can have is thus 3 electoral votes. If it was a strictly popular vote, a candidate who won the super-populated northeast and west coasts wouldn't even need to campaign in the midwest.

I don't really agree with this assessment. If the president had "monarch type" power then yes, a representative system via electorial college would have sense. Every state has a say in who the next president will be.
But the situation is different, the us president doesn't have free reign, he needs approval of congress to wage war, to make peace, or to make international treaties etc... He can't have laws enacted without the approval of congress. So in a very practical sense the president is limited in his ability to exercise power.
And the men and women elected to congress are elected on a state by state basis.
So every state is represented in the legislative branch.
I honestly see nothing wrong with doing away with the electorial college system ONLY for the presidential election.

Here that's referred to as "the system of checks and balances". In theroy it prevents any one branch of the government from becoming too powerful. (Just don't tell the DoD or the CIA, checks and balances don't apply to them. It inspired Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy)

There has been discussion about making some election procedural changes, but the only time everyone talks about it is right before the election. It won't come up again for another 3 years and 6 months.

One thing I do think needs to be changed, voting on Tuesday. It should be a one week process, 7 days, so everyone can fit voting into their schedule.

[JHuschke]

It is hard to understand seeing as nearly every other mandate on the ballot was voted for in a conservative way. Banning gay marrige in California and Florida is a good example.
What that says, I think, is that most of America remains as conservative as it ever was, and that voting in a candidate doesn't mean automatically mean accepting all of his political parties agenda.

Re the NRA Card Check this. (and get rid of that jeezly nazi sig)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

I think the NRA is overdoing it some but there are some things to consider. Obamas denials are usually couched in terms like "not politically practicable" and "I just don't think we can get that done". That doesn't mean he wouldn't try it if he thought he could get away with it politically.
Wonder why they are attacking him in the first place? Many do not like him, plus he made a speech on the radio saying he will take down companies in Ohio and make the electricity prices skyrocket. Obama will raise taxes, on all of us. Anyway, Biden will be president soon. So I might as well forget about all that.

[Sailor Steve]

One thing I do think needs to be changed, voting on Tuesday. It should be a one week process, 7 days, so everyone can fit voting into their schedule.
They have early voting. I went to our local county complex and voted almost two weeks before the election. Then I found out I could have also done it at the Student Union building at the local University.

[fenian]

First I am PROUD military veteran and btw a PROUD liberal. I am also white, male, 49 and a Proud voter of our next President. McCain if he was NOT the grandson and son of Admirals would have not a long career in the Naval Air Service bottom of the academy, near bottom of flight school and how many crashes prior to his final claim of glory "getting shot down"!....... Then what little respect I may have had for mim went away these last many months as he sold his soul to the far right flag draped holding a bible nut jobs.

But the one item that slipped by many in the "mainstream" media was a 2 hour event on C-Span showing a panel of Gold Star Mothers, retirees officer and senior enlisted along with other military family groups as our new first lady went to various military bases. opend the doors to local auditoriums and invited spouse and children in and then with little "politics" stated she and her husband feel that they are the true backbone of the foward service member is their family and then she say down and listened as they told their stories of bad housing, moves, lost household goods, difficulties in finding work, health care off post for disabled children, support, pay issues as the spouse is deployed.

Never have I seen a politician do that with a serious view they always want that "flight suit moment" but he was a person listening about daily concerns that do affect the deployed member. As a now civilian DoD employee let me tell you the phone lines were burning throughout MEDCOM as talk became action.

If he continues with that concern as mich for the service people he does have concern for as with the country then may he have another four more years.

[SteamWake]

Yea that whole POW thing... what a feint.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html

[MothBalls]

One thing I do think needs to be changed, voting on Tuesday. It should be a one week process, 7 days, so everyone can fit voting into their schedule.
They have early voting. I went to our local county complex and voted almost two weeks before the election. Then I found out I could have also done it at the Student Union building at the local University.

Not all. Every state has different rules and procedures. In some states you have to have a valid excuse, notarized letter, etc.

More than half the states--31, to be exact--offer some sort of early voting. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/absentearly.htm

I'd like to see one set of rules, same for everyone, across all states and have the locations available for the entire week. Not so many that it creates too much of a burden or expense, and of course more on election day, but enough [like some states already do] to make it an easier process for more people to participate.

[fenian]

So that excuses 5 aircraft lost by him, and do they still not show that great damage control movie at boot camp? You know where a certain pilot wet-started his aircraft possibly causing the worst aircraft fire since WWII. The USS Forrestal or as the SCPO who was showing us the film then called it the USS Forest Fire... While the only pilot uninjued flown out for "R&R" was later a POW then a Senator from Arizona. Strange that to my understanding those Naval records have never been fully released. But 168 plus men died that day.

BTW he was onboard that day.............. And I for one unless proven otherwise always believed my CPO's.

[Sea Demon]

Never have I seen a politician do that with a serious view they always want that "flight suit moment" but he was a person listening about daily concerns that do affect the deployed member. As a now civilian DoD employee let me tell you the phone lines were burning throughout MEDCOM as talk became action.

If he continues with that concern as mich for the service people he does have concern for as with the country then may he have another four more years.

Prepare for disappointment if he actually leads the military like past Democrat Administrations. Yes, the talk is always good, but then comes the reality. Things like "budget crunches", the worthless deployments with no implications for any real National security concerns, downsizing in the face of real threats, politically motivated social experimenting, and the pay freezes. Yes, those of us who served in the Clinton military remember some of the crap dished out as policy by that administration.

It's looking like Obama is going to be assigning alot of those same people from that same era into his administration as well. For this and many reasons, I'm very skeptical that this guy will be good for the military. This guy also has no command experience in any way. He hasn't even been C-in-C of so much as a boy scout troop. Never so much has run anything as complex as an apple cart, yet you "proud liberals" have voted him in. We'll see how proud that vote is within a year from January. If I were you, I would be at least somewhat nervous. The Presidency is an extremely daunting task. And this guy hasn't been an executive of anything. Not only that, but Putin, Hu, the little idiot Chavez, and a few others are going to work this guy tremendously. I'm convinced that a few of these people are going to be quite formidable against a grossly inexperienced, and incredibly idealistic Obama.