Romney wins Arizona and sustains his lead in Michigan and is the likely winner?
The fact that Romney spent double what Santorum did in his own home state says that Romney didn't sustain his lead in Michigan at all. He is barely winning against Santorum, and essentially bought himself the election. The fact that Santorum is doing as well as he is now says that Romney just doesn't have what it takes to be the GOP frontrunner.
In what states do you think there is a possibility of an upset and why?
There are a couple of states that have been going through some demographic shifts that may result in some electoral surprises. States with large urban populations tend to vote Democratic. Both Nevada and Colorado have experienced significant urbanization in the last decade (have you seen Denver or Las Vegas lately?). Clinton didn't even carry Colorado in 1996. Now it is in play, with 9 electoral votes. I would put Arizona (10 EV's) in the same category if it were not McCain's home state.
Obama has a battle in Pennsylvania. Gore and Kerry both carried it, but it's a close call right now. PA is a big electoral prize with 21 EV's
Oregon (7 EV's) may surprise us. Most analysts have it in the blue column, but there is a strong conservative element there. Keep an eye on the Pacific NW weather. Kerry took Oregon with a 4 point margin, but it was neck-in-neck in 2000. Obama is up by 4 points right now.
Virginia (13) was red country with an 8 point margin in both 2000 and 2004. Obama could pull off the black vote there and swing it over. McCain is only up by 2 points there right now.
My opinion is that this election will not be decided in Florida. It will be decided in the 'rust belt': Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), Michigan (17). If I were McCain, that's where I would be spending my money. These critical states could go either way. Ohio was carried by Bush in the last two cycles, while Michigan and Pennsylvania went with Gore and Kerry.
My prediction is that this is going to be a squeaker, just like 2000. of course, it's six weeks to election day. A lot can change in six weeks.
How can you call yourselves Democrats if you don't count all the votes?Michigan and Florida.?
What else is new?
Don't forget that this is the party who has whined for 7 years about Florida being stolen from them after their effort to recount only 3 heavily democrat counties was stopped by the Supreme Court who told them that either every county needed to be recounted or none of them could be.
Don't forget that this is the party which refused to admit thousands of absentee ballots from overseas military personel in the same election.
Counting every vote actually cast? Democrats don't really believe in that kind of thing!
Obama chose not to be on the ballot in Michgan. He should live with that choice. He was on zero ballots and should receive zero delegates as a result.
When the GOP wins the White House in 2012, what number of Senate seats will they have ?
41 safe repu 34 safe republican
8 real toss-ups. only 2 republican. My guess...a slight majority repub and the house a few loses by repub. Providing they pick a decent candidate for president.
Intrade has been in the middle for sometime, now. Mostly due to Europe, I think. If it goes bad there, there's NO way Obama can win. Given a good pres candidate, they'll win virginia, ohio, north carolina, neveda, florida...which is a win. I think Penn may switch sides this time around and maybe wisconsin or michigan.
My guess (given a decent candidate) 312-217. Penn, Wisconsin and NH flipping...among the common repub states.
2010 penn house net votes by republicans roughly 440k more. NH 24k more. Wiscon 310k more votes...it was a blood bath in those states and it's gotten worse since 2010. Point it, think economically would have to drastically change or the republican party would have to see a third party for Obama to win. It's almost indisputable historically and empirically. I'm the best answer.
Can someone please give me some information on Edmund Davis?
I hope this helps
DAVIS, EDMUND JACKSON (1827-1883). Edmund J. Davis, Union Army officer and Reconstructionqv governor of Texas, was born at St. Augustine, Florida, on October 2, 1827, the son of William Godwin and Mary Ann (Channer) Davis. His father, who came from South Carolina, was a land developer and attorney at St. Augustine. The young Davis received his education in Florida and moved with his family to Galveston, Texas, in January 1848. There he worked as a clerk in the post office and studied law. In mid-1849 he moved to Corpus Christi, where he worked in a store and read law. He was admitted to the bar in the fall of 1849. Between 1849 and 1853 he was an inspector and deputy collector of customs at Laredo. In 1853 he became district attorney of the Twelfth Judicial District at Brownsville. About 1856 Governor Elisha M. Peaseqv named him judge of the same district, and Davis continued to serve as a state judge until 1861. As judge he accompanied the ranger unit of Capt. William G. Tobin,qv who was involved in the Cortina affair at Brownsville in 1859 (see CORTINA, JUAN NEPOMUCENO).
On April 6, 1858, Davis married Anne Elizabeth Britton, daughter of Forbes Britton,qv a state senator and friend of Sam Houston.qv The couple had two sons, Britton and Waters. Britton was born in 1860, attended West Point, and became an officer in the United States Army. Waters, born in 1862, attended the University of Michigan and became an attorney and merchant in El Paso.
Davis was a Whig until the mid-1850s. In 1855 he joined the Democratic partyqv in a fusion against the American (Know-Nothing) party,qv and he remained a Democrat until after the Civil War.qv In later politics he supported Sam Houston and opposed secessionqv in 1861, when he ran unsuccessfully to become a delegate to the Secession Convention.qv After secession Davis refused to take the oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, and the state vacated his judgeship on April 24.
As a result of his opposition to the Confederacy, he fled the state in May 1862. With John L. Haynes and William Alexander,qqv he went to New Orleans, then to Washington, where the men met with President Abraham Lincoln, who recommended providing arms to troops that they wanted to raise. On October 26, 1862, Davis received a colonel's commission and authorization to recruit the cavalry regiment that became the First Texas Cavalry (U.S.).qv
Davis and the First Texas saw extensive service during the remainder of the war. They were at Galveston on January 3, 1863, and barely escaped capture when Confederates took that city back from Union hands. On March 15, 1863, Confederate citizens and off-duty soldiers seized Davis in Matamoros, where he was attempting to take his family out of Texas and recruit men for his unit. This event precipitated diplomatic trouble between the Confederacy and Mexico that lasted until Gen. Hamilton P. Beeqv released Davis to appease Mexican governor Albino López. From November to December 1863 Davis was in Texas as a part of Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks'sqv unsuccessful Rio Grande campaign. His unit marched to Rio Grande City and seized cotton and slaves in an effort to disrupt the border trade. On November 4, 1864, Davis was promoted to brigadier general. For the rest of the war he commanded Gen. Joseph J. Reynolds'sqv cavalry in the Division of Western Mississippi. On June 2, 1865, he was among those who represented Gen. Edward R. S. Canbyqv at Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith'sqv surrender of Confederate forces in Texas.
Davis participated in state politics as a Unionist and Republican after the war. He served in the Constitutional Convention of 1866qv and ran unsuccessfully for the state Senate from his old district in the 1866 general election. He represented the border district and was president of the Constitutional Convention of 1868-69.qv In this period he consistently supported political programs that would have restricted the political rights of secessionists, expanded rights for blacks, and divided the state. He also favored the ab initio theory, which held that all laws passed since secession were null and void (see AB INITIO QUESTION).
In the election of 1869 Davis ran for governor against Andrew J. Hamilton,qv another Republican, and won in a closely disputed race. His administration was a controversial one. Its program called for law and order backed by a State Policeqv and restored militia, public schools, internal improvements, bureaus of immigration and geology, and protection of the frontier. All of these measures encountered strong attacks from both Democratic and Republican opponents and added to the controversy surrounding Reconstruction in Texas. Davis ran for reelection in December 1873 and was defeated by Richard Cokeqv by a vote of two to one. Davis believed that the Republican national administration was partly responsible for his defeat, and relations between the governor and Washington were strained until he was removed from office by Democrats the following January in what is known as the Coke-Davis controversy.qv
From 1875 until his death Davis, contemporarily described as a "tall, gaunt, cold-eyed, rather commanding figure," headed the Republican partyqv in Texas as chairman of the state executive committee. In 1880 he ran again for governor but was badly defeated by Oran M. Roberts.qv In 1882 he ran for Congress in the Tenth District against John Hancock,qv again unsuccessfully. He was nominated as collector of customs at Galveston in 1880 but refused the job because of his opposition to the administration of President Rutherford B. Hayes. Supporters recommended him for a cabinet position under President Chester A. Arthur, but he received no appointment. Davis died in Austin on February 7, 1883, and is buried there in the State Cemetery.qv
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ronald N. Gray, Edmund J. Davis: Radical Republican and Reconstruction Governor of Texas (Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1976). William C. Nunn, Texas Under the Carpetbaggers (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1962). Charles W. Ramsdell, Reconstruction in Texas (New York: Columbia University Press, 1910; rpt., Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1970).
my very best
See, this is not an election for president. This is a vote within parties to determine the candidates each party will present for the election. There is a big difference.
If this were an actual election, then everyone anywhere could vote regardless of party.
FL and MI can be excluded from the primary results because this is only going to effect who the party puts forward. It does not stop anyone from running for president. It only decides who the party is going to support.
This means that if Obama were to win, Clinton could still run for president as an independent candidate.
I found an article on this-
So your candidate lost, and you're in a foul mood. What are you going to do about it? A new study suggests a possible prescription for emotional relief:
As soon as a sunny day comes your way, get outside for at least 30 minutes.
Researchers have tried repeatedly over the years to show some correlation between weather and mood, with mixed and usually unimpressive results, but a study of 600 persons across the United States shows that spending a little time outside on a nice day can make a difference.
The effect isn't "huge," says psychologist Matthew Keller, lead author of a study in an upcoming issue of the journal "Psychological Science," but it's significant.
So many things affect mood, like elections and personal expectations, that weather isn't likely to be a major player, Keller says. But three different studies all came up with the same results. It can make a difference.
Keller was working on his doctorate at the University of Michigan when he began wondering how much effect the weather has on moods.
"Michigan is one of the cloudiest states in the country," he says. "The winters are long and very cloudy. You never see the sun."
So awhile back he buzzed down to Mexico for a little vacation, and discovered that the sun was still up there.
"It made me realize that that's what life is all about. Life has color, life is fun. I tended to forget that during the winters up in Michigan."
So he teamed up with Michigan psychology professors Barbara Frederickson and Oscar Ybarra "to see if there's some sort of interaction" between weather and mood.
It's a tough thing to measure, especially in the industrial world where people spend an average of 93 percent of their time indoors, so the researchers set up three different tests. The first two consisted primarily of asking the participants how much time they had spent outside that day, and then checking with the local weather bureau to correlate their moods with the weather. The results depended largely upon the participants describing their own moods to the investigators.
In the third test, however, the researchers established controls on the participants to reduce the effect of certain activities unrelated to the weather, like exercise. Some of the participants walked for 30 minutes around a track. Others walked in a city park for the same length of time. And the rest walked on a treadmill inside, so all three groups were exercising.
Numerous studies have shown that regular exercise improves mood, as well as health, and this phase of the project was designed to eliminate that factor, since all of the participants were exercising.
The researchers found that when the participants were outside on a warm, pleasant day, their moods improved. For most, 72 degrees turned out to be just about perfect.
I hope that helps!!
As you note, your school is not representative of the population as a whole. The poll might be representative of how wealthy Michigan Catholics vote, but that's about it. And, just giving the results a reality check: no candidate (apart from a couple who ran unopposed in the early days of the Republic) has ever won more than about 62% of the popular vote. The 75% rate for McCain, then, is well outside the range of plausibility.
Professional pollsters make special efforts to ensure that their polls are balanced - if they know, for example, that 10% of the population are wealthy Catholics then they'll make sure that 10% of the people they talk to are wealthy Catholics.
Do Democrats have a chance if a canadate isn't chosen soon?
Absolutely they do. The democrats are obligated to follow-through for democratic voters throughout the country and complete entire nomination process BEFORE choosing a candidate. With such strong contenders for the nomination failure by the democratic party to allow all voters to voice their opinion would result in poor democratic turn-out in November and likely would result in democrats crossing party lines to vote for republicans because they feel disenfranchised by the democratic party. The better question right now would be what will happen to the democratic party if Florida and Michigan are not fairly seated at the convention and what if those states do not get a fair say in the nominee?
If Rudy Giulliani wins Florida, does that prove that our votes can be bought?
First of all, whenever I hear or read someone ranting about votes being "bought", it makes me want to stuff someone's head in a ballot box. Implying that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or anyone else is "buying" votes is not just an insult to them; it's an insult to every single person who voted for them and who is planning to vote for them. If you want to do that, then go ahead; it's a free country. But don't think that it makes you look like any less of an intolerant moron.
Second, if Giuliani wins Florida in spite of losing in every other early voting state, then it will mean exactly one thing: he was right to wait and focus his efforts there. I don't buy into "conventional wisdom", no matter what it says. I make up my own mind on everything, and if I happen to agree with other people, then that's hunky-dory. In this case, if Giuliani gets the nomination despite losing impressively in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina, then that's just another piece of "conventional wisdom" that will fall by the wayside as a result of this election.
And finally, he's not "just" campaigning in Florida. He has campaigners working and ads airing in New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and other delegate-rich states that are voting on Super Tuesday. Victories in those states would help him far better than a victory in Florida would, though I'm sure he'd love to win all of them.
How can you offer vice presidency and you in 2nd place in delegates?
Well this is a very good question. I believe what she is doing is using the sales technique which is known as "assuming the sale." The idea is simply by talking in a way that assumes what you want is going to happen that people will get more accustomed to hearing it and eventually accept this.
You may have noticed this if you have ever shopped for a car at a car dealer. The salesperson starts using phrases such as "when you are driving this car to pick up your...." He/she doesn't say if you get this car you will notice when you go to pick up your.... The change in phrasing gets the potential buyer used to and visualizing the outcome the salesperson wants. The more someone hears or sees something the more accustomed to it and likely to accept it they will become. This is no different than when we keep putting corn on my 3 year olds plate (started when she was 2) even though we know she does not like it. The more she saw it, the more comfortable she got with trying it--now a year later she actually likes it.
However, assuming the sale or not--a current number 2 telling the current number 1 that she wants him to be her future number 2, is a hard sale to sell--anyway you put it.
It has been mentioned that Clinton somehow has more political capital because she has won more big states than Obama. The assumption being that the democrats will have to carry the big states to win the general election. This is because there is a winner take all allocation of delegates in the general election and not the democratic primary. Therefore, a very close second in the democratic primary means that both the winner and loser almost get the same amount of delegates (meaning getting a close second is hardly a loss) However, in the general election getting a close second counts for nothing--because the winner takes all the delegates. The bottom line is that more people have voted for Obama than Clinton, regardless of what state they live. Therefore, right now--he has the political capital.
Another point that has been said is that Obama is trying to disenfranchise voters in Michigan and Florida. Well both states knew that moving their primaries up early that they would invalidate their elections. That is why both Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot in Michigan to respect the rules of the democratic party (DNC). Clinton at the time stated that she wanted to leave her name on the ballot so that all the focus in the state would not be on the republicans. Again, the bottom line is that democratic voters in both states knew that their votes would not count at the convention prior to voting. And in Michigan they knew that Clinton was the only one on the ballot. Therefore, the voting turnout was clearly effected and the results are not valid. Both by the democratic party rules and the fact that the vote was clearly effected by the prior disqualification.
Even though you did not ask this--I believe regardless of race or gender everyone should vote on the quality of the person.
I hope this answers your question and more.
Should we raise tariffs on imports and get factories going again in the USA, creating millions of jobs?
This is already being done by the Obama administration, but the process of imposing tariffs has to be done diplomatically (i.e., gradually) because other issues are at stake. Example: Last year, President Obama imposed a tariff on Chinese tire imports, because China has tended to flood our markets without taking any of our exports, thus causing a disadvantage to our own tire manufacturers (what few are left). At the time President Obama imposed the tariff, we were also attempting to convince China to help us on several other matters, such as NOT manipulating its currency, help with North Korea on both the Nuclear Weapons issue and on the aggression against S. Korea that resulted in a sunken battleship, and getting China to allow the U.S. to import more American-made products, such as the new green-energy technologies that are part of President Obama's Cap and Trade policy iniitiative. China's leaders POUTED for about two weeks after the tariff was imposed, but President Obama simply ignored the pout (as any parent would do to a two-year-old's tantrum) and held firm, but friendly, continuing to negotiate on the other issues and allowing the leaders to "save face" with their "fury" without responding in kind. Bottom line is that the tariffs are in place still, but we also have an agreement from China to NOT manipulate the value of their currency (which helps stabilize our dollar value in their markets and keeps our goods affordable), to take more of our exports, and to join the UN and the U.S. in condemning the sinking of that battleship by North Korea...not bad, right?
Factories ARE beginning to "go again" as part of President Obama's green-energy technologies initiative. In 40 states now, there are eco-friendly products being made or plants either in operation or being built---some supplemented by stimulus dollars. Check out the 340-acre idle Ford Motor plant in Wixom, Michigan that now houses three different companies making wind-powered and solar-powered alternative energy devices, or the hybrid car plant up and running in Pennsylvania. President Obama believes that the United States can LEAD the WORLD in producing alternative energy products, but for some reason the Republicans keep blocking the bills that would help make this happen a whole lot faster...maybe because they think if they can trash the economy for the November elections they can convince gullible voters the GOP (OUTSOURCERS; DEFICIT-CAUSERS; ECONOMY-CRASHERS) can somehow "do better" using the very same policies that got us in this fix in the first place. VOTE DEMOCRATS IN NOVEMBER!
In your opinion, which country is better to live in - USA or Canada?
Canada's economy is better and you don't need to pay for healthcare. Canadians aren't very fond of America. I'd say from an American perspective, Canada's government is more screwed up. At least Obama can't prorogue Congress. Canada doesn't have that Citizens United thing going on. Their media doesn't let out election results until a certain time (I appreciate freedom of the press). I got censored on Facebook because of it.
I haven't lived in Canada but it doesn't seem like an awful country or anything. If you're looking for a place that's not in a giant hole, take Canada. I'm not hating on the U.S. or anything.
Why isn't the support for Ron Paul in the news? Is the media that biased?
Ron Paul is the only Republican who can defeat Hillary Clinton.
Ron Paul is not a pacifist.
He sees the terroists and their teachers as individuals and not as representatives of any nation or the religion of Islam.
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Paul, defining them as an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as authorized by Article One, Section Eight, against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. He has also reproposed this legislation recently under the new title of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.
Among all candidates, Dr. Paul is now first in total donations from military personnel and veterans.
Obama and McCain were second and third in donations from military and veterans.
Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Hunter have the most conservative voting records on immigration.
Tancredo and Ron Paul have the best voting records for reducing government spending according to the National Taxpayers Union.
They were the only candidates to score 100 percent "A" Grades from 1992 to 2005.
Sportsbook.com rates both Paul and Romney at 8 to 1 odds which is approximately an 11 percent chance of becoming the next President.
Mitt Romney's campaign only had 35 percent more cash than Ron Paul after subtracting debts on 06/30/2007.
($3,176,525 / $2,354,855 = 1.349)
Paul's campaign has almost 5 times as much money to spend as Tancredo.
Romney's contributions from individuals dropped by a third from the first quarter to the second quarter.
Paul's contributions almost quadrupled from Q1 to Q2.
Ron Paul received more than 10 times as much in donations in the last week of June as he received in the first week of April.
Ron Paul's $2.4 million in fundraising after the second quarter placed him:
4th in total receipts to date
3rd in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)
Ron Paul has more friends in MySpace and more subscribers in YouTube than any other Republican.
As of September 4, Ron Paul has won 9 of 23 straw polls.
Thus far, 47% of the contributions made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest percentage).
This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for anyone, special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests buy him lunch."
You can learn more about him here.
Mitt Romney's campaign only had 35 percent more cash than Ron Paul after subtracting debts on 6/30/2007.
($3,176,525 / $2,354,855 = 1.349)
There are 1461 days in a 4-year Presidential term.
If you donate a penny for each day that would be $14.61.
A nickel for each day would be $73.05.
A dime for each day would be $146.10.
A quarter for each day would be $365.25.
Most 20th century Presidents were in for two terms.
Your investment in the Ron Paul campaign could last a long time.
If they are going to talk about popular vote,shouldn't they get more updated information? Perhaps a real poll?
Polls are worthless. Polls predicted a close race today in PA; polls are always off.
But you are right: some voters from the early primaries are alarmed about things they didn't know about Obama, and wish they could take their votes back. "Buyers Remorse." There unfortunately no way to measure that either, short of wide spread re-do's and that is never going to happen. We can only hope that the Super-delegates will do their jobs, and take all that into consideration. (Personally, I do not envy them)
Also, don't forget about the caucus states. There is no real way to measure the popular vote in states where caucuses were held. Most people that would vote in primaries, can't show up for caucuses anyway; people have jobs, kids need babysitters, etc. By nature, caucuses drastically limit the number of people who are able to participate. Then, of the people who show up... only a fraction of those are actually counted, and are assigned as delegates. There really is no practical way to get an accurate idea of what the popular vote would look like in caucus states.
(I wish they would eliminate caucused all together, for that reason. They do it because it's "cheaper" than holding an actual primary with ballots)
And, lastly, there is the mess with Michigan and Florida... that needs to be straightened out too, or else the primary results will be severely skewed. It wouldn't be such a big deal, if the race hadn't been this close... but it was closer than expected, and those states are big electoral cash cows, and ignoring their votes, not seating their delegates would be self-defeating for the party. But counting those votes will be a serious mess, especially now that Obama has blocked any hope for a re-do.
This primary process has hopefully been a learning experience for the DNC. They have four years now to make some changes for next time. (eliminate caucuses, my #1 beef) I understand your concern though, it seems like these primaries started so long ago. It's only been a few months though, and you wouldn't want the process to go by too quickly... the candidates need this time to be properly vetted, and Americans need the time to get to know their options as best as possible. Things won't start getting really intense until the general election campaign begins... long ways to go yet.
How much influence do YOU think the mainstream media has on political elections?
It was quite clear at the last presidential election that the liberal media, with it's erroneous information shared repeatedly about Palin, were highly instrumental in obama's election. Take into account, as well, that the liberal media said very little about obama's affiliation with his anti-white, anti-American pastor and church. They poo-pooed that info so all the sheeple that think the mainstream media is a good source of information voted for obama with little actual knowledge of his opponent.
The mainstream media is comletely out of touch with reality and, since obama's election, have lost some of their sheeple.
How are thousands of people fooled so easily by the Clinton's, with this being tough notion?
Once again like( Lexy L )another uneducated voter, who does not comprehend or read the facts.
Read Facts below:
According to Real Clear Politics, Obama leads Clinton by slightly more than 700,000 votes after 40-plus primary elections. That number drops to just over 400,000 when including Florida's results (in Michigan Obama was not on the ballot).
The difference between these estimates and those from the Obama camp, Plouffe offered, was due to the fact that many of the caucus states had yet to tally their popular votes. In Texas, he offered as an example, "we project to pick up a 120,000 popular vote advantage [in the caucus], which is larger than what Senator Clinton got out of the primary." In Mississippi, meanwhile, Plouffe estimated that Obama would have a net gain of approximately 100,000 votes.
With only ten primary elections left in the nomination process there is an increasing likelihood that Obama will end up with a relatively substantial pledge delegate lead. After Mississippi's election his campaign estimated that he had not only erased the losses he had in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, but now bested Clinton by 161 such delegates.
PA state was tailored to Clinton's strengths. "They are the prohibitive favorite. Obama campaign will not be defined by Pennsylvania."
Is it better for democrats that Romney does easily win the nomination?
Not only that but it takes the energy out of the election in many states who wont get to vote, takes they news away from voting results, makes the candidate have to campaign less in all the states. Romney is going to win Iowa, NH for sure, Nevada for sure ( he's not even showing up for that debate ) Michigan for sure ( won last time and leading big now. And with all that momentum, that will get him to easily win South Carolina and Florida, and it'll be over by Super Tuesday.
How badly will throwing out the Florida & Michigan Dem. primary results affect Obama in the fall?
In FL, it will affect Obama badly if those delegates are not seated. That aside, even if those delegates are seated, FL favors Clinton HEAVILY over Obama. Anyone who says otherwise does not know the state of FL at all. If Obama wins the nom and goes up against McCain in Nov., he wll lose FL to McCain. No doubt. Clinton is the only one who has a chance of winning FL against McCain in November. Obama is not favored there in a general election match-up.
Could the irrational hatred that Republicans have toward Obama be a form of self loathing and psychological?
You will see a lot of Obama lies on the internet. Most of them however are urban legend and simply not true. Below is 16 lies that have been 100% verified.
We have developed this page to outline his lies. As we suspect this page will grow enormous during his regime.
1.) Barack Obama stated that “Selma Got Me Born”. This is not true because Barack Obama was born in 1961, Selma took place in 1965.
2.) Obama claimed that his father was a goat herder in-fact he was well educated, well taken care of and eventually worked with the Government of Kenya.
3.) Raila Odinga who ran for president of Kenya in 2007 lost, helped to create political uproar disputing the election results which left many dead and homeless. Even after the violence of his brother Obama reportedly had no problem stating that his family has strong ties to freedom in Africa.
4.) Barack Obama claimed his name is African Swahili. This s not true since “Baraka” the root for Barack (Arabic) means “blessed”. Arabic is also the native language for the names of Hussein and Obama.
5.) Obama was a registered Muslim in the same school that he claimed to be a Christian. In this same school in Indonesia Barack Obama reportedly got into trouble for making faces during his Koranic study sessions.
6.) Known in high school as “Barry Obama” his class mate’s state that he was normal and fine. This despite Barack Obama claiming he had vast ethnic confusion which led to his drug use.
7.) A black man who was trying to peel off his skin was how Obama described a time Magazine article that “Changed His Life”, with this said, Life can’t find that an article with that description has ever been printed.
8.) In 2004 Barack Obama stated publicly that he would not run for president stating that he had a lack of experience. While his lack of experience is true, look who got elected in 2008!
9.) 130 Present votes are not common. Votes in the Illinois state legislature are done with buttons on the representative’s desk. Green is for yes, Red is for No, and Yellow is for “Present”. Obama used this button 130 times; because he didn’t know the issues hence he claimed it was “Common”.
10.) Obama claimed his nuclear bill was tough when the truth is his own party shunned the bill citing its lack of regulation and pandering. David Axelrod from Exelon was also the nuclear donor and was a main reason for the rejection of this bill.
11.) Fellow Senators helped push Obama to the front line of political exposure by writing for him a total of 26 bills. Of course barrack Obama took all the credit when he claimed that he wrote and passed 26 of “His own” bills in 1 year.
12.) Despite his being absent from the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and despite that Barack Obama’s close ally Ali Abunimah wants to see the destruction of Israel. He still claims to be tough on terrorism. Should we drag William Ayers into this line as well?
13.) During the Today Show on March 8th, 2008 Obama adds Michigan to the list of states that he had secured victory. This is despite the fact that Obama’s name was not even on the Michigan ballot.
14.) Claiming that Obama wanted to “empower disenfranchised citizen” didn’t stop him in 1995 from playing hardball and blocking Alice Palmer from running against him. Thus line of “I believe in Fairness, not tactics” would be far from the truth.
15.) $115,000 of campaign funds were raised from lobbyist as of march 20, 2008. So counting the 47 lobbyist Obama has in his back pocket makes his claims that “I don’t have lobbyists” a bit hard to swallow.
16.) The 1984 Ad which gained national media attention was denied by the Obama campaign. However de Vellis, the gent who crafted the video, was employed by Blue Stage Digital which is an internet strategy firm that was used by the Obama camp.
Why do the US Democrats tend to choose unelectable presidential candidates?
The Dems have uniquely stupid processes designed to make their convention demographically small-d democratic at the expense of being able to put forward centrist nominees for the most part. Democrats tend to value "process" as though it were an end in itself, rather than a means to winning elections. Hence we have dopey proportional representation rules that yield candidates who would not be consensus candidates in November. It doesn't help that everything begins with Crazyball Iowa, whose politics resemble no one else's, anywhere. Superdelegates were put into place to try to prevent the dopey proportional representation rules from sending the party over the cliff with George McGovern, and now, in the Democratic Party's quest to protect Howard Dean's ego and its screwy rules, superdelegates are being urged to line up behind a "popular vote" winner instead of exercising their independent judgment. The result will be that Florida and Michigan delegates get unfairly divided if they are seated at all, and Obama will be declared the "popular vote" winner that the superdelegates are supposed to embrace. The problem is that Hillary has won the states that matter in the electoral college, and Barack has won states the Dems cannot possibly win in November (even without the 527 machine that will gear up against Obama based on his associations). So Pelosi, Leahy, Dodd and Co. will drive the Dems over a cliff again.
Does anyone else believe that DNC has rigged the primary election?
Yep...that's been obvious from the begining.
Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement:
Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.
We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.
The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.
Why Is It Important To Have Delegates at The Convention?
Officially, the nominee is not chosen until the convention which is why you need delegates at the convention to choose the candidate.
The rules for nominating a candidate for President mirror to some degree the rules for electing a candidate (note, I said some degree not entirely).
Like a President is officially elected by the "electors" who have to meet in their state capitol and vote, the candidates for President are officially nominated by the convention.
The tradition of the convention goes back to a time (which only ended around 36 years ago) in which most delegates supported local candidates and there were not a lot of primaries and nothing really resembling a national campaign for the nomination. Today, most states use primaries and most candidates compete in most if not all states and most delegates are "pledged" based on local election results.
As such, unlike the situation in the 1960s, where every nomination (except an incumbents) was in doubt heading into the convention and all conventions were brokered, we now pretty much know going into the convention what is going to happen.
The reason that half-delegates matter are two-fold. First, the rules call for penalizing states that violated the timing rules by cutting their delegation in half. Thus, one of the issues is whether or not the rules really matter.
Second, while Obama has a substantial lead (aroud 200 delegates), there are a lot of delegates (around 350) at stake here. If Michigan and Florida only get half votes (and depending on several other factors), Clinton nets between 23 and 35 delegate votes with another 30 delegate votes still in play from these two states and Obama woulds still have a substantial lead (around 150) and would only need a small number of the remaining unpledged delegates from other states (30-50 out of 200) to get a majority at the convention. If they get full votes, that could reduce Obama's lead to something like 100 delegates and require him to get 80 or 90 of the remaining delegates.
Do you think it's unfair for Hillary to resurrect Michigan and Florida?
Everyone agreed with the decision that those states were not to receive delegates if they moved up their primaries but they went ahead and did it anyhow. So, those who voted anyhow are not a true representation of the voters.
There's not way they should get delegates after the fact.
Best solution would be for those states to do primaries or caucuses now so their votes do result in valid delegates.
How many candidates will drop out of the race after Iowa?
Iowa is a caucuses and the results will not be conclusive. Not a direct vote so all should stick around at least until Michigan or NH.
Even Guilani is boycotting this. So don't expect any dropouts.
The Serious contender will stay longer to get notice and vye for the Veep job (eg Edwards) or lay some foundation for the next election (be it president, senate/congress or governorship)
Some will stay longer to get some bargain for some plum job offer from the eventual winner.
Some will stay on to spread their messages (very rare)
Some will just drop out because of (lack of) cash.
The first batch of dropouts will be the no-hopers, getting less than 1% etc and seriously running out of money. You will start to hear about them after NH.
By mid-Feb whats left will be the major ones that goes all the way after the major states are starting to vote.
how did the white house react to the Watergate Scandal?
You have to know the entire period to understand Watergate. For a reference, see the movie "Our Man Flint." The president is clearly meant to be Lyndon Johnson, and it is clearly meant to satirize the then-common notion that the president routinely bugged everybody.
Nixon was just one of those people that nobody liked, and he knew it. He had a grudge against just about everyone from childhood, and when he became President he had the power to take his revenge.
When the 1972 election campaign began in 1970, Nixon took the extraordinary step of forming his own reelection organization, completely bypassing the Republican Party. Through this organization, the Committee to Re-Elect the President, known by its acronym as "CREEP," Nixon's people recruited detectives that were charged with hunting down those who "leaked" damaging stories to the press.
This was the infamous "Plumbers" unit, headed by G. Gordon Liddy. On June 17, 1972, some of Liddy's men were caught trespassing late at night inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Office Building. They had come back, as it turned out, to replace some defective wiretaps and listening devices that had already been planted.
This was scandal enough, but the leaks continued as those who had been associated with the operation began to talk under pressure from the authorities, who were in turn goaded by the Media, particularly the Washington Post and CBS.
Eventually, it was discovered that Nixon had installed listening devices in the Oval Office itself, to record every golden word he said for posterity. The tapes were sought in a court order by the first Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, and when Cox, who was considered an "employee" of the Justice Department, was fired because he wouldn't quit demanding the tapes the nation's mood shifted to one of belief that Nixon was the real "Godfather" behind it all.
Cox's firing had the effect that the replacement prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, would be fireproof. Jaworski picked up where Cox had left off, he eventually got the tapes, and there indeed was proof in Nixon's own voice that he was authorizing hush money to the Watergate burglars in exchange for their silence. Obstruction of Justice is, or was at the time, a "high crime or misdemeanor," and the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend articles of impeachment.
Since the tapes were forced out by a unanimous Supreme Court, Nixon knew the game was up. He had promised grandly before his first election in 1968 that he had a plan to end the war in Vietnam, but now it was five years later and there was still no end in sight, so his popularity was shot. He resigned the presidency and retreated to his California home.
The term "Watergate" also encompasses the fall of Nixon's "pit bull" Vice President Spiro Agnew, who was abruptly charged with taking payoffs while Governor of Maryland and VP. Agnew promptly resigned, and was replaced by Michigan Congressman Gerald Ford. Shortly after Ford replaced Nixon as President he pardoned Nixon, to outraged howls from those who were seeking vengeance, but to his everlasting glory as a statesman, for the pardon "cut the Gordian knot" of Watergate, and within hours all was past history.
Watergate was such a profound episode in American history that the suffix "-gate" is now attached to any such scandal at the national level as a kind of shorthand for "scandal."
After Watergate, the Congress went on a rampage, investigating every agency for wrongdoing, particularly the CIA. The CIA "pulled in its horns" around the globe, much to the delight of the Soviet KGB, and we suffered the Iranian Hostage Crisis perhaps as one of the results. This crisis, combined with the obvious inability and ineptitude of the Carter administration to deal with it, brought Ronald Reagan to the White House, and launched the Conservative Revolution that brought back peace, prosperity, and respectability to America.
What percentage of Michigan will vote "Uncommitted"? And, how will this effect the Republican vote?
It seems all the early primary states are unique in their unconventional voting practices.
The outcome can skew the results of the elections.
Noone should assume any results are indicative of a trend until after "Super Tuesday".
Then, after that vote, the results will be far from final, but a trend will probably be established.
How is it possible to win the national popular vote but lose the electoral college vote?
A candidate has won the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in one of every 14 (4 of 56) presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large
Is it wise to turn over complete control of our government to the Democrats ?
Not a chance.
The Republican Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery.
The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
The Republican Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
The Republican Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
President Dwight Eisenhower of The Republican Party sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation
The Republican Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the1957 Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s.
President Richard Nixon of The Republican Party instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables.
The Republican Party of President George W. Bush who supports the U.S. Supreme Court’s University of Michigan Affirmative Action decision, and is spending over $200 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and on programs to help black Americans prosper, including school vouchers, the faith-based initiative, home ownership, and small business ownership
The Democratic Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan.
The Democratic Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens.
The Democratic Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission.
The Democratic Party of President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president, and later had the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist.
The Democratic Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Fritz Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who recently insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments.
The Democratic Party of President Bill Clinton failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan.
The Democratic Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the “Miami Herald” and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not denied the right to vote.
The Democratic Party is against the faith-based initiative, against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks.
Describe the effect illegal immigration could have on the coming presidential election?
The presence of illegal aliens in other states caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one seat in the House in 2000, while Montana failed to gain a seat it otherwise would have.
• Illegal immigration not only redistributes seats in the House, it has the same effect on presidential elections because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations.
• The presence of all non-citizens in the Census redistributed a total of nine seats. The term "non-citizens" includes illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and temporary visitors, mainly foreign students and guest workers. In addition to the four states that lost a seat due to the presence of illegal aliens, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Utah each had one fewer seat than they otherwise would have.
• None of the states that lost a seat due to non-citizens is declining in population. The population of the four states that lost seats due to illegal immigration increased 1.6 million in the 1990s, while the population of the five states that lost seats because of other non-citizens grew by two million.
• Immigrant-induced reapportionment is different from reapportionment caused when natives relocate to other states. Immigration takes away representation from states composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens and results in the creation of new districts in states with large numbers of non-citizens.
• In the nine states that lost a seat due to the presence of non-citizens, only one in 50 residents is a non-citizen. In contrast, one in seven residents is a non-citizen in California, which picked up six of these seats. One in 10 residents is a non-citizen in New York, Texas, and Florida, the states that gained the other three seats.
• The numbers are even larger in some districts — 43 percent of the population in California’s immigrant-heavy 31st district is made up of non-citizens, while in the 34th district, 38 percent are non-citizens. In Florida’s 21st district, 28 percent of the population is non-citizen, and in New York’s 12th district the number is 23 percent.
• The large number of non-citizens creates a tension with the principle of "one man, one vote" because it takes so few votes to win these immigrant-heavy districts. In 2002, it took almost 100,000 votes to win the typical congressional race in the four states that lost a seat due to illegal aliens, while it took fewer than 35,000 votes to win the 34th and 31st districts of California.
• Although the number of naturalizations increased in the 1990s, the number of non-citizens still increased dramatically to 18.5 million in 2000, up from 11.8 million in 1990 and seven million in 1980.
• The political stakes for low-immigration states are enormous. The presence of all foreign-born persons in 2000 (naturalized citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens) redistributed 16 seats, up from 12 seats in 1990.
What do you think if Bill Clinton was still us president, the national debt paid off and $ 1 trillion on hand?
Oh boy, what fun. You really haven't a clue. There was no balanced budget -- it was all smoke and mirrors. The BRAC Committees did things like close NAS Moffett Field but then turned it over to NASA and renamed it AIMES Research Center. They closed the Army base at Presidio (foot of the Golden Gate Bridge) but turned it over to the NAtional Forestry and Park Service. Please note that these are still all FEDERALLY funded organizations. There was no savings.
The only election truly stolen was this last one. A hanging chad? Please. How about the 33,000 reported cases of voter registration fraud in Pennsylvania alone? Six ACORN people of seven were tried and convicted on that one. And now we learn of still more in Ohio, Michigan, New York, Colorado, California and Florida?
In truth, it's because of Bill Clinton that we are now in this financial mess. Ever hear of a couple of bills called NAFTA and WTO? They sent all of those high paying union jobs overseas. And how about demanding that the financial institutions make housing "more affordable?" He raised the interest rates the banks are allowed to charge from 21% to a whopping 30%, clearing the way for all of those sub-prime mortgage loans... And how about his gutting the military all the while ignoring all of the terrorist bombings going on in the middle east and here? So now we're in a two front war? Perhaps had he been a litle more attentive to what was going on ABOVE the desk than what was going on under his desk...
Just what are they teaching you kids these days? We know what they're NOT teaching. Sad.
What percentage of the votes did Hilary win in the Michigan primary?
(Most Obama supporters voted for Uncommitted (which netted 40%))
Dennis J. Kucinich - 3.7%
Christopher J. Dodd - 0.6%
Mike Gravel - 0.4%
This breaks it all down for you:
Oh, and 54 + 56 = 110.....
What instances has there been a faithless elector? PRESIDNTAL ELECTION ONLY?
If you are referring to the Electoral College...
The elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive the plurality of the nationwide popular vote. In 1824, there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed rather than popularly elected, so the true national popular vote is uncertain. When no candidate received a majority of electoral votes in 1824, the election was decided by the House of Representatives and thus could be considered distinct from the latter three elections in which all of the states had popular selection of electors.
So yes, the results of the elections in 1876, 1888, and 2000 were exactly the opposite of what the American people wanted. I have no doubt it will happen again in my lifetime; since I'm 59 years old, I fully expect it to happen again in the next 30 years.
As for a failthless elector...
A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person pledged, including one who refuses to vote for any candidate. There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many states may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, some such as Michigan specify that his or her vote shall be canceled.
As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.
Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation. That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.
Would it be fair to now allow the Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates to be awarded to Hillary?
Aren't the Democrats that cry the loudest about making every vote count? (or is that only when we're on the short end of the stick?) And we are the party that disallowed the voters of 2 big and important states to have no voice. As a registered Democrat I am livid with the party's hypocritical stance on this subject. They should not change the rules now, it's just not fair, but should have never disallowed the votes to be discounted in the first place. Our party stance on subjects seems to change when it's advantageous to us, or certain parts of us and I'm sick of it. I am quickly becoming embarrassed to be a Democrat and will seriously consider changing my affiliation. Absolutely disgusting! I was a Hillary supporter, but no longer. She just doesn't represent the standards I support for a fair election and that every vote should count. As a voter in Pennsylvania, my vote may now count, and it won't be for Hillary.
Why is the media focusing on blaming someone for failure to pass the bailout yesterday? Was it a good plan?
Because the corperate media is not objective but defends big business and the financial aristocracy.Not a good plan.
As for the media, the pretense of objective reporting was cast aside. Television news announcers voiced the anger and concern of the major financial interests and sought to apportion blame for what was universally presented as the irrational defeat of an indispensable measure.
The bailout proposal was rejected by a vote of 228 to 205, with 60 percent of the House Democrats voting for it and 67 percent of the House Republicans voting against.
Once again, the Democrats emerged as the most consistent and loyal defenders of Wall Street’s interests.
Obama delivered a speech Monday calling for the plan’s approval. He echoed the remarks of Bush, delivered hours earlier on the White House lawn, aimed at blackmailing the American people into supporting the plan. The bailout, he declared, is “our best and only way to prevent an economic catastrophe.”
Neither Obama nor anyone else, however, was able to explain how this proposal would benefit the American people. On the contrary, he has already admitted that its passage will force the rescinding of the paltry promises he has made in his election campaign and necessitate greater fiscal discipline. This will inevitably translate into an attack on essential social programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
After the bill was voted down, Obama delayed making a statement until he could consult with Paulson. Then he insisted that the proposal was “required for us to stabilize the markets.” He continued: “Democrats and Republicans in Washington have a responsibility to make sure an emergency rescue package is put forward that can at least stop the immediate problems that we have.”
For his part, McCain issued no immediate statement, while a campaign aide echoed the ludicrous claim of the Republican House leadership that the measure’s defeat was a response to a partisan attack in the remarks of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the vote was taken.
The major congressional opposition to the bailout came from the most right-wing sections of the Republican Party, who cast the attempt to effect a vast transfer of public resources to the wealthiest interests in the country as “socialism.”
Representative Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan went so far as to invoke the October 1917 Revolution in Russia, saying that the bailout plan recalled the Bolshevik slogan of “bread, peace and land.”
This right-wing ideology is infused in many cases with racist overtones, scapegoating minority homebuyers, who were disproportionately victimized by subprime mortgages, for the crisis created by Wall Street’s parasitism.
In the end, the program of these opponents of the bailout is one of even more tax cuts for the rich and the destruction of what little remains of a social safety net in America, transferring all public monies to big business, albeit by a different route.
If these imbecilic demagogues are able to exploit the popular opposition that exists to the bailout, it is only because the leadership of the Democratic Party is so solidly unified behind the interests of finance capital and so indifferent to the concerns of the masses of working people. They are utterly incapable of offering the slightest substantive alternative to the demands of Wall Street.
A way out of the crisis—the deepest to confront American and world capitalism since the Great Depression of the 1930s—requires a rejection not only of the bailout, but of the entire framework in which the debate in Washington is being conducted.
The capitalist system has failed, and there is no reason to doubt the warnings from Bush, Paulson, Obama and others that it is preparing a social catastrophe.
Finding an answer to this crisis begins with asking the question: Who is to pay for it? Whatever their tactical differences on the bailout, the answer of the Democrats and Republicans is clear: Working people must give up their jobs, living standards and social interests in order to rescue the financial parasites who created the disaster.
The working class must put forward its own solution. The banks and major financial institutions which now threaten to drag down the economy and plunge millions into poverty must be nationalized, without compensation to their executives and big shareholders.
Those directly responsible for this crisis, the Wall Street executives who oversaw fraudulent forms of financial manipulation that generated multi-million-dollar compensation packages for themselves, must be held accountable. Their assets should be confiscated and they themselves should be subject to criminal prosecution.
Why did Michigan and Florida break party rules knowing there would repercussions?
Again, there is a giant misconception about Florida. If you don't know, the Florida State Legislature is comprised of about 75% Republican. It was the Republican Party that passed this piece of legislation through. The state Dems tried to introduce amendments to that particular bill but was blocked at every turn by the GOP. The Democratic Party fought the date change from the get go.
The misconception is that the Democratic Party was a willing participant to this and that's just not true. BUT, the DNC could have chosen a different path other than one of not seating the delegates.
IYO, should the electoral college be dissolved so we can vote for president directly? Why or why not?
The reason is that the electoral system can completely neutralize the votes of well over half the population. Only the voters in a few big toss-up states matter.
Let's examine the results of the last election. Obama won the states of California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Indiana, Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, District of Columbia, Vermont and Maine. Those are sorted by # of electoral votes for Obama.
That's impressive. But he only needed to win California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Indiana, Washington and any of Maryland, Minnesota, Wiconsin, Colorado or Iowa.
Suppose he had only won those states through Maryland. The rest of the voters in all those other states -- it wouldn't matter how they voted. It DIDN'T matter how 55 million Americans voted because they lived in states that weren't necessary to win the election.
And worse, once you know how a few of the big states are going to go, there are a bunch of little states that don't matter because there is no scenario left in which they might swing the election. That's why some states are called "swing" states in a Presidential election. They're states that might go either way AND could be mathematically necessary to win the election. So the candidates spend all their time and money selling themselves to the people in those swing states and the rest of America doesn't matter to them. Their electoral votes are considered either out of reach or in the bank and there's no point paying them any further attention.
As a republican who would be a stronger opponent to Mccain? The better candidate or the winning canditate?
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELECTORAL MAP...
Clearly, Hillary would be a much tougher opponent for McCain. And, if McCain adds Romney to the ticket, Obama's so-called "Western Strategy" goes right into the toilet because of the huge Mormom vote out West--not to mention that Romney will probably bring Michigan to McCain since his father was a very popular Governor there and Obama screwed the people of Michigan out of their vote.
That would result in a McCain landslide.
Who decided to penalize the Michigan and Florida delegates in the first place?
Ambition and entitlement will trump principles almost every time, and if you have principles, people will smear you every chance they can because someone with integrity would be a threat to a horribly corrupted system.
why isn't the michigan presidential primary covered by the media, or seem inportant to the candidates?
The Michigan primary is a bit of a odd event. The state of Michigan decided to move its elections from Feb 5th to Jan 15. This decision was denied by a Democratic National Committee vote as it violates some national party rules. As a result the Democratic National Convention stripped Michigan of all its primary voting rights. In other words Michigan has no official effect on the National Convention's decision to endorse one of the candidates.
The Republican National Convention was a bit more kind to Michigan for violating its rules, they have stripped the states votes by 50% as a penality.
See http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/ME-D.phtml for more info.
How can Obama go to Florida & Michigan and ask for their Votes in the General Election?
It will be a hard sell. But take heart! Clinton is not out yet and she has been active in seeing those states represented. An action that I am sure will be remembered come November.
The main reason Clinton stays in the race is because she still has a good shot at winning.
All the ongoing issues with Rezko and Wright aside, there is still the issue of MI and FL with their 350 delegates. If they are seated in anything approaching the actual results, Obama’s lead shrinks to a handful.
Second, there are still about 200 delegates to be selected in 6 races.
Third, and most importantly, THE SUPERDELEGATE COUNTS FOR EACH CANDIDATE ARE IRRELEVANT!!
Allow me to explain. Under democratic party rules, the superdelegates are not locked into their selection until the convention when they actually vote. They are free to change their vote however often they want. They can go to Clinton from Obama, to Obama from Clinton, or back and forth a dozen times, it does not matter. The only count that counts is the one in August at the convention. Therefore, all 795 superdelegates are “in play”.
And just to make it more interesting, Obama leads Clinton by less then the number of currently undecided superdelegates. Until all the SDs make up their minds, they are not only in play, but ripe for Clinton to bribe, I mean, convince to vote for her.
Thus, it is way too early for her to drop out.