Virginia senator tries to rig presidential vote for GOP
Sen. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson County
That didn’t take long.
Remember my prediction that GOP state lawmakers would introduce legislation in the 2013 General Assembly to try to rig Virginia back into the “red” column in the 2016 presidential election?
It’s happening already!
State Sen. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson County, wants to apportion the commonwealth’s 13 electoral votes by the way congressional districts vote. If it had been that way in this past election, Mitt Romney would have taken 9 of the state’s electoral votes and President Obama (who won Virginia by 3 percentage points) would have won 4 electoral votes.
Here’s the bill he’s introduced, SB 723.
Right now all the electoral votes in Virginia and 47 other state are “winner take all” for whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the state. Only Main and Nebraska split their electoral votes.
Carrico’s bill would award 1 electoral vote for each of the congressional districts a presidential candidate wins. Whichever candidate won a majority of congressional districts would also get Virginia’s 2 at-large electoral votes.
Here’s the kicker, though: if this scheme had been the set-up in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin for the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney would have won a majority of electoral votes and the White House.
You can read his explanation for this legislation over at Blue Ridge Caucus.
December 11, 2012 - 8:00 AM
While we are at it, let’s change the rules for high school and college football in Virginia – the team winning the most quarters wins the game. No need for a final score!
Carrico actually tried to claim this has nothing to do with partisanship. And while he whines about rural voters being “disenfranchised,” he wants a system that would disenfranchise urban voters and allow the minority to elect a candidate. Next time the Repubs lose the governor’s seat, he’ll be proposing a similar system for that vote.
I agree with this approach. Reasoning: Each district should have their electoral vote cast to the person who wins the popular vote for the district. I think this should happen nationwide. It would be a way to make the popular vote and electoral vote line up.
This looks like a good idea because minority districts have a larger voice and it’s not just a majority vote. This is how a republic works and why each state has 2 senators and we don’t vote for the president by popular vote. I wouldn’t want to live in a democracy because it is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
I suppose that Carrico doesn’t really understand the value in having a electoral system of election for President. Did he not pay attention in the 4th & 5th grades when he was taught how the political system works?
Knowing the makeup of the General Assembly, Governor’s office & especially the Attorney General’s proclivities, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this pass overwhelmingly.
We don’t penalize people for living in highly populated areas, nor reward them for living in the sticks. The GOP should spend more time crafting a message that’s palatable to the electorate and less time trying to figure out how disenfranchise minorities.
I understand that both sides of this argument have valid points.
I will remain neutral to this debate.
Same with right to work issue.
I was employed in a right to work State but was not subject
to right to work because I was employed in interstate commerce
thus not subject to state law.
I was subject to the worst aspects of both sides of that coin.
“I agree with this approach. Reasoning: Each district should have their electoral vote cast to the person who wins the popular vote for the district. I think this should happen nationwide. It would be a way to make the popular vote and electoral vote line up.”
–Comment by Conservative.
“This looks like a good idea because minority districts have a larger voice and it’s not just a majority vote. This is how a republic works and why each state has 2 senators and we don’t vote for the president by popular vote. I wouldn’t want to live in a democracy because it is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”
–Comment by Larry McDonald
Conservative,
Actually, this would be a way to rig elections that would make the popular vote and the electoral votes line up LESS frequently. Remember, Obama a) won a majority of voters in Virginia and b) beat Romney by 3%. By what strain of logic would it be “fair” to have 9 of the state’s 13 EVs go to Romney for such an outcome? Probably it would seem “fair” to Republicans, who with a shrinking base are desperate to maintain control. But it’s not fair by any objective standards. We should do away with the Electoral College rather than permit such BS games.
Larry McDonald,
Tell me if you can how this aspect of Carrico’s plan is just or fair: He wants the at-large EVs to be determined by whoever wins a majority of gerrymandered congressional districts, rather than by whichever candidate wins a majority of Virginia’s popular vote.
Why would his proposal not be fair? So long as the rules are consistent and in place before the election “season”, I don’t know why this is necessarily a bad thing. It looks like a further subdivision of the electoral college to me.
If you can win precincts by 99% by manipulating the voting, you win the election. All you have to do is control the precincts in the cities to win.
99% is what you see with dictators, not US Presidents.
Let’s go beyond Del. Carrico’s proposal and eliminate the Electoral College completely. The candidate with the most votes wins. Plain & simple. Such a system would have save us 8 years of George W. Bush for example. Just saying….
I’m in favor of abolishing the Electoral College completely and going to a popular vote election for the President. Members of Congress are elected based on the actual vote total in the districts or states they represent, so why not do the same with the President, on a nation-wide basis? For decades, republicans in California have had to live with the reality that their votes for President are essentially worthless due to the now overwhelming majority of Democrat voters there…and likewise liberals in Texas have to feel the same about how their votes have stacked up in that state. It was a system that made sense at the time, but one which has outlived its purpose by a long shot. It’s time to modernize.
“Let’s go beyond Del. Carrico’s proposal and eliminate the Electoral College completely. ”
But Carrico doesn’t really want a “fair” system, he just wants the system that will lead to a Repub win. For now that is.
“Why would his proposal not be fair? So long as the rules are consistent and in place before the election “season”, I don’t know why this is necessarily a bad thing. It looks like a further subdivision of the electoral college to me.”
JW, if you have a setup that is more likely to lead to presidential outcomes that are at odds with the result of the popular vote, that is unfair because it makes it more likely that the elected president was NOT necessarily the will of the people, but the result of some artificially rigged playing field (gerrymandering).
The biggest flaw with this plan, which a few have mentioned, is how Congressional districts are derived in the first place. We currently have gerrymandered GA and Congressional districts, and now Carrico we proposes we elect a president based on those gerrymandered districts. This is taking “representation” to an entireley different level. “Party first, party first, party first – oh, I’m bipartisan.”
Dan:
“JW, if you have a setup that is more likely to lead to presidential outcomes that are at odds with the result of the popular vote, that is unfair because it makes it more likely that the elected president was NOT necessarily the will of the people, but the result of some artificially rigged playing field (gerrymandering).”
Oh, you mean like when a subcommitte loaded with antis kills a bill because they don’t want it to get a vote. They don’t want a committe or House or Senate vote or the will of a majority of 8 million people to get in the way of their own sensibilites. This goes on at all levels and I don’t necessarily agree with it.
There’s a reason it’s not done by the popular vote. What if there was a popular vote taken in Virginia to determine which geographic half would become a landfill for the other?
The last election notwithstanding, perhps it is time to split the electoral college up further.
Other John, the only ultimate difference I see is that with a majority of dumb people in the general pubic, a full nationwide popular vote would ensure more Democrat control and take us in what I feel is the wrong direction faster than we’re already going. It’s going there regardless. Republicans can’t change it; they will adapt. At least the electoral college slows it down a bit and gives people a chance to think more about it…. not that it does any good. Fast growing, Democrat-voting urban centers would call all the shots. We’re to that point now.
I don’t make the rules, I just play by them and vote every election.
Count me as in favor of abolishing the Electoral College too. It should be strictly the popular vote.
I’m just saying that implementing the electoral college system at a local level is more close to what what originally in the constitution. I’m also against the direct election of Senators which was implemented around a hundred years ago. A representative republic form of government is what we have but is not being implemented. If we have a popular vote everywhere then the rights of the minorities can just be voted away by the majority. Whoever controls the majority controls everything.
If the districts were not so gerrymandered, he might have an inkling of a point. As it is, all he wants is minority rule and that is wrong.
Other states do as this proposal suggests already and the world hasn’t ended yet, nor has it swayed the outcome of any POTUS election. This would more accurately reflect the vote of the people.
Larry McDonald,
The direct election of senators would be unconstitutional.
“If we have a popular vote everywhere then the rights of the minorities can just be voted away by the majority.”
No, they can’t. They’re protected by the bill of rights and thereby not subject to popular approval.
I’m unclear on how putting a minority of votes in a position to win “more accurately reflects the vote of the people”, Maloof. Please clarify.
Maloof,
If this proposal was in place in 2012, then Virginia would have given 9 EVs to Romney and 4 to Obama. That might have more accurately reflected your desires as to the presidential election, but it would not have accurately reflected the “vote of the people” at all.
If you REALLY want EVs to accurately reflect the vote of the people, then you would apportion EVs according to the popular vote in a coongressional district. If Obama won 45 percent in a congressional district, then he would get .45 EVs from that district.
THAT would ACCURATELY reflect the vote of the people, AND the EV totals would also mirror the popular vote, which would make the Electoral College even more unnecessary.
Which, I would wager, you do not want to see happen. You and certain others are for rigging the game the GOPs advantage so that you can win offices while losing the popular vote, that’s all.
I agree.
“I’m unclear on how putting a minority of votes in a position to win “more accurately reflects the vote of the people”, Maloof. Please clarify.”
Kristen, it does not more accurately reflects the vote of the people. It more accurately reflects the vote of the poster, which seems fair to Maloof. (And Rush Limbaugh, too). These folks are not concerned with accuracy or fairness. They’re all about advantage (for themselves) and control.
John Wilburn, I used to think that way but now I’m not so convinced that would be the case…and here’s why. We do know that generally, liberal strongholds exist in urban centers and areas with collegiate influence, and that conservatives generally hold down the rural areas and quite a lot of suburbia. A Democrat candidate would destroy their candidacy only focusing on the urban areas, because there’s still a good 30-40% (sometimes less, other times more) or so of the populace outside of the urban areas that seem to generally lean toward the Democrats. If a candidate didn’t try to win those votes too, they’d lose by being too myopic in the campaign. Likewise, a Repuiblican candidate is not going to do well by only playing to the small-town and rural voters, because there still are a lot of supporters in the more dense urban areas.
What the abolition of the Electoral College would impact is the elimination of battleground states where the bulk of the campaign funds go. No longer would California, Texas, the Midwest, the Deep South, and the Northeast get ignored because they were considered virtual locks. Granted, money might still get concentrated in some markets, but I don’t think it would be as blatant as we saw in this last election. The candidates would have to try to appeal to the entire country, rather than just focusing on a few key “in play” locations where they might tip the scales to their favor.
At least, that’s my line of thinking. I don;t think the Republicans will slide to obscurity. If they can move beyond the vastly unpopular social message many of their candidates have tried to push and instead re-focus on their economic, fiscal, and governmental policies…and truly provide some plans and details pertaining to such and explain how they will work to improve things, they could regain their lost ground. The social issues divide the population too much…they are too emotional. Focus on the facts, the numbers, the data…and if they ran on actual ideas and could back them up…they’d be ok.
That said, they have trouble with reality and history…because the time periods the Republicans point to for properity, economic vitality, and middle class growth…all coincide with policies they currently oppose.
Maloof,
Two states, Nebraska and Maine, divide electoral votes by Congressional district. Nebraska has 5 and Maine has 4 electoral votes.
This rural/urban thing is a bunch of hooey, the same sort of garbage we heard after the election about how the county-by-county map of the U.S. was a sea of red surrounding small island of blue.
In their wisdom, our forefathers designed a presidential voting setup that was deliberately NOT representative of acres, or cows or prairie dogs. They designed it to largely representative of PEOPLE, who were the only ones allowed to vote.
So JohnWilburn, your theory is that until people can reliably be expected to vote Republican, their votes should be diluted or simply disregarded?
Why is it the GOP chooses to address its internal fail by wanting to punish the country that rejected it? It would be smarter and more efficient to recognize A) The GOP message of hate the poor, hate the minorities, hate the women and hate the gays failed and continues to fail, and B) Fix that.
The country Does. Not. Want. The. Republicans. The Republicans are the problem. Not the voters.
Who was the last Republican presidential candidate to get even as many electoral votes as Obama did in 2012?
G.H.W. Bush in 1988, 24 years ago and counting.
The youngest possible Reagan voter is now 46, the average Reagan voter is over 60.
Republican turnout has declined for three straight presidential elections.
Republicans, who won a little over half of the total votes cast in Va. for House seats in 2012, nevertheless won 2/3 of the seats, due to gerrymandering that lumps voters together by partisan patterns and ignores the law’s requirement for communities of interest. The same phenomenon occurring nationally accounts for their maintaining their less than 60% Republican House majority.
Only a few Va. counties like Highland and Russell are as rural as Grayson Co., and none of them are leading indicators for the future of Va.
The use of gerrymandering in offsetting Republican declines is what motivates Sen. Carrico’s bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/09/president-now-has-wind-at-his-back/
I think that given the evolution and advancement of technology, the electoral college should be abolished and popular vote should prevail.
By hook or by crook. Draw these nice safe for your party districts and then pretend they mean equal representation. Wow, I wish I could say I was stunned by this effort, but it is merely par.
Kristen:
“No, they can’t. They’re protected by the bill of rights and thereby not subject to popular approval.”
This depends upon what kind of “minorities” we’re talking about.
“So JohnWilburn, your theory is that until people can reliably be expected to vote Republican, their votes should be diluted or simply disregarded?”
Replace “Republican” with “intelligently” in the above sentence. There, fixed that minor misspelling.
.
One thing I do fully accept is that it’s not cheating, it’s not gerrymandering, it’s not parliamentary problems within the ranks, or the occasional gaffe that way too much is made of. It is the product of the Republican party once all is averaged together that has become unelectable with the general public whether we like what most people’s values are now or not. We never see this nearly as clearly as we do on presidential election years when all of the fringes come together and cannot be ignored.
However it is decided that votes should be counted is what it is, but no amount of manipulation of the districts will stop the inevitable.
There is nothing wrong with the way things are now.
Sen. Carrico needs to work on real problems and not invent new problems to fix imaginary problems.
Kristen, re: 10:09
I am not saying I agree with this legislation ( I would like to study it).
However we actually do penalize people for living in populated areas. One look at the transportation funding formulas will prove that.
Dan, re: 1:15
Didn’t our “forefathers” originally design a voting system where only landowners voted? My guess is that was because they were paying for the government (I am sure you will correct me if I am incorrect in my recollection). Maybe we should only allow those citizens who actually pay federal taxes to vote in federal elections?
“only allow those citizens who actually pay federal taxes to vote”
Who else was floating that moronic idea? Oh, wait…
JohnW, would you consider the reelection (or election) of Obama to be an “intelligent” vote? Id love an example of the ways in which voters vote “intelligently” or not.
Mikeo, they also only let white males vote. Although I’m sure we have citizens who would love to return to that paradigm, I think we’ve decided that the FF got that one wrong.
I once had a boss who angrily characterized my vote for Bill Clinton in 1996 as “the reason why this country is going to hell in a hand basket.” John Wilburn, your insistence on “intelligent” votes reminds me of that boss’s arrogant remarks. Kristen asks a great question – how do you identify an intelligent vote?
Actually no Mike O. The first taxes were import taxes, not income or property taxes.
George Washington: “…it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.”
Thomas Jefferson: …“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
“John Wilburn, your insistence on “intelligent” votes reminds me of that boss’s arrogant remarks. Kristen asks a great question – how do you identify an intelligent vote?”
–Comment by Nosaj
For starters I would reckon that it’s one JW agrees with — but perhaps I’m wrong on that and he can elaborate.
The electoral college isn’t going anywhere it would take a constitutional amendment to remove it. Not likely to happen.
“Two states, Nebraska and Maine, divide electoral votes by Congressional district. Nebraska has 5 and Maine has 4 electoral votes.” Thanks Ron May, I couldn’t remember the 2 states.
Again the world hasn’t ended and the this hasn’t changed the outcome of a POTUS election.
As for “fairness” issues in elections. Can anyone explain why there were precincts in Ohio, Pennsylvania with 0 votes for Romney Ryan? Explain higher turnout in Virginia,Iowa and Colorado compared to 2008 when most other states were down in turn out? Nationally turnout was down as well. So spare me the fairness BS.
As for “shrinking base” well maybe… Repubs have gone against their conservative principals. When this occurs they lose. See 1996 2008 2012. The left has an advantage in the media is biased to the left. The media used to help people by reporting the facts and truth but it doesn’t anymore and hasn’t for quite sometime. Ever wonder why fox news or people like breitbart or drudge have such overwhelming success and the networks cnn and pmsnbc ratings keep going down?
The left was down after 2000 and 2004 when Bush won and in the minority. Eventually it will go back the other direction, and I predict 2014 will be like 2010 a blowout for conservatives.
However when right to work passes in a “Democrat” state like Michigan.
I smile.
I really loved the video of the thug union workers punching reporters and cussing people who don’t agree with them. What a bunch of yellow belly cowards.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/fox-news-contributor-punched-in-face-at-pro-union-protests-in-michigan/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2012/1025/Voting-fraud-in-Election-2012-How-common-is-it-video/%28page%29/2
I suspect there would be far less thrashing around about the intelligence and integrity of the vote if Romney had won.
You guys are transparent.
John Wilburn, you cannot say “a majority of dumb people in the general pubic, a full nationwide popular vote would ensure more Democrat control” and then credibly claim you meant “intelligent” instead of Republican. That does not wash. Your lament is obvious.
Sandi at 10:49pm:
Bullseye!!!
“JohnW, would you consider the reelection (or election) of Obama to be an “intelligent” vote?”
No.
“Id love an example of the ways in which voters vote “intelligently” or not.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgfA2b9YSag
Sandi Saunders:
“and then credibly claim you meant “intelligent” instead of Republican.”
No, SHE would have more acurately made her statement with that change. At least understnad how you’re coming down on my remarks…. geez.
Kristen:
“I suspect there would be far less thrashing around about the intelligence and integrity of the vote if Romney had won.”
No, just a little less.
Dan:
“For starters I would reckon that it’s one JW agrees with — but perhaps I’m wrong on that and he can elaborate.”
Not really, but the interviewees in the Howard Stern clip exemplify unintelligent voting. They knew nothing about their candidate, not even his most basic positions. I know a few voters that uninformed, personally. Hard to believe, but there really are voters like that in alarming numbers. That, by any objective standard, is unintelligent voting. Though most of the bloggers here voted for Obama, at least you had somewhat better reasoning.
JW,
I assure you that Obama hasn’t cornered the market on uninformed voters.
re-redistricting is the reason a good and decent man who really worked for his district and the country as well….Rick Boucher…..lost to the good for nothing bum that is currently drawing his salary and doing nothing but impede the progress of the country as well as the district he was elected from
Maloof, the irony of you hiding in the safety of anonymity and calling people “yellow belly cowards” is pretty sad. Why you, or anyone else can applaud workers losing wages and benefits is just plain telling. And it explains the need for anonymity as only right wingers can. When more workers cannot sustain a decent lifestyle, how do you figure that helps anyone, or the nation?
John Wilburn the remarks are yours, I am not “coming down on” anything other than calling you out on it. I am not the one who thinks voters are dumb or that voting for Democrats is a reason to say so. You are. If you do not want to live with the fallout of your remarks, do not make them.
Again, you do not post anonymously and I assume you might actually have had a Democrat or two as clients. Do you, like the Grandin Auto businessman not want any more? Do you think that only people who post here read this blog? Guess again. I am not going to attempt to remind you again, you dig your own failure with your remarks.
“Explain higher turnout in Virginia,Iowa and Colorado compared to 2008 when most other states were down in turn out?”
Gee, Maloof, I guess it was because more people came out to vote in those states. Does this upset you somehow?
“Repubs have gone against their conservative principals. When this occurs they lose. See 1996 2008 2012.”
Hard right conservatives like those at Free Republic were loudly lamenting the nomination of George W. Bush. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t stand him because he was too liberal. Yet he was elected — sort of. How do you explain that?
“The media used to help people by reporting the facts and truth but it doesn’t anymore and hasn’t for quite sometime.”
You’re right. One of the big stories they refused to tell in full detail was how the right and Republicans have turned to full-out, unabashed lying as a campaign tactic, much more so than the Dems. Heck, even when the “fact checkers” revealed a whopper by the Repubs, they would feel obligated to go find some minor distortion by the Dems to “balance” things. And even when the Repubs were revealed to have their pants on fire, they’d continue using the blatant lie.
Sandi, I’m working on a good year, listing for and selling to plenty of Democrats, and remind you that you don’t know squat about my business.
I have an urge to write a tongue-in-cheek comment suggesting some brilliant Republican state lawmaker somewhere will soon introduce 100 percent ridiculous legislation setting a quota on the number of Democrats who are permitted to vote in his/her state.
Except we’ve moved way past the point where life is imitating art. It’s more likely than not to happen.
“Sandi, I’m working on a good year,…”
Impossible. Obama was in office.
John, I agree that a significant percentage of voters are uninformed. I would add that Democrats don’t have a monopoly on uninformedness (if that’s a word). Heck, just look look at all the folks that rely on Fox News for their informedness (or MSNBC).
As I’ve mentioned before, I voted Republican in every election until 2012. It was a huge deal for me to make the decision to switch parties. I have friends and business associates that think I’ve lost my mind and many have asked me for an explanation. My decision was a VERY informed decision and one that I stand by.
It isn’t hard to find dumb/weird/uninformed Republican voters. At all. JohnW’s “unintelligent vote” nonsense is just more butthurt from the GOP’s ass kicking last month. If you doubt me, read the ICLEI nonsense the RT saw fit to litter its editorial page with this morning. Those people don’t belong within a mile of a voting booth.
Dan, you know if you write that satirical piece, many learned Republicans like “Conservative” and JohnW will write long earnest treatises on why limiting the Democratic vote more accurately represents the will of the people AND the FFs’ vision.
No one can doubt there are uninformed voters, and a decidedly uninformed public, but John Wilburn is the one who chose to tie that to Democrats and he is just flat wrong and insulting to do so.
Bill Perdue:
“My decision was a VERY informed decision and one that I stand by.”
Which is why I said, “Though most of the bloggers here voted for Obama, at least you had somewhat better reasoning.” I understand that and think you are a smat guy, but wish that of the legions of total idoits on both sides, that more would have stayed home across the board.
Sandi Saunders:
“John Wilburn is the one who chose to tie that to Democrats and he is just flat wrong and insulting to do so.”
I think Democrats have the edge on the “uninformed” crowd overall. You bash Republicans daily, so give it a rest. Besides, Democrat is more of a religion than Party anyway. At least that is how I see its followers treat it.
“I understand that and think you are a smat guy, but wish that of the legions of total idoits on both sides, that more would have stayed home across the board.”
Right. Which presumably would have resulted in a Romney win.
The problem is the Republicans. I’d think that would be clear, but it’s only to the benefit of the Democrats if they refuse to acknowledge it. The GOP will get more of the same in 2 years.
I’ll leave it to BM to address “smat” and “idoits”.
You are darn tootin’ I “bash Republicans daily”, BUT, my daily bread does not depend on pleasing the public in any realm. If more of those 59+ million Romney voters had actually been intelligent and informed they would have voted for Obama.
I think the evidence and research is quite clear on which party does “have the edge on the “uninformed” crowd”. And it is not the Democrats. You all make the mistake of thinking because we do not agree with you, we are not smart and that is where you are wrong. You do not even possess the knowledge apparently that the correct wording would be the Democratic Party “is more of a religion than Party anyway”, but in many ways you are correct, we have to believe in what we stand for, which is not the almighty dollar or self-service, that is rather religious, but people pretend it is sanctimonious when we talk about it.
I just lost a post that I have neither the time, nor the desire to compose again, but it reminded me of the CAPTCHA days.
Very telling that you think our problem is the GOP and not that our general public is getting dumber. Curing the latter would fix the former.
The Democrats court the dumb vote; the Republicans court the crazy vote. in addition to each party’s intelligent vote, there were more numbers in the dumb vote. That put the Democrats over the top.
Better role models change our society from the ground up. If we want better parties, we need a more intelligent, responsible society who values better leadership. The GOP is not the probem and more than Obama is the problem. Both are symptoms of what our society really values.
Sandi Saunders:
“You all make the mistake of thinking because we do not agree with you, we are not smart and that is where you are wrong.”
Don’t count me in “you all”. WHich is I told Bill Perdue “Which is why I said, “Though most of the bloggers here voted for Obama, at least you had somewhat better reasoning.” I understand that and think you are a smat guy…”
I don’t think you are dumb people, but the dumb people coming out of the woodwork were critical to electing your candidate both times.
“You are darn tootin’ I “bash Republicans daily”, BUT, my daily bread does not depend on pleasing the public in any realm.”
Kissing the right butt has never been part of my business plan. I couldn’t care less how you’re trying to paint me.
“Democrat is more of a religion than Party anyway”
In the given context, there is nothing wrong with this sentence. And, yes, Democrat is a religion.
JohnW, the worst example of uninformed was Mitt Romney. As exhibit A, I’ll remind everone of his now infamous comments that 47% of Americans are moochers (my paraphrase).
I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was uninformed and not lying.
He was either grossly misinformed or lying.
If you would actually watch the video and not just watch political ads you would see that Mitt was entirely correct. There were 47% of people who were going to vote for the President no matter what. Just like there were going to be about 47% that were going to vote for Mitt no matter what. Every presidential election cycle comes down to getting the vote of the 5-10% of undecided voters.
“If you would actually watch the video and not just watch political ads you would see that Mitt was entirely correct. There were 47% of people who were going to vote for the President no matter what. Just like there were going to be about 47% that were going to vote for Mitt no matter what. Every presidential election cycle comes down to getting the vote of the 5-10% of undecided voters.”
Peter J,
Mitt’s huge problem is that he got none of that 5-10% of undecideds. He finished with 47 percent.
Aren’t congressional districts supposed to have the same number of people in each? That’s the whole reason they get redrawn every 10 years.
I have no problem with each district getting one electoral vote, but I would have the two at large votes go to the winner of the popular vote for the state.
Part of the reason for the electoral college system in the first place, other than many didn’t think the masses were competent to choose the President, was to prevent large population states to be able to elect the President all by themselves.
At this point I should probably point out that Peter J is posting from an IP address that’s identical to some other posters on this blog, including Hope And Change, ADingoatemMBaby and James Swingle.
What’s up with that, Peter J?
Bill, either way, Mitt was my pretty much my last choice on the Republican side. Our public is getting the candidates they ask for.
Dan @4:09 pm,
I totally agree with you. I think that we live in the age of the sound bite and the 47% sound bite is what ultimatly killed Mitt’s campaign by sending the undecided voter to the President.
That would be because I’m posting from work. I have a job and if you knew anything about computers and networking you would know that most companies use NAT, which stands for Network Address Translation, in which outgoing transmissions to the internet all show a single firewall ip address.
“Very telling that you think our problem is the GOP and not that our general public is getting dumber”
The GOP is a bunch of hateful loons, and however “dumb” you find the electorate they’re smart enough not to buy whatever snake oil the Republicans are selling. The GOP will either adapt or die. Either we end up with a viable party again or something else will replace it. Win/win.
JohnW, this is maybe not the best venue to try and convince people that the Romney voters were a lot smarter than the Obama voters.
PeterJ,
I understand. Thanks for clearing that up. (I gotta ask, fyi)
Kristen:
“JohnW, this is maybe not the best venue to try and convince people that the Romney voters were a lot smarter than the Obama voters”
If that was my goal, you’d be right!
As long as the Republican party has people like Sarah Palin, Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock and people that support them, please don’t try to convince me that Republican voters are more intelligent.
Debbie, I think good ol’ John Stuart Mill, said it best.
“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
-John Stuart Mill
As long as the Republican party has people like Sarah Palin, Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock and people that support them, please don’t try to convince me that Republican voters are more intelligent.
You’re saying people with pro life views are unintelligent?
The GOP is a bunch of hateful loons, and however “dumb” you find the electorate they’re smart enough not to buy whatever snake oil the Republicans are selling.
It really doesn’t matter how good the GOP is. The takers aren’t interested in ideas. We proved that in the last election. It’s hard to compete with free stuff. Then the cheating takes care of the rest.
As long as the Republican party has people like Sarah Palin, Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock and people that support them, please don’t try to convince me that Republican voters are more intelligent.
You’re saying people with pro life views are unintelligent?
Comment by Suzie — December 12, 2012 @ 8:24 pm
Suzie, you can’t pull a statement like that and pin a minor issue on it. Are we to assume that you find Hitler to be a stand up fellow because he was a Catholic? He also liked donuts… should we forgive him of his transgressions against humanity? I am sure you will, but I won’t.
As long as the Republican party has people like Sarah Palin, Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock and people that support them, please don’t try to convince me that Republican voters are more intelligent.
You’re saying people with pro life views are unintelligent?”
No, any more than she’s saying that people with 2 legs are unintelligent. She’s saying that those people are unintelligent.
@PeterJ, I agree that most had made up their mind before the 47% comment by Romney but that’s not what his comments said. Yes, I did watch the video and I was appalled that a major Party’s Candidate actually believed that 47% of Americans are moochers (my paraphrase)
If it is war they want, its war they will get. Passing this bill on Inauguration Day. Someone is going to pay. Second Amendment rights are looking real good to this democrat.
Republicans are a dying breed. If you can’t win with votes you win through subterfuge.