PDA

View Full Version : Environment If McCain Wins All Toss-Ups He Still Loses... Unless...


Taco John
11-02-2008, 06:10 PM
From Meet the Press:

Brokaw: And Chuck, what about voter turnout and especially the organization of the two campaigns getting their people to the polls?

Todd: Well, we're seeing a lot of the early voting, a lot of long lines that's made folks question whether Georgia, South Carolina could end up being much closer than people thought because of this surge among voters, particularly African-Americans. And of course we've watched everything that's been happening in Florida and North Carolina this weekend, Tom.

Brokaw: And why would John McCain be spending so much time in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire in the final weekend, Chuck?

Todd: Well, it's a simple math problem that he's got. Heres our columns here. Im going to put all of the current tossup states in McCain's column and watch his number as it grows right up here. If you move all of these states over, Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada -- you see the problem he's got. He's still at 252. 18 short. So what does that mean? If he pulls a Pennsylvania over, we see Obama goes done to 265, McCain gets his 273. Then you ask why New Hampshire? Thats the insurance policy. Nevada, a state that Obama right now has that narrow lead in, if that went to him, then McCain would need New Hampshire to get back over his 270. So it is the only path he's got left. They know this and that's why they had to figure out how to put Pennsylvania back in play. We don't know if it really is. We know he's spending a lot of time there and they had to figure out if New Hampshire, a state that's been incredibly kind to McCain's political career in the past, to see if it can resurrect him one more time.

Guru
11-02-2008, 06:48 PM
Fuck it. Kansas is going to McCain anyway so my vote doesn't mean shit anyway. I am going to vote FOR a candidate instead of against a candidate.

Bob Barr

L.A. Chieffan
11-02-2008, 06:55 PM
New Hampshire should be hard Dem. What gives?

Silock
11-02-2008, 07:46 PM
Fuck it. Kansas is going to McCain anyway so my vote doesn't mean shit anyway. I am going to vote FOR a candidate instead of against a candidate.

Bob Barr

That's what I did.

Although, I would have voted Barr even if it were going the other way.

Guru
11-02-2008, 08:12 PM
That's what I did.

Although, I would have voted Barr even if it were going the other way. TV the next two days is going to be insane. I only hope a third party candidate can at least draw enough votes to be noticed. Doubt it will happen though.

ROYC75
11-02-2008, 08:21 PM
TV the next two days is going to be insane. I only hope a third party candidate can at least draw enough votes to be noticed. Doubt it will happen though.

Nope, none of them have that " likability" that Obama has.

Sad, isn't it.

Taco John
11-02-2008, 08:22 PM
New Hampshire should be hard Dem. What gives?



There's no reason to believe that. New Hampshire has never been a hard Dem state. In fact, since 1860, they've went Republican 29 times, and Democrat only 9 times. Since 1980, they went Republican 4 times, and Democrat 3 times.

Mr. Laz
11-02-2008, 08:30 PM
**** it. Kansas is going to McCain anyway so my vote doesn't mean shit anyway. I am going to vote FOR a candidate instead of against a candidate.

Bob Barr
i still think they need to change the electoral college so that people don't feel the way you do now.

Guru
11-02-2008, 08:34 PM
i still think they need to change the electoral college so that people don't feel the way you do now. Until the EC is overhauled there will be millions that feel left out in the cold. I have never felt like my vote matters here in Kansas.

I still think it should be abolished for the popular vote. Then EVERY vote will matter.

Chiefshrink
11-02-2008, 08:46 PM
**** it. Kansas is going to McCain anyway so my vote doesn't mean shit anyway. I am going to vote FOR a candidate instead of against a candidate.

Bob Barr

Dude! Travel to Ohio and get a hold of ACORN and I damn guarantee you your vote will count and get your warm fuzzy you are looking forROFLROFL

Boyceofsummer
11-02-2008, 08:48 PM
**** it. Kansas is going to McCain anyway so my vote doesn't mean shit anyway. I am going to vote FOR a candidate instead of against a candidate.

Bob Barr

http://capitolhub.com/video/7438/borat-meeting-bob-barr

banyon
11-02-2008, 08:52 PM
Nope, none of them have that " likability" that Obama has.

Sad, isn't it.

Yeah, I'll bet you cried yourself to sleep about it for months when it was Bush over Gore in 2000 and Bush over Kerry in 2004.

I'll admit I'm stunned the Dems weren't stupid enough to pick another stiff, wooden, and monotone speaker for their nominee.

banyon
11-02-2008, 08:55 PM
New Hampshire should be hard Dem. What gives?

They don't have many po' folk. No major urban areas either.

Pitt Gorilla
11-02-2008, 08:56 PM
Gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh gol. I want teh gol.

Guru
11-02-2008, 09:00 PM
http://capitolhub.com/video/7438/borat-meeting-bob-barrI hate Borat so I won't watch. Thanks anyway.

splatbass
11-02-2008, 09:17 PM
Until the EC is overhauled there will be millions that feel left out in the cold. I have never felt like my vote matters here in Kansas.

I still think it should be abolished for the popular vote. Then EVERY vote will matter.


I agree completely. There are too many people that don't really get a vote. Republicans in New York, Democrats in Utah, etc. A straight popular vote makes more sense, but would take a constitutional amendment.

rrl308
11-02-2008, 09:37 PM
Until the EC is overhauled there will be millions that feel left out in the cold. I have never felt like my vote matters here in Kansas.

I still think it should be abolished for the popular vote. Then EVERY vote will matter.

It's nice to see that someone hates the EC as much as I do. :)

Reaper16
11-02-2008, 10:03 PM
Gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh, gimme duh gol. I want teh gol.
I always heard "golt" when watching that clip. The "t" makes it funnier.

Cannibal
11-02-2008, 10:25 PM
http://capitolhub.com/video/7438/borat-meeting-bob-barr

LOL, I love it. ROFL

Mecca
11-02-2008, 10:27 PM
Nope, none of them have that " likability" that Obama has.

Sad, isn't it.

I'm sure you thought it was perfectly fine when Bush won an election because people thought they'd like to have a beer with him.....you don't get to bitch about it when you were fine with it last time.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-02-2008, 11:03 PM
http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/7919/roflcopter9gr.pngNope, none of them have that " likability" that Obama has.

Sad, isn't it.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 06:18 AM
**** it. Kansas is going to McCain anyway so my vote doesn't mean shit anyway. I am going to vote FOR a candidate instead of against a candidate.

Bob Barr

News that there's a good chance that McCain loses causes you to say "**** it" and vote 3rd party? Are you serious?

Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with people who vote 3rd party. The timing and context of your declaration are just puzzling.

InChiefsHell
11-03-2008, 06:25 AM
The biggest problem with the EC to me is the winner take all approach...it should be that if you win a district, you get that district's EC vote...as it is, you could win just 51% of the state and yet get ALL that state's EC votes...which to me is crap.

Guru
11-03-2008, 07:32 AM
News that there's a good chance that McCain loses causes you to say "**** it" and vote 3rd party? Are you serious?

Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with people who vote 3rd party. The timing and context of your declaration are just puzzling.

Uh, dude, if I cared that he was going to lose doesn't matter. Kansas goes to McCain no matter what. I figure I might as well vote for the candidate I actually like than vote against Obama because my vote means absolute shit in this state.

Think before you post.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:35 AM
Uh, dude, if I cared that he was going to lose doesn't matter. Kansas goes to McCain no matter what. I figure I might as well vote for the candidate I actually like than vote against Obama because my vote means absolute shit in this state.

Think before you post.


I would love it if he lost by one vote. Then that vote cost McCain the whole thing. That'd be sweet.


:D

Guru
11-03-2008, 07:36 AM
The biggest problem with the EC to me is the winner take all approach...it should be that if you win a district, you get that district's EC vote...as it is, you could win just 51% of the state and yet get ALL that state's EC votes...which to me is crap. It's not perfect but I like that approach much better than the current one.

Our votes would still mean a HELL of a lot more though if it was straight popular vote.

People like to tout that it isn't as fair a vote because of the densly populated areas but that is bull. The densly populated areas still mean more in the EC.

Plus, the popular vote has only been different than the EC count what, twice? I don't know why everyone fears using it. People would feel like their vote meant something at least.

BucEyedPea
11-03-2008, 07:36 AM
i still think they need to change the electoral college so that people don't feel the way you do now.

The answer is the break the hold the two party system has, not the Electoral College.
And focus less on president and more on congress. The president reps the country as a whole unit.
Hence the Electoral College.

Guru
11-03-2008, 07:37 AM
I would love it if he lost by one vote. Then that vote cost McCain the whole thing. That'd be sweet.


:D If we had that setup, I would be voting with McCain rather than going third party so it wouldn't have been my fault.

Guru
11-03-2008, 07:38 AM
The answer is the break the hold the two party system has, not the electoral college.Then let the third parties into the debates. Its the only way we can get the system to change.

BucEyedPea
11-03-2008, 07:40 AM
Plus, the popular vote has only been different than the EC count what, twice? I don't know why everyone fears using it. People would feel like their vote meant something at least.

That's because of reforms by states to make based on popular votes even under an Electoral System. That's wouldn't be true based on how it was originally set up.

Guru
11-03-2008, 07:41 AM
The answer is the break the hold the two party system has, not the Electoral College.
And focus less on president and more on congress. The president reps the country as a whole unit.
Hence the Electoral College.Agreed on that count. Those come down to votes. I don't want the dems to have complete control of all branches. Hell, I don't want the Pubs have complete control either. I almost feel forced to vote Pub for my congressman and Senators because it just might happen.

BucEyedPea
11-03-2008, 07:42 AM
Then let the third parties into the debates. Its the only way we can get the system to change.

It's not just that. Some states make it very difficult on getting on ballots in all states. Not all 3Ps are on every state ballot. I don't know if it's NC or SC, but one of them disallowed a 3P ballot. I'm not even sure if Barr is on all ballots. I know Baldwin is only in in 30 states. It's the 2 Party System that is broke.

Guru
11-03-2008, 07:43 AM
It's not just that. Some states make it very difficult on getting on ballots in all states. Not all 3Ps are on every state ballot. I don't know if it's NC or SC, but one of them disallowed a 3P ballot. I'm not even sure if Barr is on all ballots. I know Baldwin is only in in 30 states. It's the 2 Party System that is broke.So how do we fix it if the two party system controls it?

BucEyedPea
11-03-2008, 07:43 AM
Agreed on that count. Those come down to votes. I don't want the dems to have complete control of all branches. Hell, I don't want the Pubs have complete control either. I almost feel forced to vote Pub for my congressman and Senators because it just might happen.

I hate my R congressman because he's still proud of invading Iraq. I didn't vote for him in 2006. I didn't want to vote for him again but feel for balance it's necessary....however, it makes it easier knowing he voted against both Bailout bills.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:44 AM
If we had that setup, I would be voting with McCain rather than going third party so it wouldn't have been my fault.


Sounds like a fear factor voting special.

BucEyedPea
11-03-2008, 07:46 AM
So how do we fix it if the two party system controls it?

I don't all the answers or many specific ones, but getting involved to change it is one way. Help elect more guys who'd be for it....like the Liberty Campaign is doing for one. Many of those guys support reform particularly for ballot access.
They're even trying to get a tv station.

Oh, I meant to say, it was a judge in one of those states that came right out and said no 3P ballots in that state.

Gonna have to work through state legislatures to get it changed.

BucEyedPea
11-03-2008, 07:46 AM
Sounds like a fear factor voting special.

I fear both of them.
A communist versus a fascist running.

Guru
11-03-2008, 07:47 AM
Sounds like a fear factor voting special.Glad you like to make light of what I consider to be a very bad situation. I hate that my vote doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things yet you get all the rich politicians telling you how important your vote is. Fuck those rich bastards stealing my money.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:49 AM
Glad you like to make light of what I consider to be a very bad situation. I hate that my vote doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things yet you get all the rich politicians telling you how important your vote is. **** those rich bastards stealing my money.

Your vote does mean something. Just maybe this time you are on the other side of the majority.

Guru
11-03-2008, 07:51 AM
Your vote does mean something. Just maybe this time you are on the other side of the majority. Bullshit and you know it. I don't like either candidate. hell I haven't liked a candidate in a long time. As long as I live in kansas my vote will never mean anything.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:00 AM
Bullshit and you know it. I don't like either candidate. hell I haven't liked a candidate in a long time. As long as I live in kansas my vote will never mean anything.


I disagree. I voted for kerry in 04 and even though he did'nt win. I voted my conscience. That is all that is required for democracy to work.

Guru
11-03-2008, 08:04 AM
I disagree. I voted for kerry in 04 and even though he did'nt win. I voted my conscience. That is all that is required for democracy to work.I am voting my conscience. I am choosing to vote for the candidate I like rather than vote for McCain because I don't like Obama.

Until the EC is changed I will never feel like our system works. It doesn't matter who wins and loses I just want my vote to mean something to someone other than me. Kansas always goes republican on the national stage so I can vote for Obama and it wouldn't mean shit either.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 08:08 AM
Uh, dude, if I cared that he was going to lose doesn't matter. Kansas goes to McCain no matter what. I figure I might as well vote for the candidate I actually like than vote against Obama because my vote means absolute shit in this state.

Think before you post.

That doesn't explain the strange context of your coming out party. That's what I was thinking about.

No reason to feel compelled to explain yourself, I was just pointing out the appearance created by having your epiphany in this particular thread. I have no problem with you deciding to vote for the guy you like.

whoman69
11-03-2008, 08:11 AM
It's not just that. Some states make it very difficult on getting on ballots in all states. Not all 3Ps are on every state ballot. I don't know if it's NC or SC, but one of them disallowed a 3P ballot. I'm not even sure if Barr is on all ballots. I know Baldwin is only in in 30 states. It's the 2 Party System that is broke.

That's only for president. The third parties have not put in the work to get other representatives in office. They need to put their efforts in putting people in statehouses and on capitol hill instead of wasting their time in a futile drive to put someone in the White House who will have no base of power behind them even if they did manage to win. You can't have a third party movement if there is nobody behind the movement.

Most of the third parties are out on the fringes to the right of the repubs and left of democrats.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 08:12 AM
Then let the third parties into the debates. Its the only way we can get the system to change.

The two party system is a natural result of our winner-take-all elections. Letting 3rd parties into the debates won't change that. It would take a structural change in the way we elect people to make 3rd parties consistently viable. Something like proportional voting.

Sully
11-03-2008, 08:13 AM
I don't think a 3rd party can just show up and win the top office in the land. It has to start in cities and towns, and build.
Just showing up and running for pres guarantees that your ideas will be co-opted (and bastardized to an extent) into one of the bigger parties.

Guru
11-03-2008, 08:18 AM
That doesn't explain the strange context of your coming out party. That's what I was thinking about.

No reason to feel compelled to explain yourself, I was just pointing out the appearance created by having your epiphany in this particular thread. I have no problem with you deciding to vote for the guy you like.Nothing strange about it at all. I have been clear on the forums that the only reason I was voting McCain was because I couldn't stand Obama. It just hit me over the weekend that, me being in Kansas, pretty much allows me to vote for whomever I wish because it won't matter anyway. Might as well just vote for a candidate I like.

Plus its a fucking bulletin board. Everyone thinks what they say matters here even though it doesn't. So instead of picking me apart just accept what I said and move on.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 08:38 AM
Nothing strange about it at all. I have been clear on the forums that the only reason I was voting McCain was because I couldn't stand Obama. It just hit me over the weekend that, me being in Kansas, pretty much allows me to vote for whomever I wish because it won't matter anyway. Might as well just vote for a candidate I like.

Plus its a ****ing bulletin board. Everyone thinks what they say matters here even though it doesn't. So instead of picking me apart just accept what I said and move on.

A person who really wants others to simply accept what he says and move on doesn't tell people to "think before [they] post" and expect it to end there.

Not only do I think my post was perfectly reasonable given the context of yours, I was gracious enough to phrase my post as a question rather than immediately jumping to the obvious conclusion that you just don't want to back a major party loser. I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it that this was not your underlying motivation.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:41 AM
Nothing strange about it at all. I have been clear on the forums that the only reason I was voting McCain was because I couldn't stand Obama. It just hit me over the weekend that, me being in Kansas, pretty much allows me to vote for whomever I wish because it won't matter anyway. Might as well just vote for a candidate I like.

Plus its a ****ing bulletin board. Everyone thinks what they say matters here even though it doesn't. So instead of picking me apart just accept what I said and move on.

Damn you sound grumpy today.

Guru
11-03-2008, 08:41 AM
A person who really wants others to simply accept what he says and move on doesn't tell people to "think before [they] post" and expect it to end there.

Not only do I think my post was perfectly reasonable given the context of yours, I was gracious enough to phrase my post as a question rather than immediately jumping to the obvious conclusion that you just don't want to back a major party loser. I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it that this was not your underlying motivation. I am sick of being painted as a McCain supporter just because I fucking hate Obama and his policies. McCain is a loser as well. I felt forced to vote for him. I no longer feel forced. End of story.

Guru
11-03-2008, 08:43 AM
Damn you sound grumpy today.Yes I am. Been sick for over a week. The Chiefs. Herman fucking Edwards. This election. Not much to be excited about right now.

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 08:53 AM
Yes I am. Been sick for over a week. The Chiefs. Herman ****ing Edwards. This election. Not much to be excited about right now.


come on man, throw thiggy a bone

Guru
11-03-2008, 09:07 AM
come on man, throw thiggy a boneHe's toast. Herm is his coach.

patteeu
11-03-2008, 09:19 AM
I am sick of being painted as a McCain supporter just because I ****ing hate Obama and his policies. McCain is a loser as well. I felt forced to vote for him. I no longer feel forced. End of story.

Damn you sound grumpy today.

Yes I am. Been sick for over a week. The Chiefs. Herman ****ing Edwards. This election. Not much to be excited about right now.

Cheer up, man. Things will get better eventually. Hopefully it won't take 4 more years for the Chiefs.

dirk digler
11-03-2008, 09:22 AM
Until the EC is overhauled there will be millions that feel left out in the cold. I have never felt like my vote matters here in Kansas.

I still think it should be abolished for the popular vote. Then EVERY vote will matter.

Then you will have everybody complaining that the large states are hijacking the system and only a few cities could determine the election

Guru
11-03-2008, 09:26 AM
Then you will have everybody complaining that the large states are hijacking the system and only a few cities could determine the election i already covered this in a later post. I still feel the EC allows that anyway. At least make EVERY vote important. Because right now, they aren't.

dirk digler
11-03-2008, 09:32 AM
i already covered this in a later post. I still feel the EC allows that anyway. At least make EVERY vote important. Because right now, they aren't.

I like the idea of a popular vote but think about what would happen if we had one. The 2 campaigns would be camping out in NY and LA trying to run up the vote count because a huge win in either of those 2 cities could decide the election. As it stands now NY and CA really have no bearing on the election but MO, NV, NM, OH, and FL do.

triple
11-03-2008, 09:32 AM
maybe i made a similar message yesterday, but i have heard blurbs on radio about pollsters who sometimes get a majority refuse to respond which is not normal.

i think the route mccain has is that these polls are weighted democratic, because they expect all these new voters to come out of the woodwork. If the weighting has not generally been done right, who knows what the actual figures will be?

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 09:36 AM
i think the route mccain has is that these polls are weighted democratic, because they expect all these new voters to come out of the woodwork. That would be an interesting point if that were at all the case.

The major polls are very conservative when it comes to their turnout models. Zogby, for instance, is actually using 2004 turnout numbers to weight it for this year. Even someone who buys into the "silent majority" theory has to consider that just a taaad ridiculous, no?

Guru
11-03-2008, 09:38 AM
I like the idea of a popular vote but think about what would happen if we had one. The 2 campaigns would be camping out in NY and LA trying to run up the vote count because a huge win in either of those 2 cities could decide the election. As it stands now NY and CA really have no bearing on the election but MO, NV, NM, OH, and FL do. Nothing is perfect but at least we could feel that our vote can make a difference.

triple
11-03-2008, 09:38 AM
That would be an interesting point if that were at all the case.

The major polls are very conservative when it comes to their turnout models. Zogby, for instance, is actually using 2004 turnout numbers to weight it for this year. Even someone who buys into the "silent majority" theory has to consider that just a taaad ridiculous, no?

gallup says it's 11 points. Do you really believe that?

Ari Chi3fs
11-03-2008, 09:39 AM
**** it. Kansas is going to McCain anyway so my vote doesn't mean shit anyway. I am going to vote FOR a candidate instead of against a candidate.

Bob Barr

I live in Missouri and am voting for Bob Barr.... we need more than 2 parties. Its a crock of shit.

dirk digler
11-03-2008, 09:41 AM
Nothing is perfect but at least we could feel that our vote can make a difference.

I understand your point Guru and I like the idea of a popular vote but I do have some reservations about it.

Guru
11-03-2008, 09:43 AM
I live in Missouri and am voting for Bob Barr.... we need more than 2 parties. Its a crock of shit. I might feel different if I lived in MO. At least it is a swing state this time around. your vote could actually mean something there. I don't think Kansas has EVER been in that position.

dirk digler
11-03-2008, 09:43 AM
gallup says it's 11 points. Do you really believe that?

I think their traditional is 8-9 points. My gut feeling is 4-6%

dirk digler
11-03-2008, 09:44 AM
I might feel different if I lived in MO. At least it is a swing state this time around. your vote could actually mean something there. I don't think Kansas has EVER been in that position.

It is not because that state has too many freaks living there. :)

InChiefsHell
11-03-2008, 09:45 AM
I live in Missouri and am voting for Bob Barr.... we need more than 2 parties. Its a crock of shit.

The problem is, if you have say, 5 or 6 parties...where do you draw the line? You'd have people winning the election with 25 or 30% of the vote...does that sound like the right way to go either?

...don't get me wrong, I hate the 2 party system, but I don't want a 10 party system either...

triple
11-03-2008, 09:47 AM
I think their traditional is 8-9 points. My gut feeling is 4-6%

I think it will be more like 1-2.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 09:50 AM
gallup says it's 11 points. Do you really believe that?I think expecting any candidate to win by more than 7 or 8 is ridiculous, which is why all the bleating about how Obama was obviously doomed because he wasn't up by 20 points in the polls was so stupid.

I think he wins by a hefty margin. Probably 5-7 points nationally with as many as 350+ EVs. Even a 3-point margin nationally is landslide territory in electoral votes.

But again, Gallup's Traditional Likely Voter poll has a very, very conservative screen which leans in favor of past results over any projected dynamics. That he's up 11 in a poll like that shows how wide the gap is.

dirk digler
11-03-2008, 09:52 AM
I think it will be more like 1-2.

That would mean the polls would be off by at least 9-10 pts. They haven't been that bad in 20 years.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 09:55 AM
That would mean the polls would be off by at least 9-10 pts. They haven't been that bad in 20 years.For reference, here are the WSJ's final numbers over the years:

http://i37.tinypic.com/abtlc0.gif

dirk digler
11-03-2008, 09:59 AM
For reference, here are the WSJ's final numbers over the years:

http://i37.tinypic.com/abtlc0.gif

Thanks UP. So much for the liberal WSJ being wrong. LMAO

triple
11-03-2008, 10:01 AM
That would mean the polls would be off by at least 9-10 pts. They haven't been that bad in 20 years.

i think 'undecided' reporting a lot higher than usual at this stage of the game means something. If Obama was really crushing McCain, who are these people in this huge block that he hasn't been able to close the sale with?

Something does not add up here. why are so many people not responding, why are so many still undecided, why do some polls have it within the margin of error or in one case mccain ahead last friday, and some have it at double digits.

Is the effort to suppress republican voters by droning on and on that it's over? are they simply weighting these numbers wrong based on the supposed nnew registrants? i dont know but something doesn't add up.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 10:10 AM
i think 'undecided' reporting a lot higher than usual at this stage of the game means something.http://i37.tinypic.com/2jb2v55.jpg