Jump to content

Political trends

Recommended Posts

Yes all elections are run locally. I should have more properly said national office, i.e Presidency. But keep in mind Republicans also lost 9 of 10 Senate races. Even in more conservative states. These losses were much more that just a poor candidate at the head of the ticket.


Here are some of my incredibly insightful suggestions for Republican political strategists going forward:


1. Don't have party leaders refer to women that use birth control as sluts.


2. Don't be the party that proposes vaginal sonograms for women that wish to exercise their legal reproductive rights.


3. Don't be the party that proposes legislation allowing employers to limit access to birth control for women.


4. Come up with a different approach to illegal immigration other than "self deportation".


5. Don't be the party that comes up with legislation that promotes racial profiling.


6. Come up with a different stategy for minorities other than trying to figure out ways to make it difficult for them to vote.


7. If $ 1 Billion didn't buy the Presidency, next time spend $ 2 Billion and explain how Republicans are the party of fiscal responsiblity.


All I want is a rational choice for candidates and I'm not getting it from either major Party. Like Pack I voted for Gary Johnson.













Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 299
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Word is the millionaires & Billionaires are not happy with the results for their rate of investment.. If that doesn't tell you it was not just a donation to a campaign but they were trying to buy the country, I don't know what will.


Don't say "xenophobic,old, wealthy, Protestant white men".. if it's evengelical then say "xenophobic,old, wealthy, evengelical white men", But since there is a mix of some Catholics (like Paul Ryan), and I know there are other conservative religions sprinkled in, I think better would be"xenophobic,old, wealthy, Religious zealot white men".. The protestants, have many denominations and alot are very, very liberal..


To add to scouting agains list.. The best I heard was someone saying that for Republicans to come back, they have to stop running a campaign based on projecting a fear of the future.. Also alot on scoutingagains' list can be summed up by stating they need to understand they can not legislate THEIR religious beliefs to enforce that everyone must follow a religion they do not subscribe to, rather then their own religious beliefs (or non-beliefs). I believe that is part of the Constitutions first admendment.. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."


About what Congress can do to change your election system.. Sorry, what is said is they can set the rules for "congressional" elections, but they can't set the rules for local election..

Here is the video.. Sorry, another Rachel Maddow video, I know I do go to her alot, but.. What can I say, she covers alot of interesting topics..




Link to post
Share on other sites

Its my fault, I was being obtuse and obscure


The quote was somehting President Obama said about people standing in line for hours to vote. I say its not up to the Federal Government to set up elections. That is the local government's job. Each local area has to look at its resources and decide how it wants to set up its voting procedure, how many Booths/Devices they want and what method. From paper to punch cards (Although the sprectre of the hanging chad probably kills that option)to various electronic methods its up to the locals to decide how to vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and now for something completely different


Ideas for Republicans? I have a few


Don't have your Nominee say he will repeal Obamacare, or anything else for that matter without having a plan that will replace it. I think Obamacare is seriously flawed, but just to repeal it and stay with the status quo is not tenable. By now the Republicans should have been able to come up with an alternative.


Dont worry about "reaching out" to Latino's Black Americans, Women or any other group. Craft a message to Americans that explains the whys and hows of your policies and how they benefit everyone. And if they don't benefit everyone, then they should not be polcies, N'cest Pas?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh lets see...


1) Don't choose candidates who's religious delusions get in the way of rational thought processes... Akin, Murdoch, Ryan, Romney.


2) Don't choose candidates that have "cute factor" over "intelligence" ... Palin.


3) Don't choose candidates who have to pretend they know how hard it is to work for a living, while they wonder how much their blind trust has benefited from banking deregulation, outsourcing and other activities that have damaged the country they want to lead.


4) Don't tell anyone about the "Binders of Women" that you have ... it sounds creepy. By the way, is "binders" a noun or a verb?


5) Generally, if you are a male, you should leave your views on female reproductive rights and rape in your head...if you have 10 kids and a bazillion grandkids, we kinda have it figured out anyway.


I voted for Obama...not because I liked Obama, but because I did not want the potential of 8 years of Romney.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well per the guy interviewed in the video they can regulate some of the local stuff you are listing.. They could make you have a seprate ballot with just the President & congress election on it (don't know if then you could give out two ballots on the same day, or would have to hold you local election and votes on changes to the constitution seprately.. He says they could regulate the machines you use.. Congress can set up a non-partisan agency to administer our elections.. Sounds to me like if states don't play fair, they could have these elections really regulated..


Personally, I could see something that penalizes and puts states under something like the non-partisan agency that administers their election IF.. they abuse the freedom to set up their own elections fairly.. Where they would then loose the priviledge to run their own elections for at least 10 years..


If States are doing a good job of administering their elections, I don't seen why they should have this taken away from them..


But, I doubt anything will be passed through the Republicans, they keep denying that they are doing anything wrong.. Why would they set up laws that would regulate their own corruption?


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for Obama. I vote for the party with the most positions that align with my own preferences for how our country is run. I do not vote my own pocketbook, and I do not vote based on events during the campaign like verbal gaffs or uncovered information about the candidates.


I agree with the dems on


* unions

* entitlement spending

* health care

* military spending cuts

* gay marriage

* energy

* education

* foreign policy

* federal regulation

* abortion

* secular nation

* affirmative action

* progressive taxes


I don't agree with them 100%. I agree with the repubs on

* gun control

* the death penalty

* jobs creation

* national language


I think they have both failed us in some key areas:


* Lobbying needs to be stopped

* Privatization of the prison system should be reversed

* Legalization of drugs (in favor)

* Illegal immigration (someone just do something please)

* Reducing wasteful government pork barrel spending

* Lowering barriers for third and fourth parties to get involved

* Reducing the % of the population currently incarcerated


I would vote for just about anyone who came out with a majority of my hot button issues on their side. I don't care what party they are from. The republicans can only win back the white house at this point if the democrats have a major scandal on the level of Bill Clinton's Lewinskigate. I don't think there is any platform change they are capable of that makes them relevant to anyone outside the Bible Belt. They've branded themselves the white christian gun lobbyist party filled with bigots with thick southern accents who want all of us to end up greeters at wal-mart or soldiers.


In the past, I voted for Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Perot, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, and now Obama.


Times change. Opinions change.


What really drove me to the left was Fox News. It wasn't until it arrived and started the outrageous nonsense they spew that I was driven to re-examine my own beliefs and start listening to people on the left. Fox News, more than anything else, made me a democrat. Rush Limbaugh helped a lot, too. I didn't realize how much I didn't want to be like him until I listened to him for a few years.



Link to post
Share on other sites

"well per the guy interviewed in the video they can regulate some of the local stuff you are listing.. They could make you have a seprate ballot with just the President & congress election on it (don't know if then you could give out two ballots on the same day, or would have to hold you local election and votes on changes to the constitution seprately.. He says they could regulate the machines you use.. Congress can set up a non-partisan agency to administer our elections.. Sounds to me like if states don't play fair, they could have these elections really regulated."


Close but not quite. States make the rules in the places, manner and time of elections for Representatives and Senator but Congress has the right to change those rules, or make their own rules. It's one of the weirdest clauses in the Constitution - its gives the states powers but lets Congress overrule the states on a whim.


What's key here is that Congress can only change the rules when it comes to election of Representatives and Senator (except for the place of choosing Senators - which has essentially been eliminated by the change to direct election of Senators from the legislatures appointing them. In all other electoral matters, including, apparently, the place, time and manner of eleccting the electors to the electoral college, it is up to the states to make their own individula rules.


But here's where Congresses power to make the rules for the election of their own members can affect how States run elections. Congress can pass a law that says that all states will use touch screen machines for the casting of ballots for US Senator and Representative and a state would have to comply, even if they prefer punch card balloting. Since the machines are expensive, and elections are expensive, the states would likely switch every election to the touch screen machines so they don't have to buy different equipment for different elections. A non-partisan agency to administer our elections? They would be limited to administering only elections for US Senate and House - not very efficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't this also be for Presidential election? Of course the Presidential election is always held the same time as an election with Congress members, so it would be covered in that manner, but seems strange if it isn't included in the wording.


So are you reading verbage directly from the Constitution, or did you see a different show that covered this topic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Feds do NOT regulate the way states vote, other than to prohibit certain discriminatory actions.


Heck, in some states electors don't even have to vote for whom they were selected to vote for.




No Legal Requirement

Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:


ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes

ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes

DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes

GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes

IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes

ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes

INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes

IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes

KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes

KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes

LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes

MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes


MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes

NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes

NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes

NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes

NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes

PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes

RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes

SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes

TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes

TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes

UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes

WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes


"Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categoriesElectors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.


The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.


Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their partys candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I've been mulling over Trevorum's observation about Puerto Rico possibly achieving statehood. I wonder what all of us think are the pros and cons of such a thing. Up until now I hadn't worried much about it because I considered their decision-making to be deadlocked in a three-way struggle. Now that they've voted (however questionably) to join the states, and assuming the rest of the states decide to go with that option, I'm wondering how many of us have thought about this possibility and its consequences (and I'm not thinking here about how messed up the flag will be as a result). ;)


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming the PR statehood vote counts like a territorial petition for statehood, their constitution should already be acceptable, so all that remains is a bill to pass both houses by simple majority and signed by the president. I'm not sure if congress can override a veto in this case, but I don't think Obama would veto it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...