The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

If I had to spend a couple of days with that crazy bitch she might indeed wake up covered in my blood....from where I slit my ******* throat

Even in the GOP’s Wildest Fantasies, Obama Wins a Second Term
8/1/11 at 10:48 AM
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/republicans_concede_the_2012_r.html?mid=375920&rid=422483811

Behind This Dress Is A Titanium Spine

We finally get something to look at - for what it is worth. On Thursday, all 9 announced Republican candidates will debate in Iowa. Perry, Palin and Christie - undeclared potentials will not be there.
Obama bashing will, of course, be on the menu as it has been for awhile. At some point, though, most if not all will have to say something substantive to separate themselves from others in their sphere. Something positive about themselves or something negative about a rival.
I don't expect to see anything specific about the economy; I do see comments coming on social issues.
The debate will followed on Saturday by the Ames Straw Poll. It is a total charade, organized by the Iowa Republican Party to extort money from candidates. Totally worthless as a gauge of a candidate's strength, but it will be crucial to some candidates to prove viability in organization and the ability to raise money from donors. A bad showing could end a campaign or two - months ahead of the Iowa Caucus in February.

As expected, Rick Perry will enter the race. Word is he will announce on Saturday in South Carolina and then head for New Hampshire and Iowa. His entry will compete for attention with the Ames straw poll in Iowa. He will not at the debate on Thursday and will not be on the ballot for the straw poll scheduled for Saturday.
This not good news for other contenders but it will be welcomed by the Obama people.

I read today about a bill that Gov Jerry Brown (D-Ca) signed today. To me, at 1st blush, it sucks.
Suppose that the state of Johnboy has 10 electoral votes in a presidential election.
The Repub gets 60% of the popular vote in Johnboy while the Dem gets 40%. 6 electoral votes would go to the R while 4 would go to the D. That is the scheme in some states.
More popular is the "winner takes all concept." In the state of Johnboy. the R would get all of the 10. That is, I think, kind of the norm now.
But under the CA scheme, which something like 8 states have adopted, it matters not what the split in Johnboy is. All 10 electoral votes will go to whomever wins the popular vote nationwide.
Have I presented this plan correctly, Cyclo et al?

That's surprising to me, I'll admit. I thought there were only two that allowed a split, and that California was one of them. I vaguely recall the other as being either Maine, or maybe Nebraska.

In other words, if this is news, I was badly mistaken.

I believe only 2 states allow for splitting the votes


http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

2010 was the first time either state split their electoral votes. Nebraska had 4 votes for McCain and 1 for Obama.

I'm sorry. I thought I did a decent job of explaining what Gov Brown signed which is basically an end run around the electoral college.
The state of Johnboy goes for the R over the D by 60% to 40% and all 10 electoral votes would go to the R under the "winner takes all" used in most states.
But if the D wins the popular vote NATIONALLY, the 10 electoral votes in Johnboy would go not for the R but to the D. By my calculation this would mean that, while the electoral college would still exist every election would end up 535-0 in favor of the candidate who won the popular vote.
I hope I made that clearer. CA is the 9th state to sign on; all of them Blue states.

With California joining in, the nine states (including Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Washington, Hawaii and the District of Columbia) now have 132 of the 270 electoral votes they need for the movement. I think their goal is to have the change in place for the 2016 election. The group calls themselves the National Popular Vote.

It strikes me as an absolutely terrible idea.

Me, too, but I think they're trying to prevent a rerun of 2000. (Plus, make the politicians campaign in all 50 states).

The nurse will come around shortly, IrishK, with the little pill that we all get here each night. But...
Arrogance pisses me off. After 235 years, there are those who feel qualified to amend the constitution to require a balanced budget. And there are those who want to effectively amend the constitution to eliminate the electoral college.
Do they really think that, somehow, they are smarter then the legislators who served before them? Or are they such shallow people who are perfectly comfortable when a change favors their cause for the moment?

I had no idea we had so much in common, politically.

Such a move will greatly increase the power of city folks over country folks.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not sure if they could get many southern states to sign on, but if they can persuade Maine, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana and Nevada, they'll have the numbers. Of course, a swing state like Florida with it's whopping 32 electoral votes would put them way over and then we'd have a direct election.

I only got up to some semblance of speed on this movement recently. I reiterate that this appears to be designed to choose the winner of a presidential election based not on the electoral votes but on the national popular vote. The nine states that my friend Irishk listed as being in favor are all Dem states.
I think that the Dem strategy, if this works, is to look at a state like Texas or Florida that could go Repub. But the popular vote could be quite narrow between Repubs and Dems. And those Dem votes could be useful if we move to selecting a winner of a presidential election based on national popular votes.

I didn't realize there was such a movement..
Here's a link
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

"Corporations Are People, Too."
Mitt Romney had a bit of a rough day in Iowa. At a campaign stop he found that the front row had been taken over by a few people who could well of been Dems. One man pressed Romney on his advocacy of looking for deficit cuts in social security, medicaid and medicare as opposed to taxing corporations.
Romney responded that 50% of our budget is spent on the social benefits and therefore is a logical target. (He could be off on that but...)
And then he spoke a line - quite loudly - that may come back to haunt him:
"Corporations are people, too."
Interestingly, some court rulings support his statement but that soundbite and the accompanying video could make this a bad day for him.

Just watched the irate senior give him a verbal whoopin' about medicare and social security. Romney's answer... "you can vote for Obama!" Something tells me Romney isn't going to do so well in Iowa this year.

Here's a link to the rant (after a commercial, of course).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44107478#44107478

Yes, this strikes me as a big part of it. Why should Ohio and the like get all the glory? (Mind you, as a resident of Columbus, Ohio, the swingiest city in a swingy state, I'm happy with the glory. Obama was here pretty much every other week in 2008. I saw him [as in up-close and personal] three times and Michelle once.)