Obama chalking up some wins
December 28th, 2010 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarObama has done exactly what he needed after the mid-term drubbing, and chalked up some wins. And he has done it by going both right and left. His three major victories are:
- A deal with the Republicans on cutting taxes to stimulate the economy
- Ratification of an arms reduction treaty with Russia
- Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
It’s a nice combination of something for everyone. Almost all Americans like treaties which reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Those sympathethic to the tea party movement will like the tax cuts and the liberals will hail the repeal of DADT.
His net approval rating is now just a -2% average.
The Republican’s main problem is finding the right challenger. A generic GOP candidate out polls Obama, but the moment you put a name in there, Obama leads. This article divideds up the potential candidates as being populists or managers. Populists include Palin, Huckabee, and Perry, Managers are Romney, Daniels, Barbour with Gingrich and Pawlenty (my pick) being a bit of both.
A recent poll has Obama vs Palin being a 54% to 39% landslide for Obama. If Bloomberg enters the race as an independent, then it is 47% to 31% to 18%.
Another poll has Obama beating Romey 47% to 40%.
The net favourability ratings for Obama and the three leading Republicans are:
- Huckabee +11%
- Obama +5%
- Romney +3%
- Palin -15%
So Huckabee has some popularity, and is a rare person who can rally the christian base without scaring off liberals. However fiscal conservatives do not trust him, and hard to see the tea party rallying behind him.
If the economy picks up in time for 2012, Obama will be hard to defeat – unless the Republicans can find a candidate who appeals to both their religious and fiscal conservative wings – but also does not scare off independents and moderates.
Tags: Barack Obama, United States
December 28th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Perhaps not.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Huckabee is a non-starter – he pardoned a man who went out and killed again.
Romney will never win the Tea Party over.
Palin is very popular with the base, but independents are scared of her.
Pawlenty is probably the least flawed pick, but Tea Party people are divided on him. I suspect that what may happen is that Rick Perry will enter the race. If he does, Palin will almost certainly endorse him, meaning the nomination is his.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Seems to me Bloomberg is shaping up as the (semi) Republican answer to the Democrats’ Mario Cuomo: the “white knight” candidate everyone likes to imagine will one day come riding in to rescue the party’s Presidential fortunes, but who never does.
Still, early days yet… Cuomo managed to make his dance of the seven veils last a couple of decades or so.
Like the wishful thinking on Cuomo, speculation on Bloomberg betrays a broad and deep lack of leadership in the party concerned, in this case the Republicans. Palin is the US equivalent of Screaming Lord Sutch (it’s just that she doesn’t know it), Huckabee and Romney didn’t even make it through their party’s primary process last time and will have to battle that and other issues, and Gingrich… they have to be joking.
Like BlairM, I think it’ll be someone who’s not being widely touted by the MSM at present. Just not as sure as he on who that might be…
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
If the economy picks up in time for 2012, Obama will be hard to defeat
How is the economy going to recover by 2012. From which sector could any recovery conceivably come from?
Finance is shot to hell, so is manufacturing. Consumer sentiment and confidence is extremely flighty and overall long-term negative so they won’t spend and fixed spending by local and federal govts are maxed out supporting everyone with little to no spare capacity left over to do such vital things as invest heavily in nationwide infrastructure maintenance that’s been delayed for thirty years. Meanwhile the Fed is printing money to reduce the USD toward parity with China but newsflash why would the Chinese buy US imports and where are those exports anyway through which to take advantage of this new parity?
What they’ll eventually do probably just before the next President after Obama leaves office and just before the world abandons the USD as the reserve, is return to the gold standard. Meanwhile, the savings of the entire US middle-class will have been wiped out by inflation currently being kicked along by the QEII. Let’s hope that’s completely wrong and it doesn’t happen like that at all but right now, it sure as hell looks like that’s the plan.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Jesusonafuckingcross, its been a nice, restful day, and someone just had to go kick redbaiter, didn’t they?
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
The Messiah appears hellbent in inflicting the worst possible damage to the U.S. economy through excessive and unbeliavable spending, so re-election in 2012 could be far from his messianic mind.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Blair, you live in the United States, so what about Rubio or Christie, the governor of New Jersey? Could you please comment?
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I can’t see Palin as president, if anything she’s merely a liability for the centre-right of American politics. They should oust her while they still can.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
The right is accepting the MSM spin again?
If people want to thank anybody for the repeal of DADT it should be Harry Reid. From what I saw Obama did his usual sonorous speechmaking but did not really twist arms in the Senate.
He might have got credit for the tax thing if he had not put on his petulant little press conference where he dumped on both the GOP and his own base. The same MSM clowns who carried water for him in 2007/2008 are obviously girding their loins for 2012 with this talk of bipartisanship – but on the tax deal they really can’t get past his past three years of unloading about the “Bush Tax Cuts”. Nor should they be able to give him credit by trying to paper over the fact that he was so obviously pissed off about the deal.
About the only thing he really went to the mat for was the START II treaty. He lined up past GOP Secretary’s of State and former military people. However, even then, enough GOP senators went for it, and even those GOP’s who voted no hardly broke into a sweat to round up opposition, simply because in this day and age it did not appear to be an issue. And it’s not: the Russian nuclear force will continue to decline through simple attrition caused by money problems and the fact that such a force helps them not one bit. Besides, the GOP got Barry to publically commit to missile defence, which he must have hated having to do.
As far as the GOP candidates are concerned – let them all have a crack. If Palin in particular does no better a job than in 2008 then she won’t get the nomination. All this scarifying talk, especially from the MSM, is just the same garbage as in other times as the enemies of the GOP try to steer them towards a moderate – who will then get trashed by them as a racist, rich, moron anyway. McCain thought they were his mates from 2000: hopefully others will learn from that.
As far as 2012 is concerned I don’t know why people keep rattling on about national polls when the vote is actually on a state-by-state basis for the Electoral College. And where that is concerned it’s hard to think that any GOP candidate will not at least win all the states that McCain did, leaving the battleground states where Barry won well in 2008 but where the Democrats lost the mid-terms precisely because he is now so unpopular in them. Even if the national economy and unemployment picks up it will have to make those states better – a lot better – before he’s back to even 50:50.
Oh – and the Southern Poverty
Vote:Democrat ElectionLaw Center? Please, they’ve been wetting themselves about right-wing “hate groups” since the early 1990′s. Just more of the usual sliming from them, though it will get worse as 2012 gets closer.December 28th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
I should be more specific: ….before he’s back to even 50:50 in those states.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Palin will make a fine president, I can see it now her ordering US troops into Georgia to chase the Russians out.
Pity they have nukes.
Before that an invasion of Iran, after she has pulled the USA out of the UN
Vote:Pity the stupid cow does not know she will leave the Red sea pedestrians hanging.
Hey,it will make some great popcorn moments.
December 28th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Rubio is a future star, but right now he is a first term Senator. I suspect the American public as a whole are now wary of first term Senators becoming President, let alone the Republican Party! Rubio alone among the contenders would have a very hard time criticising Obama’s incompetence and inexperience. It is also important to remember that Republican Senators make notoriously bad nominees – only one – Warren Harding – has ever won a Presidential election. I just don’t see it happening, and I don’t think he will put his name forward.
Christie would be fantastic, but he has already explicitly ruled himself out. He appeared on Jimmy Kimmell Live a few weeks back and basically said “Why would I want a less powerful job than I have now?!” Kimmell asked him if he would serve as Vice President, and he said “Come on, can you imagine me being Vice President to anybody?!” I think he could get the nomination if he wanted it, but he will wait until at least 2016 or 2020. There is also the question of whether his abrasive style, which works well in tough-guy Joisey, would translate well nationwide.
Finally, I wouldn’t place bets on whether Palin could win the nomination, or a subsequent election against Obama, but she still remains the front runner at this time. I have not ruled her out, and nor should anybody else. People forget just how controversial a candidate Reagan was in the late ’70s – his “mainstream” rival George HW Bush famously labeled his political philosophy “voodoo economics”, and, like Palin, he had no pull with independents and wavering voters. As late as March 1980, at the height of the primaries, Carter was beating him by an even wider margin than Obama over Palin – 58% to 33%! However, once the nomination was his, the gap closed right up – April saw him trailing Carter by only 6 points, and after the convention in July he got his nose in front. If Palin announces, campaigns well and does not make mistakes, she could still go all the way.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I wouldn’t place bets on whether Palin could win the nomination, or a subsequent election against Obama, but she still remains the front runner at this time.
Isn’t it mental. How can this possibly be. I don’t even want to talk about it it’s so very depressing. Her.
I wonder if Hillary will stand for VP next time instead of Biden. She’s resigning, apparently.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Good analysis Blair. That’s my read also. I’ll be intrigued to see how many of my Democrat-lovin’ acquaintances in Chicago break for Obambi in 2012. They’re a bitterly disappointed bunch right now, IL is not getting better, and they’re having an increasingly tough time avoiding the conclusion that it’s because of “tax-and-spend” policies – at all levels. Things like DADT and START II don’t stand out on their radar.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
It’s hard to see Palin surviving the scrutiny of the primaries, GOP challengers should unravel her cocoon.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Overall, it was clear from the start that American citizens were expecting great things from Obama. Unfortunately, it was clear to me that an economy at stand-still doesn’t always give you a lot to work with.
It should be interesting to see how this all pans out.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I can’t see Palin as president, if anything she’s merely a liability for the centre-right of American politics. They should oust her while they still can.
Oust her from what – FOX News?!
Far from being a liability, she has galvanised the opposition to Obama and the Tea Party movement. The Republicans would not have been nearly as successful in these recent elections without her. And McCain would have lost even more votes without her.
What I forgot to mention in my last comment was that Reagan was so polarizing that Republican John Anderson ran against him as an independent, and took votes off Democrats disillusioned with Carter. Reagan may have struggled to win the election without Anderson splitting the vote. I think it highly likely that, if Palin wins the nomination, someone like Romney, or Charles Crist, or Mitch Daniels, or even Jeb Bush may run as an independent, which would help her considerably.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Palin
Georgia
US troops invading
Russian nukes…
FFS. Find some new material GOH. Even the return of your Turkish bayonets would be welcome after the 50th (perhaps 100th?) regurgitation of these lines.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
It’s hard to see Palin surviving the scrutiny of the primaries, GOP challengers should unravel her cocoon.
Depends Pete whether you see the Primaries as the palms up contest its billed to be or merely the punch and judy showpiece others say it is.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
See the far left media are finally asking questions about Obama’s birth certificate. With Hillary suggesting she might quit as Secretary of State, maybe something’s going on.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
There’s a difference between net approval and net favourability?
[DPF: Yes approval relates to how well they are doing their job, while favourability is whether you have a positive opinion of them.
For example one may have a positive opinion of Phil Goff, but disapprove of the job he is doing]
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Yes, something seems to be going on…
Yet more corroboration that the birthers are crazy.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
If the economy picks up in time for 2012
Ha ha, yea right.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Yes Pete, that’s exactly what the story on TrueblueNZ is about. Once again, the right wing blogosphere does the job the PC mainstream media and the left wing blogosphere, transfixed by Obama’s blackness, will not do.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Redbaiter – the birth certificate “issue” is a red herring that only bothers nutbars.
There is no stipulation in the US Constitution saying a President must be born in the USA. They need only be over 35, have lived in the US for 14 years, and be a “natural born” citizen.
US Federal Law 8 USC 1401(g) states that the following is a citizen at birth ie. a natural born citizen:
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years
Stanley Ann Durham, Obama’s mother, fits these criteria. So Obama could have been born in Timbucktoo and still qualified as a natural born citizen of the United States. Whatever Obama’s birth certificate says, it has NO BEARING ON ANYTHING! Don’t worry about it.
(incidently, the same law makes my own daughters eligible to run for President. Cool eh)
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
the right wing blogosphere does the job the PC mainstream media and the left wing blogosphere, transfixed by Obama’s blackness, will not do.
Do what? Keep getting played for fools? It’s one thing Obama is doing right, stringing the birthers along, for how long now? Keeps the nuts distracted on a futile non-scandal.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
So Obama could have been born in Timbucktoo and still qualified as a natural born citizen of the United States.
Gee Blair that doesn’t equate to my understanding of the constitution.
Has this been tested and affirmed in e.g. the Supreme Court?
Even if not, if this is the case then how come the voters weren’t told when Obama was running? Isn’t that called lying?
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
“Redbaiter – the birth certificate “issue” is a red herring that only bothers nutbars.”
Blair, you’re always buying into mainstream media bullshit full tilt. You should have learned by now. Asking that the President of the USA meet Constitutional requirements for eligibility is no “red herring”, no matter how many times the mainstream media say it, and struggle to portray people who harbour doubts as nuts. FYI, 43% of the US population has such doubts.
Snap out of your mainstream media induced coma FFS. That people like you are so easily used is why we are in the position we are.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Furthermore on the birth certificate issue – I was watching Bill O’Reilly and Glen Beck on Fox last night – arguably the two most rabid right wingers/Obama haters on US TV – and even they were pissed off at the whole birth certificate issue. They made a very valid point that most of the coverage and mention of the “issue” had come from the Left, and from Obama himself. Beck explicitly stated that he believed Obama was born in Hawaii and eligible to be President.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Pete, if you’re going to write so much on an issue, at least try and keep up with developments.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Sorry Red, I’ve been away for a couple of days, I didn’t realise you had gotten so out of step with Beck and O’Reilly.
Who’s the hook line and sinker stinker?
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Blair, Bill O’Reilly is not, has never been and never will be a “rabid right winger”. Once again, you go for the media spin hook line and sinker. How can the right ever make progress when people like you are so easily fooled by such weak propaganda? He describes himself as centrist and that is what he is.
Beck is too frightened to broach the issue. His own reasons for not dealing with it are ridiculously illogical and obviously false.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Bill O’Reilly is not, has never been and never will be a “rabid right winger”
No he’s not rabid, he’s just mental. Rabid is when they’re scary too but he’s not scary he’s just mental.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Gee Blair that doesn’t equate to my understanding of the constitution.
Has this been tested and affirmed in e.g. the Supreme Court?
Even if not, if this is the case then how come the voters weren’t told when Obama was running? Isn’t that called lying?
There is a lot of popular opinion on what the constitution is supposed to say, but much of it is false, because people don’t actually read the actual words. In that sense, it’s a lot like NZ’s very own Treaty of Waitangi!
The only eligibility criteria for a President in the Constitution is in Article II Section 1 as follows:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
That’s it. And the Constitution did not even attempt to define “citizenship” until the 14th Amendment was enacted in the 1860s as a response to the emancipation of the slaves. Therefore, in defining citizenship, Article I Section 8 applies:
The Congress shall have Power… To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization… throughout the United States.
Which it did in 8 USC 1401, which covers a wide variety of eventualities, and by extension decides who is eligible to be President.
Now, you are right in that someone could challenge a candidate or President in the Supreme Court, but this has never happened, as no President has yet had their eligibility disputed, and only Benjamin Harrison and Obama have thus far had parents who were foreigners. And I suspect that, were they to even hear the case, the Constitution, as I have laid it out above, is pretty clear-cut. You can be President and born anywhere, as long as one of your parents is a US Citizen and has spent more than five years living in the US.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
BlairM, I believe you are not quite reading this correctly.
To be POTUS, you must be …a natural born Citizen…
However, as at the time of the adoption of the constitution no-one was a natural born citizen, the following was included to cover presidents who were born prior to the constitution being adopted: …or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
History is against Obama winning in 2012. Every President in US history that is in office when in the election year the US economy is in recession, has lost. The ball is in the Republicans’ court as the US economy is in a long recession that will easily last past 2012. I would say most candidates for the GOP would win, except Palin. Surely there is someone besides her that could do the job.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Yeah but this is perfectly clear to me. It’s saying either someone born in the US or someone who is a citizen at the time of adoption of this Constitution. Period.
What else do others think it says? Surely this is well settled, isn’t it? This is what the constitutional consensus is, isn’t it?
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Redbaiter – Bill O’Reilly IS a rabid right winger! I watch him a fair bit here. He’s a fiscal conservative who likes to complain about “raunchy” Miley Cyrus videos. That fits the definition in my book!
Glen Beck is just kind of weird, right down to his silly Mormon underwear. He called Obama a racist, which sounds like a pretty rabid right wing thing to do to me (not that I disagree with him, of course!)
Are you seriously telling me, Redbaiter, that when confronted with the FACTS of US law and the US Constitution, you still think there is some point to be made by asking Obama for his birth certificate? Which under Hawaiian law, he cannot legally obtain anyway? Do you seriously think the birth notices in Hawaiian newspapers were put there as some sort of elaborate conspiracy? Or that the notification of live birth which Obama released was a forgery? It’s not an issue, redbaiter! It’s a bunch of crazy, kooky, probably racist wackos on the fringe of the internet who keep too many cats at home! Now you have a choice. Do you want to be one of those people, or do you want to rejoin the reality-based community and fight Obama based on his ineptness, incompetence and inexperience to do the job? You know, the issues.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Yeah but this is perfectly clear to me. It’s saying either someone born in the US or someone who is a citizen at the time of adoption of this Constitution. Period.
No, it does not say “someone born in the US”. It does not say that anywhere in the document. It says “natural born citizen”. That means someone who is naturally a citizen at birth. The Constitution does not further define that or specify that a person has to be born in the US. It delegates the matter of who is a citizen to Congress. Congress has decided that these people are citizens by birth.
However, as at the time of the adoption of the constitution no-one was a natural born citizen, the following was included to cover presidents who were born prior to the constitution being adopted: …or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…
That is correct, but I don’t see what bearing that has, since the Constitution delegates to Congress the definition of citizenship (except with regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which merely includes persons born in the US as citizens, to allow slaves to have that right)
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
A good article on opposition to Obama’s healthcare: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nullifying-obamacare_524862.html
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
“Redbaiter – Bill O’Reilly IS a rabid right winger! I watch him a fair bit here. He’s a fiscal conservative who likes to complain about “raunchy” Miley Cyrus videos. That fits the definition in my book!”
That’s a really poor definition Blair. O’Reilly has more watchers than anyone else on cable TV. How can he be a “rabid right winger”?? It shows his views are centrist. Mark Levin might be called a right winger, but even then, you are talking from a left wing perspective. Once again Blair, you demonstrate how the left have defeated you. You allow them to set the ground rules, and you buy into the propaganda of their media agents.
There is just no logical way that fiscal conservatism and concerns with Miley Cyrus are indicative of “rabid right wingness”. Unless of course you yourself are an extreme leftist. Or worse, gullible enough to allow them to set your benchmarks for you.
As for the rest of your questions on Obama’s certificate Blair, really that is tired old stuff that has been addressed and answerd and dealt with so many times before. If you’re not up to speed on it you have no business really debating the issue.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
No, it does not say “someone born in the US”. It does not say that anywhere in the document. It says “natural born citizen”. That means someone who is naturally a citizen at birth.
See this is why you’re probably a constitutional lawyer Blair and I aren’t for I’d taken “natural born citizen” for the founding father’s wise provision of excluding anyone borne of say, a jackel, from ever ascending to the high office of the Presidency. But apparently from what you’re saying it means any old one can be the pres. This explains a lot, in recent times. Thanks for the info.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
“Do you want to be one of those people, or do you want to rejoin the reality-based community and fight Obama based on his ineptness, incompetence and inexperience to do the job? You know, the issues.”
Hell- when are you going to stop allowing the left to tell you what the issues are? Who your candidate should be? What is “sensible” and what is not? You’re so damn well easily manipulated its no wonder the left have such a tight grip on everything.
You’re just like a ventroloquist’s doll, sitting on the knee of your leftist master and parroting whatever rubbish he chooses.
Utterly pathetic, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Redbaiter – I think you yourself have been “defeated by the left”. I’d be rather proud to be labelled a “rabid right winger” personally.
reid – well I can’t be President. Arnold Schwartzenegger can’t either. But Barack Obama can (and my daughters can too, because of their American Mom). I guess if you really wanted to look at what the founding fathers meant by “natural born” you’d have to look at British common law or something, of which I profess very little knowledge. Maybe you could argue a Supreme Court challenge on that basis? But I am pretty sure my interpretation – that the definition is delegated to Congress and specifically prescribed, is accurate.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Maybe Rudi Guiliani could have another crack. Popular, moderate and competent. Although his campaign machine should kick his nuts every time he mentions 9/11.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Redbaiter, I am glad that nobody can tell you what the issues are. Treasure and cherish your issues. I hope they bring you comfort in old age. But nobody else will care. Do you think 8 USC 1401(g) is unconstitutional? Please discuss.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Blair, Bill O’Reilly is a self confessed moderate. I see him all the time over here too, by US standards he is certainly a moderate. As a pundit, he tends to piss off the conservative base by not leaning to the right enough! He also gives me the impression of actually admiring Obama, ewww.
By the way, I agree, Beck is weird….surely he’s lost his voice by now? lol
If Romney gets the nomination I think Tea Party people will grudgingly fall in behind. It’s a long way off.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
I think if Romney gets the nomination, Limbaugh will be saying what he did with McCain – he’s a douche, but he’s better than the other guy.
But there is no way Romney, or any non-Tea Party candidate, will win the Republican nomination. Romney is establishment, and too moderate and wet for the base. The nominee will be Perry, Palin, Pawelenty, or even Jindal if he throws his hat in.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
You’re so full of mainstream media shit Blair. From Romney to Obama you’ve got nothing but Democrat or RINO talking points. Its guys like you who are to blame for the fact that this country is totally submerged in leftist shit. Posturing as right wing when you are in fact only moderate leftists. For decades, you’ve allowed the left to walk all over you, to tell you what to think, to tell you who your candidate should be, to tell you what’s an issue and what isn’t. Totally manipulated and totally craven. You have to stop doing it or we will never break out.
Dazzaman is correct. The right do not want to know Bill O’Reilly. He’s far too left. Ask yourself Blair, why you didn’t know that. Ask yourself Blair, how come you think a leftist is a rabid right winger. Ask yourself why you have things so screwed up. I’ve already told you the answer.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
It’s really far too early to tell how Obama will get on, presuming he stands for re-election. It depends a lot on what the economy is doing – it may be stagnant, recovering, or it could have tanked further (but the huge deficit levels will remain regardless) – and who ends up winning the GOP ticket. And from there it will depend on how the campaign pans out, choice of VP could be a factor, and if anything significant of the inevitably slung shit sticks on either candidate.
Then there’s the chance of game changers like wars and terrorist successes or failures. GW enhanced his polling in 2004 by upping the official threat levels (nothing came of it).
About the only near certainty is that the birth certificate still won’t matter, except perhaps to a handful who won’t make any difference.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Redbaiter – I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it, or are you going to continue to masturbate all over David Farrar’s intellectual property?
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Blair, its got nothing to do with this issue. The only reason the right do not follow through on Obama’s eligibility is because they are still too bound up by their fear of the mainstream media. Obama was on a panel that questioned McCain’s eligibility. The left sought out George Bush’s dental records. The (so called) right though are so fucking weak they let a two bit Kenyan fool them with a piece of internet crap, and are so frightened of what the media might say if they protest, or do what the left have no problems doing, they remain silent. You have to wake up to the fact that the mainstream media are 95% behind Obama and they do not ever tell the truth, rather they work hard at creating public perceptions to suit the left.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
But… it has everything to do with the issue, Redbaiter. If Stanley Ann Durham is an American citizen, and she lived in the United States for more than five years, and at least two of those years were after she turned fourteen, then her son, Barack Hussein Obama, wherever he was born, is a natural born citizen of then United States and therefore constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States. Which makes his birth certificate COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!
What GLORIOUS information do you expect from Mr Obama’s birth certificate?!
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Blair, are you completely out of your tree. If the Original Certificate would put the doubts of 140 million Americans at rest (all fringe nuts according to you, hurriedly gulping down the kool ade) why would Obama spend millions keeping it under wraps?
BTW, his father was a UK citizen. This also in the view of many legal scholars makes him unconstitutional. Your points are only opinions Blair. As Reid has already pointed out.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Well then Mr Redbaiter, your points are only opinions also, since the Supreme Court has not ruled on such a theoretical matter. Until such a day occurs, we have the Constitution (which backs me up, not you) and Congressional law (which backs me up, not you). You are insisting on some sort of fantasy fairytale law which is not actually part of real genuine US law.
I don’t think Obama has spent millions (which he does not have) keeping anything under wraps. He’s not corrupt, just incompetent and ideologically unsound. And if you think that 140M Americans care about his birth certificate, you’re mad. He was born in Hawaii. He won an election. I don’t like that he did that, but it happened. I also call bullshit on your “legal scholars”. There is nothing in the US constitution against joint citizenship. Cite clauses and laws. That is what I have done. If you can’t, you don’t know jack shit. Fuck off with your crazy crap. You are a joke on this site.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
All the evidence and legal rulings to date support Obama’s right to be POTUS under multiple criteria. There is no evidence nor any legal rulings to the contrary. That’s a comprehensively backed “opinion”, versus conspiracy theory rantings.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
“And if you think that 140M Americans care about his birth certificate, you’re mad.”
Did you look at the video on my blog? Its the results of a damn survey on the issue. For fucks sake, if you’re going to argue then you should at least inform yourself. Calling people crazy when you don’t know the facts is another trait that clearly identifies you as a leftist.
Go away Blair. You gave the left every thing they have, and you stil want to give them more. Bill O’Reilly is a rabid right winger??? What weak mainstream media sourced crap.
“You are a joke on this site.”
More pathetic misconception. This is in fact one of the most left wing blogs in the NZ blogosphere.
(Note who is right behind you on this issue. Kiss kiss. One of the biggest left wing fruit cakes in the blogosphere, and he’s with you Blair.)
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Someone needs to call Te Whetu Tawera and readmit this dumbarse.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Oh that’s right BlairM start getting nasty you stupid cowardly jerk off ! You left-wing creeps are happy throwing shit on the blogs. Gutless filth like yourself make me ill.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
A minor but important correction David – Obama did not sign tax cuts per se he signed the extension of the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 that were due to expire 31 Dec 10 that would’ve resulted in a hefty tax INCREASE. He campaigned on allowing these tax cuts to expire on the so-called wealthy. To extend BUSH’s tax cuts when he said he’d largely scrap them and then to claim that 180 degree reversal as some strategic political victory is nothing more than White House spin. START II and DADT – different story and certainly Obama and Reid rescued both from seeming defeat but let’s not forget that the lame duck Congress sported strong Democrat majorities and it was always going to be hard for McConnell (Senate Minority Leader) to hold the liberal leaning sisters from Maine and the churlish outgoing Senators like Bennett and Voinavich not to mention Murkowski desperate to thumb her nose at the tea party after her write in victory over Miller in Alaska.
I personally think Obama at this point stands a very good chance of re-election. I don’t think Palin will run this time. Romney will begin as front runner but will be swamped by social conservatives flocking to Huckabee (who is a flawed candidate) in FL and SC. Romney is too patrician and his highly public endorsement of the baby MA version of Obamacare is a huge millstone in the GOP primary. Gingrich will run but won’t win the nomination. I’d love Christie to run but he won’t – he’s in the same camp as the other rising star novices (Jindal and Rubio). Some 2nd tier ex Govs may come through (Pawlenty or Daniels) but whilst both are sound with excellent fiscal records they are going to struggle against Obama’s machine. Ditto Mike Pence, Hayley Barbor or John Thune – all 3 have too little name brand recognition or are from small states.
I’d love Gov Rick Perry from TX to run – he has a huge track record of success in TX and he’s articulate and an excellent retail politician but suffers from the fact that well…he’s the Gov from George W’s state. Perry can raise money like Romney, has a governing track record that is fiscally conservative that will trump Pawlenty and Daniel’s and he could meet Obama head on easily in a debate.
Red – I’m often with you in these debates but Obama was born in Hawaii. I’ve read every Birther website including the details of the various briefs they filed with SCOTUS. The twin birth notices in Honolulu newspapers cannot be explained away. Birther reporting of the so-called smoking gun of the grandmother interview omits her almost immediate retraction and clarification on the born in Kenya remark due to her having the question poorly translated. Obama IS hiding the long form vault BC but not because he was born in Kenya but because his mother’s 2nd husband, the Indonesian Soetero adopted Obama at aged 3 and under HI law, the original long form BC issued at birth is destroyed and replaced with a new long form BC in the adopted name. Obama felt (rightly) that the release of a BC with the name Barry Soetero (an Indonesian name) would cause political problems. He (again rightly) counted on a compliant and non-inquiring media and that the vast majority of Americans would accept the short form computer generated BC that he released. The BC debate is a distraction. Obama is President – let’s defeat him at the ballot box not in the courts.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
I’m with Blair (and sorry I wasn’t here to offer support earlier). It’s the distinction between natural born and naturalized.
It doesn’t mean “born in the US” it means “born a US citizen”. McCain for example, was not born in the US, but in the Panama Canal Zone (but was born a US Citizen), and George Romney who sought the 68 nomination was born in Mexico. This was never an issue until now.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
“The twin birth notices in Honolulu newspapers cannot be explained away.”
I’m sorry KIA, but as soon as I read that, I know you only have an extremely superficial understanding of the case. I advise you to read a bit more. No offence, but I just tire of explaining the other side to people who should know better. There are three of four simple solutions to the notices. Saying they “cannot be explained away” is so utterly wrong, and something I just could not ever agree with. The grandmother’s claims too are small fry in the complete context. Worth nothing.
Mr Edgeler, the idea behind the born in the US of two American citizens is designed to help avoid a situation where a President may have divided loyalties. This is all too apparent in Obama’s situation where he flits about the world apologising for the US and kow towing to other world leaders. He is not displaying the loyalty to the US a President should. The intent of the requirement is clearly being breached.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I don’t see how the repeal of DADT and the passing of START are “wins”. Yes, they are wins for Obama’s socialist agenda, but they are not wins for America or anything that is moral or good. It’s just Obama passing more of his BS using a lame duck senate.
As far as Obama’s birth certificate – he SHOULD show it. Why on earth it should be under wraps, along with other papers detailing his past political record and speeches is beyond me. As per usual, instead of defending it with a logical argument, the Left just labelled those asking a legitimate question with the derogatory name of “birthers” – eg, smeared them with name calling. The response is typical of the Left. The simple fact is they can’t defend against answering what is a perfectly reasonable question.
It’s a response right out of the Saul Alinsky handbook – attack, attack, attack.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
I loved it when the proggies cried because their Sun God did a deal with the hated Repubs over tax cuts. More tears like this over the next two years please, proggies.
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Seriously though re: Obama eligibility issue, what I don’t and never have got is: show the full form certificate and close the debate down.
Simple.
How come not do?
Why let it fester?
Yeah sure, it’s not a big deal. But why not years ago have dealt with it. Why let it fester away, fester away. Isn’t that just dumb. Considering, there’s absolutely nothing in it and the full form certificate is a mere phone call away. Right?
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Here’s a thread today on Free Republic. 255 comments at the moment and lots of good information.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2648176/posts
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Oh, he’s corrupt all right. His administration is full or bribery and corruption. If he can’t get something through the house and senate (like Obamacare) he goes through the back door by underhand means.
One glaring example (among many), is the case of Inspector General Gerald Walpin who Obama had fired because the man was just doing his job. Walpin was investigating a buddy of Obama’s, Kevin Johnson, who misused grant money and ended up having to pay over $400,000 of it back. The whole thing stunk to high heaven. Read about the whole episode HERE (The whole book is good, and gives you an overall picture of the things Obama has done or put into place since he became POTUS. It’s not pretty.)
Vote:December 28th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Sure. So where a person is born an American citizen, these divided loyalties don’t exist (or are at least assumed not to exist).
The Constitution can’t stop a President from sucking.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 6:37 am
By 2012, the National Popular Vote bill could 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. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
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).
Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 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). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 7:20 am
David, when do you start your column for the New York Times?
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 9:23 am
These policy wins are what a successful president is about. Obama will probably get his second term. But never fear most second term presidents spend their second term fighting legal battles.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Says a lot about the intelligence of Americans if Palin has got as far as she has.
Vote:When you compare her to some past US presidents, she isn’t in the same league.
FFS.
December 29th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Interesting article here on Wall Street’s changing attitudes towards BHO. It’s a great example of how politicians can get support from people who you would think are their ideological enemies; Wall St fell hard for Barry in 2008:
That quote should be remembered by anybody who decides to go off on a rant about Wall St being a bunch of right-wingers constantly in league with the GOP. In fact:
Key words: Goldman Sachs; CEO; “Quietly”. Hey, maybe he’s one of those who’ll support Romney in a crunch.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 11:17 am
I think Obama should produce the long form vault BC but I understand why he has yet to release it. Far more sinister is his failure to release his medical records and any of his undergraduate or post graduate college transcripts or records. Obama’s lack of transparency in this regard set a new low standard of non disclosure. Had Palin or McCain done the same there is no doubt the MSM would’ve gone spare. In this regard, the 4th estate has been AWOL when it came to vetting Obama. The one statistic of the 2008 campaign that sums it up is:
Vote:Number of investigative reporters sent to Alaska to dumpster dive for any Palin dirt: 47
Number of investigative reporters who bothered to read the minutes of the one organisation Obama had managed for any length of time (the Annanberg Foundation of Chicago): 1
December 29th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Yeah, yeah, like….the incumbent; the peanut farmer and the intern fucker?
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Then there’s this article that shows the whole Obama vs. Wall St debate I references above to be merely a personalised snit because Obama is using them as a whipping boy and they object to that.
Out of Lehman’s Ashes, Wall Street Gets Most of What It Wants.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 11:37 am
KIA, what is:
- the number of viewers and readers interested in what Palin ate for breakfast?
- the number of viewers and readers interested in minutes of a Foundation?
I didn’t see much publicity on the mayoral minutes of the Wasilla either.
Palin is seen and used as another Hilton/Spears/Cyrus/Lohan.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“- the number of viewers and readers interested in what Palin ate for breakfast?”
No Grizzly Bear steaks here Petty.
http://www.suite101.com/content/michelle-obama-loves-her-cobbler-recipe-a89699
Eat and enjoy.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
“Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.”
The questions that posts by such as Kohler always raise is- Is he a communist, or has he merely been duped by communists? Is he ignorant of the fact that the Republic was deliberately structured to avoid the tyranny of the majority, or does he know it but want to keep that fact hidden? Is he a victim of an education system and mainstream media controlled by the far left, or is he one of those who have deliberately destroyed those institutions?
Whatever, his post is a most damning indictment of the political ignorance and or corruption that prevails in the US today in a political scenario that has become almost completely dominated by power obsessed amoral Progressives.
The Republic is the Republic. America is exceptional because of the structure of that Republic. If they do not like it, Kohler and his traitorous ilk should just emigrate to Europe.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”
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 has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
If a “republican” form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a “democratic” method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
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). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
A supporter of the National Popular Vote bill is Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committe. He supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
http://www.thatssaulfolks.com/2010/04/01/national-popular-vote-why-i-support-it/
By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:
Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
Idaho(4) – 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Florida (27)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
Iowa (7)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
Maine (4) – 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
Massachusetts (12)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
Michigan (17)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
New York (31) – 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 7% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
Ohio (20)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (21)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Utah (5)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
Washington (11)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
The reason for having an electoral college with votes weighted towards the smaller states is so that the big states can’t gang up on the rest. However, this doesn’t stop the possibility of electoral votes being given according to the state vote. E.g. In California the result was 61% Obama, 37% McCain, others 2%. With 55 Votes in the college, 34 for Obama and 21 for McCain if you have a 5% threshhold.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
That’s representative democracy in general. The USA’s added flavour is a constitutional republic: elected representatives reflect aspects of democracy within the bounds of a written constitution that can be changed, but only slowly and with great effort, thereby making certain that said change is truly democratic and not the desire of 51% of the population. Don’t like the Constitution – then amend it with 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States. That’s still democracy, but not the popular-will-means-instant-action type. The Founders figured that was the way past democracies had crapped out and they devised myriad ways of preventing the tyranny of the majority.
Au contraire. That’s exactly what it does, just in myriad more ways than through a Presidential election. The Senate being the prime example of slowing down “the mob”, as represented by Congress.
True – as with the Senate. A good thing too – one can easily imagine California, Illinois and New York ganging up on the smaller states in the near future for a Federal bailout.
But the Electoral College is also designed so that the elected President has a mandate that can’t be argued with. So even a marginal victory like Kennedy’s or Bush 43′s – or a minority vote in a split situation like Lincoln’s in 1860 or Clinton’s in 1992 – still gives the eventual winner a solid “victory” that enables them to form their part of the government without delay or further division.
Given the separation of powers between the other parts of the US government having a President selected by popular votes was not as big a concern for the Founders. Nor should it be for us. The Congress is a reflection of the popular vote, and they hold the purse strings. The Senate is a little more like the Electoral College,and they hold the Treaty and Supreme Court hammers, with small states like Delaware getting as much voice as California, not to mention things like the filibuster. But again, that’s deliberate. When people (especially Leftists) jump up and down about such things getting in the way of the popular will, the response should be that such is exactly what was intended from the start: weak, divided government.
If the Presidency was more like that of France or Russia then the National Popular Vote might be more important. The trouble is that here in NZ, and around the rest of the world, we don’t see a President hamstrung by anything much. That’s because it was intended that the President be able to deal with forces external to the US quickly. A big part of the reason for this was that the original Articles of Confederation flowing out of the revolution were not coping very well with external problems (diplomatic, war, trade, etc). The US has the better part of a decade to experience this before going for the new Constitution and the Presidential powers. Perhaps you could argue that they never foresaw a time when the US President would have a world-ending arsenal at hand and that had they done so they might have hamstrung the President’s external powers more than they have. However, even now, if you want a treaty (FTA, AGW, NATO, START II, etc) then the President has to jump through hoops. But dealing to Al Queda and co? No.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
The problem in the US is that nearly everything the Federal government does is unconstitutional: they found that all you have to do is pack the Supreme Court with sympathisers. Major blunder allowing the Fed to appoint the very panel which could limit its activities to what was in the constitution.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
“I think Obama should produce the long form vault BC but I understand why he has yet to release it. ”
The point about MSNBC’s Matthew’s declaration is that for so long the mainstream media have pushed the lie that Obama has produced his Original Birth Certificate and it is on line. They have said that the COLB is the Birth Certificate. This has never been true, and finally, due to the persistence of those who demanded accountability, they have been forced to abandon this lie. In the video on TrueblueNZ Matthews clearly abandons this strategy.
Even after this massive capitulation, STILL THE SO CALLED RIGHT IS TOO FRIGHTENED TO TACKLE THIS ISSUE.
Here the left have finally admitted to a major lie, and still the right remains as quiet as a mouse. If you don’t fight you lose. Its not hard to see why the left have been winning and the right have been losing for so long. No fight. Almost completely manipulated by the left.
If there had been some unity and some courage shown on this issue, Obama may well be behind bars today and the US and the world would be a much better place for that fact.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Unite like this?
Michelle Malkin:
“Birth certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory…they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.”
Joel Pollak:
“In the absence of strong Republican leadership, some find the Birther theory a compelling, if desperate, solution. Yet it is ultimately a self-destructive one — not just because it is almost certainly false, but because it contradicts the essential spirit of the conservative movement.”
Michael Medved:
“crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters” who are “the worst enemy of the conservative movement” and “make us look sick, troubled and not suitable for civilized company.”
Ann Coulter has referred to the birthers as “just a few cranks.”
Even Palin won’t stick her neck out and make a dick of herself on the birth cert.
It isn’t a lot cause, because it was never founded on facts in the first place.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
You would shut the fuck up if you had any shame Pete. You are one of those who have been enthusiastically promoting the lie that the COLB was the Birth Certificate.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I’ve never referred to a “COLB”, and have not promoted it (I’ll admit error if you can prove I’m wrong). All I do is highlight the blind stupidity and desperation of birthers like you.
On July 27 2009 the House of Representatives passed a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood. The resolution, containing language recognizing Hawaii as President Obama’s birth state, passed by a vote of 378 to zero.
You just don’t know when to give up when you are demonstrably wrong, and in this case even out of step with most if not all of your conservative favourites. I’ve seen in the past you can’t even get much support for your stance on CR. It diminishes your credibility on your other rants – give up and move on. Or keep making a Joe Hunt of yourself.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
You’re just a serial liar Pete. Always have been. You’ve just seen the results of a survey that shows 43% of the American population, (that’s around 140 million people) doubt Obama’s American origins and still you try and portay those who question it as some small fringe group of loonies.
Two years ago the left were making predictions that this would go away. It hasn’t and it won’t. It keeps getting bigger in spite of the efforts of loons like you and the mainstream media boycott.
You’ve been wrong on this all they way, and you will continue to be wrong. I am right, and I will be proven so, as I have in this instance where the claim that the Birth Certificate has been produced and is online is now shown to be demonstrably false. Even one of your far left Obama suckholing flag bearers admits it.
What are 140 million people and 43% of the American population Pete? A fringe group? Only in one place, and that’s the lying leftist dictionary.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
You call everyone who disagrees or questions you a liar. Your accusations mean nothing.
I guess you are referring to an online poll on a conservative website. Here are some more credible polls:
I agree that there are still a lot of people that believe crap or haven’t seen the facts to make the right decision.
Can you point to any credible conservative commentators that agree with birthers? Conservative politicians? Some politicians try a bob each way, wanting to attract the stupid vote but not appear stupid on it themselves.
Vote:December 29th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
You’re a complete waste of time as always. I’m referring to the latest poll that Matthews refers to in the video from yesterday. (You can watch a video and let a fact like that pass you by? Go away idiot.)
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 6:26 am
As usual you are full of accusations and devoid of facts. The video is incorrect on several counts.
There are many valid questions regarding it’s authenticity
How many? What are they? Who says they are valid?
The Constitution requires that the President is born in the US.
It doesn’t.
The only document that can fully dispel and doubts on this issue is the original birth certificate
I doubt it, there will still be nutters claiming it’s a forgery (as they have with the provided certificate of birth) or have some other unbaked reason why it doesn’t convince them (as with the birth notices).
43%, or around 130 million people, doubt Obama’s elegibility
There is mention of a poll but no details – what poll? How was it worded? Of that 43% only some say they think he wasn’t born in the US, how many don’t know/aren’t sure? What do they base their response on? How many don’t know that Hawaii is in the US? How many simply don’t want him as President and don’t care about facts (like you)?
The concern of 130 million people
It doesn’t say they are concerned, they are just ticking a poll. How many actually give a toss? How many keep expressing their concern about it on this blog?
An example of the utter arrogance of the left
Why is it “arrogance” to accept obvious facts. Many on the right also see this issue as an irrelevant side show driven by desperate people who can’t get over an election result.
Three or four simple solutions to the notices? You must tire of avoiding fronting up with any facts. Abuse is a poor excuse for a vacuous argument.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 7:05 am
DPF,
While you seem to be taking the Krauthammer view of the lame duck session, Tony Blankley has anohter view. TB is certainly right about Obama’s change to promoting tax cuts as necessary for growth, that is a delightful confession coming out of the mouth of a progressive and sets things up very well for the very significant and far reaching tax reform that the US so badly needs (low and flat, no exemptions deductions etc).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/29/no_clintonian_comeback_for_obama.html
The battle royal will be on spending, that is going to be fun to watch. The Repubs better hold their nerve, Obama has increased “discretionary” spending 88% in 2 years, huge cuts are manditory, as are big changes in entitlement spending.
The ecomony is coming back, not strongly, but enough to reduce unemployment to about 7 to 8% in 2012. Incumbency is very powerful and I can’t see a compelling Repub candidate, so on balance I think O will be reelected. 2016 bring on Chris Cristie, yeah baby, he rocks. Cristie is going to be very, very good.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 8:13 am
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 30 ballots for choosing a method): “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, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) 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, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all method is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (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 method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, 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 method is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
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.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 8:14 am
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. This will be more obscene than the already outrageous facts that in 2008,, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Nor were big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 8:18 am
It is doubtful whether the Congress, the public, the media, or anyone else is more deferential to an incoming President after an election in which he receives a larger electoral-vote margin than his actual popular-vote margin. Clinton did not receive such deference in 1992.
However, if anyone believes that an exaggerated margin increases “confidence” or enhances the “ability to lead,” the National Popular Vote plan would do an even better job of creating this kind of exaggerated margin than the current system.
Under the National Popular Vote compact, the nationwide winning candidate would generally receive an exaggerated margin (roughly 75%) of the votes in the Electoral College in any given presidential election. The reason is that the National Popular Vote bill guarantees that the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will receive at least 270 electoral votes (of 538) from the states belonging to the compact. Then, in addition to this bloc of at least 270 electoral votes, the nationwide winning candidate would generally receive some additional electoral votes from whichever non-compacting states he happened to carry. Because the non-compacting states would likely be divided approximately equally between the candidates, the nationwide winning candidate would generally receive an exaggerated margin (roughly 75%) of the votes in the Electoral College.
The current system does not reliably deliver an exaggerated margin to the incoming President. Despite winning by almost two million votes nationwide, Jimmy Carter won the Electoral College by only a 297–240 margin in 1976. Despite winning by over 3.5 million votes in 2004, George W. Bush won the Electoral College by only a 286–252 margin.
Of course, the current system often does more than just exaggerate an incoming President’s margin in the Electoral College as compared to his margin in the nationwide popular vote. In four out of the nation’s 55 presidential elections, the current system has actually awarded the Presidency to a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes nationwide. This is a failure rate of 1 in 14. Moreover, because about half of American presidential elections are popular-vote landslides (i.e., a margin of greater than 10% between the first- and second-place candidates), the failure rate is actually 1 in 7 among non-landslide elections.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Kohler
Nice potted history of the Electoral College there – but I was already well aware of it and as I pointed out earlier it does not matter. The reason the founders had so little to say about how an election was organised was that they did not see the primary focus of the republic as being exquisitely concerned with enabling the precise reflection of the popular will for any given moment in the government of the day. They trusted people to do what’s right in acting freely, but they did not trust that translating into government.
You’re obviously very passionate about this, but the fact remains that it how the President is elected is not of overwhelming concern when what the President does (at least domestically) can be held in check by voting in other areas. President Obama is about to find this out with a new Congress refusing to spend money on his pet desires, and even if elected to a second term, will likely find himself facing a GOP Senate also.
It’s just not as big a problem as your passionate concern would indicate.
The any election system in a representative democracy will have flaws that can be pointed to as not reflecting the will of the majority. The Electoral College is no worse than your alternative if we take a look at a couple of your complaints about the current system.
Given that the Electoral College votes for each state are proportioned on their population there is no reason to think that candidates would waste their time in such states trying to gin up the vote more than they do now – unless they think the polls in the state are even, which is exactly the situation now.
As far as big states like Texas, California, Illinois and NY are concerned it would indeed see candidates battling harder in those places – after all, why bust a gut trying to get a few Electoral College votes in Delaware when one might grind out that many from CA alone. But that hardly seems like an improvement, just another aspect of the tyranny-of-the-majority that founders sort to avoid. I’d also would not be surprised to see costs rise enormously in what are already insanely expensive Presidential elections, given that CA is the most expensive media market in the US.
If the people of a states want more attention and become a battleground state they can achieve that by splitting the vote more evenly in polling. I’m sure the GOP would love to try and get CA’s 55 votes, similarly the Dems with Texas, but the reality is that niether party’s policies or candidates have played well in the other’s areas for twenty years now. Having a chance to get a portion of them would be enticing but, as I said above, would not seem to lead to better results attention-wise than now – unless your primary concern is with big states getting big attention.
I wondered if I had inadvertently used the word exaggerated but found my comment reading thusly:
I said “mandate” and “solid victory”. You transformed this into “exaggerated” and “deferential”, and then proceeded to give a precise definition of that because you think it helps your argument:
The point of the current system is that it produces clear victories and mandates that allow the machinery of a Presidential administration to be formed and operate, while at the same time making it clear enough that said victor does not have overwhelming support. This is more of the Founders spirit at work: we voters elected you to power but we don’t entirely trust you – and we’ll be watching.
Frankly the last thing I want are Presidents winning crushing 75% victories. Their egos are already big enough without having to deal with the sort of hubris such an election would produce, in which they claim that their ideas (vague as they always are in such an election) have overwhelming support and must be implemented now. On the other hand it sounds like a leftists wet dream.
In short, the Popular Vote is an interesting idea, but it does not deliver enough superior aspects compared to the current system to justify overthrowing the latter, and it might even worsen some aspects of the current US government.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Arrgrghhh
…. there is no reason to think that candidates would waste their time in such small states….
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 10:38 am
The small states are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Most of the medium-small states (with five or six electoral votes) are similarly non-competitive in presidential elections (and therefore similarly disadvantaged). In fact, of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with three, four, five, or six electoral votes), only New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), New Mexico (five electoral votes), and Nevada (five electoral votes) have been battleground states in recent elections.
Because so few of the 22 small and medium-small states are closely divided battleground states in presidential elections, the current system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states. The New York Times reported early in 2008 (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were already in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes). In other words, three-quarters of the states were ignored under the current system in the 2008 election. Michigan (17 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and Florida (27) contain over half of the electoral votes that mattered in 2008 (85 of the 166 electoral votes). There were only three battleground states among the 22 small and medium-small states (i.e., New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada). These three states contain only 14 of the 166 electoral votes.
Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in a handful of big states.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 10:39 am
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Presidential candidates currently do everything within their power to raise as much money as they possibly can from donors throughout the country. They then allocate the money that they raise nationally to places where it will do the most good toward their goal of winning the election.
Money doesn’t grow on trees. The fact that candidates would spend their money more broadly (that is, in all 50 states) would not, in itself, loosen up the wallet of a single donor anywhere in the country. Candidates will continue to try to raise as much money as economic considerations permit. Economic considerations by donors determines how much money will be available, not the existence of an increases number of places where the money might be spent.
Under the current system, they spend two-thirds of their time and money in just six closely divided battleground states; 80% in just nine states; and 99% in just 16 states. That’s precisely what they should do in order to get elected under the current system, because the voters of two-thirds of the states simply don’t matter. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the concerns of voters of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
If every vote mattered throughout the United States, as it would under a national popular vote, candidates would reallocate the money they raise..
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Keep in mind that the main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
For example, in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties do (statewide) and will (nationwide) seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.
Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by newspapers such as the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Harford Courant, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, The Columbian, Wichita Falls Times, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Daily Astorian, Connecticut Post, MetroWest Daily News,and Sarasota Florida Herald Tribune.
The bill has been endorsed by organizations such as the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, FairVote, Sierra Club, NAACP, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, ACLU, the National Latino Congreso, Asian American Action Fund, DEMOS, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and the Brennan Center for Justice.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Being passionate – good.
Being obsessive – not good.
I’ve already explained that the US Presidency is not the be-all and end-all of the US government. The voters get to deliver their opinions and desires through more than one path. And then there’s this:
Disadvantaged in terms of pork and other goodies? Given the domestic limits of presidential power there are actually few “goodies” that a President can dish out. Once again – the whole point of the system is to try and minimise this sort of bribery.
You mean disadvantaged in that the candidates don’t come swinging into town every few weeks, pouring money into local advertising?
There’s less reason to be concerned about this than ever before. Given the spread of modern telecommunication, voters in all states have every bit as much access to information about Presidential candidates and their policies and are more a part of a national campaign than ever. The voters in tiny New Hampshire certainly don’t feel that they have been ignored and discounted. On the contrary, they take great pride in the influence they have in the primary campaigns of both the Democrats and Republicans, even if their influence on the actual subsequent election is not that great in terms of numbers.
Besides, the US voters I know in Illinois are actually quite grateful they don’t get to see more of the bullshit up close, even from candidates they prefer like Obama in 2008. But this attitude again goes back to their confidence that, even if they don’t get the President they wanted, they have other democratic, political ways of making their voices heard and desires met.
To repeat: the method of election for the US President is not as big a deal as your multiple, extensive arguments imply. It is merely one of several channels of democracy in the US, and one that should actually be made less important, not more.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Testimony from (small state) Vermont State Representative Christopher Pearson
October 18, 2007
“The United States of America is widely regarded as the greatest democracy on earth. Our president is often referred to as ‘the leader of the free world.’ And yet, our method of electing the president does not serve the country well.
To begin with – getting the most votes doesn’t guarantee you win the election. Since the civil war our system has elected the person who came in second almost 10% of the time. In five out of twelve elections the outcome has hinged on just a few votes in a few states. Had John Kerry switched 60,000 votes in Ohio, he would have won the election despite trailing the President by 3.5 million votes nationwide.
Our system also violates the bedrock principle of one person, one vote. Votes do not count equally across the country.”
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/Pearson-Testimony-PENN-2007-10-18.pdf
National Popular Vote Best Reflects the Will of the People of (small state) Hawaii
Hawaii Reporter op-Ed
By State Representative Tom Brower, D-Waikiki
April 24, 2008
“As a legislator, I am morally compelled to advocate for the system that best reflects the will of the people. As a voter, I see national popular vote as a rational, responsible means to encouraging and protecting democracy, which is particularly advantageous for a small state like ours.’ . . . I believe the Presidential elections should be equally lively and well participated. Fewer decisions are as important as the individual who runs our nation for the next four years. ”
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/op-eds/hawaiireporter_20080424.php
Ditching the antiquated Electoral College
(small state) Delaware should join reform effort
News Journa Op-Ed
By Joseph A. Pika
June 15, 2010
“Adopting rules that guarantee that the people’s choice becomes president would bring the U.S. selection process into line with democratic practices throughout the world. This change would also reduce the problems faced by a winner whose victory is seen as out of step with the people’s will.”
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/op-eds/newsjournal_20100615.php
Making Presidential Campaigns National
Campaigns and Elections Magazine op-Ed
by Saul Anuzis and Rhett Ruggerio
June 2010
“The National Popular Vote bill . . . would truly nationalize a candidate’s legitimacy and mandate.”
Saul Anuzis was Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and is now a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee
by Pat Rosenstiel
“The signers of the United States Constitution never envisioned a system where two-thirds of the states would be virtually irrelevant in selecting the President. National Popular Vote fixes that very real problem with today’s system.
The National Popular Vote plan preserves the Electoral College and ensures that every vote, in every state, in every presidential election is counted and courted by candidates for President. This is a good thing for our Republic, a good thing for our country.”
http://thefounderswereright.wordpress.com/
The Electoral College: A new approach to an increasingly serious problem
Sacramento Bee op-Ed
By Rob Richie and Ryan O’Donnell
Published February 28th 2006
“Today the Electoral College causes more harm to the principles of equality, accountability and majority rule than ever before . . . Candidates for our one national office should have incentives to speak to everyone, and all Americans should have the power to hold their president accountable. Only a national popular vote will do.”
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/op-eds/sacramentobee.php
Interesting choice of an example of a contented small state. New Hampshire is THE only smallest state with clout in presidential elections, because it is a battleground state (where the spread between the top two candidates is outside the range of 46%–54%). Candidates care about the issues that concern New Hampshire voters, and they get attention. Even so, a survey of 800 New Hampshire voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 69% overall support for a national popular vote for President. Support was 80% among Democrats, 57% among Republicans, and 69% among independents. By age, support was 65% among 18-29 year olds, 66% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65. By gender, support was 76% among women and 57% among men.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#NH_2008DEC
And your other state example, Illinois, was among the earliest states to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
Vote:December 30th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I think you should continue to ignore my points about the whole of the US government and endlessly cut and paste reams of % support figures broken down by party affiliation to demonstrate how the people are with you.
No really – obsessive pursuit of a point that is relentlessly focused on the mechanics of one path of democratic voting and is off-topic from the intent of the thread is the way to convince people and win a debate.
Vote: