RockRaines Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) In my opinion, main difference between democrats and republicans is social issues like abortion (get out of my bedroom), marriage (get out of my life), drugs (dont tell me what I can consume.) Of the Democrats I know, none of them want big govt, they just hate big govt social conservatism. You hit on some good points there. One of the major issues in this argument is that the current GOP direction is to be kind of radically far right whereas they could steal some urban population (which has some affluent base) if they were more conservative socially. Their hard lines alienate alot of the population. People that could be republicans that live in urban areas tend to be more open to diversity and personal decisions, its part of living in such a mass of people, however they could also be in favor of republican economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Everyone in favor of the EC: Should we move all elections to this manner? Is it fair that the vote in Chicago essentially controls the governor's office in Springfield? Should we give electoral votes district-by-district for governor to that the rural areas aren't ignored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) I think everyone understands the premise...more campaign time in urban areas = exposure to more people = more votes. I fail to see how this would be the obvious equation in a popular vote scenario when it isn't the case in the electoral scenario, when the same basic principles hold true. What we are seeing now, and I don't know why this would not continue, is the following equation....more campaign time in "swing" populations = exposure to swing voters = more swing votes. Where the resources will be expended is where the votes come at a premium. The votes that come at a premium are the votes that are truly up for grabs. Thus the resources seemingly would continue to be spent on the votes that are truly up for grabs, not the ones that were already in the bag. I'm not sure why this would not continue... I think Reddy had a good explanation for it - if you focus your time on urban areas, the rural people will stop caring about voting because they're being ignored. I grew up in central Illinois (near Champaign, not exactly a tiny town and one pretty significant in the state because of the University). That was the mentality when voting for the governor. You didn't even get a campaign visit, and you sure as hell didn't get the policy proposals that actually affected your community. It's 90% Chicago, 10% everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 It's 90% of the people, 10% of the rest of the people though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 BTW jenks, way back in the start of this thread yesterday you asked if Romney had closed the gender gap. Women voted for Obama by an 18 point margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) Um, Chicago? Chicago has a stranglehold on the rest of the state. And are you kidding? That's one of the main difference currently between Dems and Republicans. It's rural v. urban. It's "get off my lawn and out of my wallet" versus "we need to provide people with more!" Chicago is an interesting example of what I was saying earlier. Chicago's population is 2.8M. The Chicago METRO area is about 9M. So there are over 6M in the suburbs, more than twice what is in the city. And suburban voter dynamics are vastly different than the city, just as they are both different from rural areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) In my opinion, main difference between democrats and republicans is social issues like abortion (get out of my bedroom), marriage (get out of my life), drugs (dont tell me what I can consume.) Of the Democrats I know, none of them want big govt, they just hate big govt social conservatism. Eh, I don't agree with that. Blacks are one of the biggest haters of homosexuals, yet 93% just voted Democrat. Perhaps the politicians yes, but not necessarily the party members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:16 PM) I think Reddy had a good explanation for it - if you focus your time on urban areas, the rural people will stop caring about voting because they're being ignored. I grew up in central Illinois (near Champaign, not exactly a tiny town and one pretty significant in the state because of the University). That was the mentality when voting for the governor. You didn't even get a campaign visit, and you sure as hell didn't get the policy proposals that actually affected your community. It's 90% Chicago, 10% everyone else. I met both mayoral candidates in high school in Pontiac I was impressed that they gave attention to some small towns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) Eh, I don't agree with that. Blacks are one of the biggest haters of homosexuals, yet 93% just voted Democrat. Perhaps the politicians yes, but not necessarily the party members. I'm not sure that's true, at least anymore. I seem to recall the numbers shifting on that, a lot, in recent time. Can't recall the numbers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) Eh, I don't agree with that. Blacks are one of the biggest haters of homosexuals, yet 93% just voted Democrat. Perhaps the politicians yes, but not necessarily the party members. I agree, I'd say the "don't hang our poor, disabled, unemployed, immigrants, minorities etc out to dry" message is more important than the social stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:20 PM) BTW jenks, way back in the start of this thread yesterday you asked if Romney had closed the gender gap. Women voted for Obama by an 18 point margin. Yeah I saw that. I think it was a story about Romney closing the gap, especially married women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:26 PM) Yeah I saw that. I think it was a story about Romney closing the gap, especially married women. He did do that with married women. Some of the fever swamps (free republic) are blaming the loss on all those unmarried whores who just wanted free contraception and abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 For the first time in history, the Democratic Party's House Delegation is not majority white-male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) Eh, I don't agree with that. Blacks are one of the biggest haters of homosexuals, yet 93% just voted Democrat. Perhaps the politicians yes, but not necessarily the party members. They dont even comprise 50% of the Democratic party. And this isnt about why people vote for Democrats, is why Democrats dont vote for Republicans. And specifically the Democrats I am referring to our professionals, academics, and others. You dont have to believe me, but if the Republicans dont change that area, they wont win. I really believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:25 PM) I agree, I'd say the "don't hang our poor, disabled, unemployed, immigrants, minorities etc out to dry" message is more important than the social stuff Well my idea isnt to change the Republican party into the Democratic Jr party. Its to present a party that can compete with the Democrats. I dont think fundamentally changing will win for the Republicans. They just need to kill their big govt social ideas and stick with small govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 11:24 PM) I'm not sure that's true, at least anymore. I seem to recall the numbers shifting on that, a lot, in recent time. Can't recall the numbers though. See: maryland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:33 PM) They dont even comprise 50% of the Democratic party. And this isnt about why people vote for Democrats, is why Democrats dont vote for Republicans. And specifically the Democrats I am referring to our professionals, academics, and others. You dont have to believe me, but if the Republicans dont change that area, they wont win. I really believe that. ? You said you though the difference between the parties was social issues, and i'm giving you a big voting block of the party that is the same as republicans. Democrats might care MORE about OTHER issues and ignore the social ones, but it's not exactly 0% on one side and 100% on the other. And I have agreed with you. Go back to my posts at the beginning of the day. I said it's time the GOP moves on from gay marriage and abortion. The battles have been lost. You can run an apathetic position on those issues, but you sure as hell can't be all vocally against them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I can understand people wanting to get rid of the EC. But, how can anyone argue that going to popular vote someone in a state like North Dakota would be worth more. The EC benefits the smaller states and gives them more of a say than their population does. I don't think the EC is perfect but popular vote isn't the answer be open to hearing other ideas to replace it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) I can understand people wanting to get rid of the EC. But, how can anyone argue that going to popular vote someone in a state like North Dakota would be worth more. The EC benefits the smaller states and gives them more of a say than their population does. I don't think the EC is perfect but popular vote isn't the answer be open to hearing other ideas to replace it. EC votes are all proportional to the states' populations so they don't get more of a say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:37 PM) ? You said you though the difference between the parties was social issues, and i'm giving you a big voting block of the party that is the same as republicans. Democrats might care MORE about OTHER issues and ignore the social ones, but it's not exactly 0% on one side and 100% on the other. And I have agreed with you. Go back to my posts at the beginning of the day. I said it's time the GOP moves on from gay marriage and abortion. The battles have been lost. You can run an apathetic position on those issues, but you sure as hell can't be all vocally against them anymore. I said the main difference. And you are using 1 block, in a very unique situation (President that is one of them). I was referring to mainstream Democrats, who could be swayed one way or the other. There are a certain amount of Republicans/Democrats that wont change no matter what. Those arent the people you are going to win and they really arent the majority of the party. Id say if you ask around most Democrats would say that it was abortion, immigration, etc that caused them to vote against Romney. Very few would say that it was taxes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) Well my idea isnt to change the Republican party into the Democratic Jr party. Its to present a party that can compete with the Democrats. I dont think fundamentally changing will win for the Republicans. They just need to kill their big govt social ideas and stick with small govt. I agree, it would make them much more competitive. They can't go libertarian though IMO because libertarians are usually okay with social regulations coming from states. Repubs need to more or less acquiesce on these non-economic things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) I got a kick out of the post election coverage at least on msnbc. Before the election they were saying how close the race was and a nailbiter, then the minute the thing is over they say the Republicans will never win a presidential election again, the Republicans are a disgrace, blah blah blah blah. Let me say this, if the Republicans have a better candidate for once or a more popular candidate, that person will win. Or let's say the Democrats go with Hillary and people early on deem her a wretched b****. Well, the Republican candidate Rubio in that case will likely win and win big. I just got a kick out of how all of a sudden the Republicans are a joke and will never win, when a day earlier, some were saying Romney might even win. It all changes in one day? Give me a break, Democratic pundits. The truth is, Obama was a very very very weak choice, in fact a joke of a choice. But the Republicans threw out there an even worse candidate somehow. And I am somebody who voted for Obama saying this. Yes I voted for Obama and still think he is a wretched president. It's just that Romney is way worse and I did want to vote. Edited November 7, 2012 by greg775 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Again, I just don't understand how equal representation at a presidential level = underrepresentation of their interests. And I won't. I don't see a good argument for how 1 person in ND is more important than 700 in California in each level of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:44 PM) I agree, it would make them much more competitive. They can't go libertarian though IMO because libertarians are usually okay with social regulations coming from states. Repubs need to more or less acquiesce on these non-economic things Agreed. They can come to more reasonable positions on those social issues - be fine with civil unions if not marriage, don't overturn Roe v. Wade but still fight for further restrictions (24 hour waiting period or something), immigration reform that doesn't deport everyone (oh wait, no one is advocating for that), etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) EC votes are all proportional to the states' populations so they don't get more of a say. No they do. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepolitical...es-By-State.htm Wyoming 3 electoral votes, population 565,000 = 1 electoral vote for every 188k people. NY 29 electoral votes, population 19.3 mil = 1 electoral vote for every 665k people. In order for NY to be as represented as Wyoming they would need to have 102 electoral votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts