| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On November 03 2008 05:59 mindspike wrote: Powerful stuff...once in a lifetime someone like this comes along I was at that rally! Its even better if you realize that a crowd of thirty thousand stood for over an hour in the rain to hear him speak. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Elric
United Kingdom1327 Posts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/matthewprice/2008/11/breaking_stereotypes_with_cupc.html Not your stereotypical redneck. | ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 03 2008 11:46 Jibba wrote: Politico floated the idea of Nader on Obama's staff. Thoughts? Interesting but I simply do not believe it will happen. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5157 Posts
On November 03 2008 01:17 Jibba wrote: http://www.hulu.com/watch/41829/saturday-night-live-mccain-qvc-open#s-p1-st-i1 http://www.hulu.com/watch/42023/saturday-night-live-backtage-sen-john-and-cindy-mccain It's a shame McCain chose such terrible advisers. Also, Cindy McCain is a depressed robot. EDIT: http://www.hulu.com/watch/42024/saturday-night-live-countdown-with-keith-olbermann#s-p1-st-i1 Holy shit that's a good Keith Olbermann. mccain was also on the weekend update, if you hadn't checked that out yet the olbermann skit was good, funny because we were just talking about him the other day in this thread. On November 03 2008 07:41 BlackJack wrote: Just got back from a Biden rally. That guy is an amazing speaker cool man, could you go into any more detail i'm really interested in this type of stuff On November 03 2008 11:02 GeneralStan wrote: I was at that rally! Its even better if you realize that a crowd of thirty thousand stood for over an hour in the rain to hear him speak. ah, nice, you were at the rain rally? awesome. that video was a bit too propaganda-ish for me but i think it's cool you went to that rally love hearing about TL'ers having these kinds of up close encounters | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
a-game
Canada5157 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5 Both Ohio and Virginia are now marked as "Toss Up"-states according to RealClearPolitics. Obama had a predicted safe/leaning electoral count of 300+ a few days ago and now he is down to 278. That's still 8 more than what he needs to win the election though and it would be surprising if ALL the 128 toss up votes went to McCain since Obama is actually slightly ahead in the polls in most of those states. It looks like its getting closer though. RCP average in the country is right now at Obama 51.1 - 44.2 McCain. As long as Obama stays above 50% I'm pretty sure he will win, bradley effect or not. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
Weirdly enough every person I've talked to in England, who is American, has been a McCain supporter. Definitely going to see a close shave, I love this drama! | ||
|
a-game
Canada5157 Posts
On November 03 2008 22:00 DrainX wrote: Looks like a lot of the states are getting more even these last few days: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5 Both Ohio and Virginia are now marked as "Toss Up"-states according to RealClearPolitics. Obama had a predicted safe/leaning electoral count of 300+ a few days ago and now he is down to 278. That's still 8 more than what he needs to win the election though and it would be surprising if ALL the 128 toss up votes went to McCain since Obama is actually slightly ahead in the polls in most of those states. It looks like its getting closer though. RCP average in the country is right now at Obama 51.1 - 44.2 McCain. As long as Obama stays above 50% I'm pretty sure he will win, bradley effect or not. eh, to be honest i prefer pollster.com or fivethirtyeight.com over RCP. i know i have RCP in the OP but that's largely because it has all those articles and news updates. their actual polling is rather shoddy tbh, they include and exclude polls for seemingly random reasons. | ||
|
Warrior Madness
Canada3791 Posts
I've been following the Rasmussen polls for a while now and apparently their latest survey shows that voters trust Obama more than Mccain on 6 out of the 10 issues as opposed to 8 out of the 10 just a few weeks ago. Now they trust Mccain more on economy and taxes. Obama still enjoys a comfortable lead on a few key electoral maps however. So if I had to guess, I'd say Obama by a squeaker. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
 1. If you vote for Obama is that automatically a vote for the democrats in the house and in the senate or are they two/three independent votes? 2. As I have understood it the senate is supposed to represent the states rather than the people. To me it sounds a bit undemocratic to have two senators from each state no matter the size of its population. What is the purpose of the senate? 3. As I have understood it if the democrats/republicans win in one state (except in one or two of them) they get all the house representatives that state has been assigned. Why aren't the representatives of each state split depending on the percentage of the votes? Sounds to me like this system makes it so there is little point in voting at all if you support the republicans in New York or the democrats in Texas. 4. Why isn't the popular vote used to determine the winner of the presidential election rather than the electoral vote? 5. I have seen that some states have one republican and one democrat senator. Is this because they have been elected different years or are there two separate polls if two senate seats are up for election the same year in one state? 6. Which system is used to distribute the House seats over the states to make sure that each seat is backed by approximately the same size of the population and how well does this system work? | ||
|
Hans-Titan
Denmark1711 Posts
On November 03 2008 23:16 DrainX wrote: 1. If you vote for Obama is that automatically a vote for the democrats in the house and in the senate or are they two/three independent votes? 2. As I have understood it the senate is supposed to represent the states rather than the people. To me it sounds a bit undemocratic to have two senators from each state no matter the size of its population. What is the purpose of the senate? 3. As I have understood it if the democrats/republicans win in one state (except in one or two of them) they get all the house representatives that state has been assigned. Why aren't the representatives of each state split depending on the percentage of the votes? Sounds to me like this system makes it so there is little point in voting at all if you support the republicans in New York or the democrats in Texas. 4. Why isn't the popular vote used to determine the winner of the presidential election rather than the electoral vote? 5. I have seen that some states have one republican and one democrat senator. Is this because they have been elected different years or are there two separate polls if two senate seats are up for election the same year in one state? 6. Which system is used to distribute the House seats over the states to make sure that each seat is backed by approximately the same size of the population and how well does this system work? 1: Those are 3 independent votes. 2: Well, the house is based on state population. Checks and Balances are the major reason for the two seperate houses, but also to try and satisfy both the smaller and larger states. 3: A house representative is elected from a specific county, so there can be, say, 2 Dem. Reps from Arizona and 8 Rep. Reps from Arizona. Click for California example 4: Kinda flawed, I agree (Gore got more total votes than Bush in 2000 IIRC). But that's the way the cookie crumbles in the US. I think part of the reason is that they don't want smaller states to be left out: if the Electoral College was split vote wise and not state wise no candidate would bother campaigning in states with a low population density, seeing as how campaigning in major cities would be way more profitable. Just speculating though... 5: All senate seets are rotated so that if noone left the senate, no more than one senate race would be in each state every year. When a senator leaves prematurely there can be two races in one state at once, and they will be on seperate ballots: this is the case in Wyoming this year. Wiki-article It can happen that a state has two senators from two different parties: opinions vary alot from year to year, and some states just love their Republican senators, despite voting Democratic for the presidential election. 6: Clicky. It's all there, but basically a mathematical formula is used to distribute the seats, and differrences in population growth is accounted for every few years: this distribution was done in 2003, next one will be in 2010. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
 Was expecting an answer from an American but sounds like you know what you are talking about ^^ | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
On November 03 2008 23:16 DrainX wrote: I know the house is voted for every second year and that the 1/3 of the senate is voted for every second year. Could some one explain to me more in detail how this happens? Have a few other more specific questions about how the system works in the US. Thanks for any answers 1. If you vote for Obama is that automatically a vote for the democrats in the house and in the senate or are they two/three independent votes? No the votes are totally separate (and it is three separate votes). 2. As I have understood it the senate is supposed to represent the states rather than the people. To me it sounds a bit undemocratic to have two senators from each state no matter the size of its population. What is the purpose of the senate? That idea is a throwback to when the senate was elected directly by the state legislature and not by the people, the 18th amendment (might be 17th but in that area) made them directly elected by the people. 3. As I have understood it if the democrats/republicans win in one state (except in one or two of them) they get all the house representatives that state has been assigned. Why aren't the representatives of each state split depending on the percentage of the votes? Sounds to me like this system makes it so there is little point in voting at all if you support the republicans in New York or the democrats in Texas. For president there really isn't a point other than symbolism to voting if your state isn't a toss-up. 4. Why isn't the popular vote used to determine the winner of the presidential election rather than the electoral vote? Because the founding fathers were afraid that people were stupid so they gave us the electoral college instead. 5. I have seen that some states have one republican and one democrat senator. Is this because they have been elected different years or are there two separate polls if two senate seats are up for election the same year in one state? It could be because the governor appointed someone of his party which isn't the party of the other current senator but normally it is because the senate elections for a state are held 2 years apart except for special circumstances 6. Which system is used to distribute the House seats over the states to make sure that each seat is backed by approximately the same size of the population and how well does this system work? They draw districts with ~populations although it doesn't give equal voice in an election due to gerrymandering. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On November 03 2008 23:16 DrainX wrote: I know the house is voted for every second year and that the 1/3 of the senate is voted for every second year. Could some one explain to me more in detail how this happens? Have a few other more specific questions about how the system works in the US. Thanks for any answers 1. If you vote for Obama is that automatically a vote for the democrats in the house and in the senate or are they two/three independent votes? 2. As I have understood it the senate is supposed to represent the states rather than the people. To me it sounds a bit undemocratic to have two senators from each state no matter the size of its population. What is the purpose of the senate? 3. As I have understood it if the democrats/republicans win in one state (except in one or two of them) they get all the house representatives that state has been assigned. Why aren't the representatives of each state split depending on the percentage of the votes? Sounds to me like this system makes it so there is little point in voting at all if you support the republicans in New York or the democrats in Texas. 4. Why isn't the popular vote used to determine the winner of the presidential election rather than the electoral vote? 5. I have seen that some states have one republican and one democrat senator. Is this because they have been elected different years or are there two separate polls if two senate seats are up for election the same year in one state? 6. Which system is used to distribute the House seats over the states to make sure that each seat is backed by approximately the same size of the population and how well does this system work? 1. No, you can (must) cast each vote independently. One for President, one for your House rep, and (1/3 of the time) one for your Senator. 2. The reason that small states are disproportionately powerful in the Senate is that the Founders were concerned that each state had its voice heard. If you study the origins of our system you'll see that the idea of States rights is the reason for a lot of aspects of the government that might not quite make sense to some people. This had a lot to do with the colonial hatred for the British and the desire to not have a controlling Federal government which might take the place of King George. 3,4. Again, the electoral college is meant to ensure that small states are not "ignored" for major population centers. I don't agree with this system, but that's the argument. I hope that in my lifetime we'll see the system change to use the popular vote. As a past resident of California and current resident of Rhode Island, I'd love to actually get to see the candidates someday. 5. Each Senate seat is voted for independently. Some states have both Senators up for re-election in the same cycle, but this is rare (this cycle, only Wyoming and Mississippi have both Senators up). 6. The system to draw house districts is an insanely political animal that, I believe, varies from state to state. In general, the State legislature of each state is responsible for this, or can at least control it to some extent. This means that many states (some more than others) have drawn their lines with no rhyme or reason other than to make seats for both parties "safer". The process works terribly, and is a constant fight in many places. For example, California has a ballot initiative tomorrow to allow a panel of retired judges to control the re-districting process; of course, even this is partisan, because someone has to appoint the judges. The idea of making districts safe by gerrymandering tends to allow the extremes of both parties to continue to be elected and hurts moderates. Google "California congressional districts map" sometime and take a look and you'll see how bizarre the results of this process are. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
| ||
|
Warrior Madness
Canada3791 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I know that was posted in the old Primaries thread, but that talk is really amazing and anyone that's worked on the campaign will greatly appreciate it. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
RSL Revival
GSL
Afreeca Starleague
Barracks vs Leta
Royal vs Light
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
