The Official 2012 Presidential Election Thread

[Asher]

I'm more referring to your obvious hyperbole.

Hyperbole? Really?

You're still detached from reality.

[Asher]

Am I missing something because he hasn't posted a tweet in 6 hours?

Uhh...he's posted a lot.

[Barnabas]

I think, if the republicans want to survive, they will have to become something similar to the european Christian Democracy parties (for example Merkel or Adenauer) a little more welfare, the social conservatism isn't making them lose votes, it is the economic issues.

[Barnabas]

I agree on the American electoral system making no sense, the guy who gets the most votes should always win, Gore should have been president, and Kennedy should never have been president (IIRC Nixon got more votes than him)

[Boris Godunov]

Kennedy won the popular vote.

[giblets]

Obama will probably win the popular vote. Trump is too stupid to understand that most of the California votes haven't been counted yet.

[DaShi]

To be honest, I was a bit surprised that Romney wasn't able to lie his way into the presidency, but he did get too damn close.

[snoopy369]

I agree on the American electoral system making no sense, the guy who gets the most votes should always win, Gore should have been president, and Kennedy should never have been president (IIRC Nixon got more votes than him)

Kennedy/Nixon is debated, because of the Alabama weirdness (at the time, Alabama allowed people to vote up to ten times, once per elector in the college). You could justify saying either won the popular vote. In any event, you don't understand the electoral college because you're not American. Suffice it to say that we're more a collection of states than a single nation, and thus prefer to do things this way.

Also, the Republicans have reasonably sane economic issues that are in line with quite a few folks' opinions. Social issues are where they're looney tunes, at least, again, in America. The only reason I won't necessarily say that they would improve their lot greatly by moderating the social side of things, is that you might end up with a third party of social extremists, ie, some conglomeration of southerners and rural midwesterners, sort of like in the civil rights era.

[Barnabas]

Thanks for the correction, I was sure I read that when the Gore Bush Florida happened last decade.

[giblets]

Washington and Colorado

The marijuana legalization initiative that seems to have passed today in Colorado (and a similar one that may well pass in Washington as well) is, I think, a bigger deal than people realize. Unlike jurisdictions that have "decriminalized" marijuana, this aims to create a genuine honest-to-God legal marijuana industry. It goes even beyond what the Netherlands has done, where small scale marijuana retailing is permitted but large-scale production and wholesaling is really existing in a gray area.

In principle, a true legal marijuana regime could be a totally revolutionary situation. Imagine amber waves of pot and big factories drying and packaging the joints just as in the heyday of the cigarette industry.

But before you buy land to start your marijuana farm, note that the drug is still illegal in the United States of America and that Colorado is one of the United States of America. Consequently, if you try to set up a large-scale pot business you're liable to get busted by the DEA. So expect a lot of clashes around this and a sticky situation for the Obama administration.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/06/colorado_marijuana_legalization_initiative_clashes_between_states_and_feds.html

Oh and Maryland voted in favor of same sex marriage. Overall a great night for freedom

[Asher]

Bill O'Reilly has also flown off the handle.

"It's Not a Traditional America Anymore... The White Establishment Is Now a Minority..."

[Hauldren Collider]

Kennedy/Nixon is debated, because of the Alabama weirdness (at the time, Alabama allowed people to vote up to ten times, once per elector in the college). You could justify saying either won the popular vote. In any event, you don't understand the electoral college because you're not American. Suffice it to say that we're more a collection of states than a single nation, and thus prefer to do things this way.

Also, the Republicans have reasonably sane economic issues that are in line with quite a few folks' opinions. Social issues are where they're looney tunes, at least, again, in America. The only reason I won't necessarily say that they would improve their lot greatly by moderating the social side of things, is that you might end up with a third party of social extremists, ie, some conglomeration of southerners and rural midwesterners, sort of like in the civil rights era.

They don't need to moderate their stance on abortion. Immigration and gay marriage, yes they do.

Lots of people in the Democratic camp would switch to the GOP if the GOP decided to align with the democrats on those issues. The GOP could pick up about half of gay folks and most hispanics, who are naturally conservative.

[snoopy369]

I disagree and think gerrymandering has helped the Republicans significantly. It's got to be worth at least half the number of seats the Democrats needed.
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/1...redistricting/

I don't buy the explanations in that blog at all. He seems to be making all sorts of assumptions based on what could be simply shifts in PID and/or opinion.

In any event, this really isn't one of those things that can be blamed on the Republicans. The Dems controlled redistricting for the last, what, 50 years at least, on average? Given how thoroughly many states have been gerrymandered, it would be surprising for the average NOT to swing back some.

And then you have states like IL, where the dems gerrymandered themselves at least 3 seats by being somewhat risky in their choices (they created 3 55% or so Dem districts, which they barely won).

[kentonio]

In any event, you don't understand the electoral college because you're not American.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

[snoopy369]

And in proper Illinois fashion, we re-elected an expelled, indicted state House rep...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-indicted-ex-lawmaker-derrick-smith-leading-state-house-race-20121106,0,896416.story

Guess what, despite being kicked out of the house with a 100-6 vote, he now can't be kicked out unless/until he's convicted, which would take years more than likely. God my state is full of idiots.