It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


2012: Obama Landslide Repeated?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Golf66

All that said; a popular vote would be worse as according to this map….

If even half of the people of the State of California, New York, Florida and Texas voted for a certain candidate they could in effect negate 100% of the votes (which is not likely that 100% of a State would vote for one candidate but for the sake of argument bear with me) of more than 15-20 of the other States thus totally making the voices of the people of those States irrelevant. If you add a couple more of the key Dem voting States like IL, and WI etc. it'd be worse. If we switched to a popular vote the liberal States would dictate national policy. (That would be cool then we could all be bankrupt like them).

Anyway once we start writing off States no one will campaign there, listen to or care about the citizen’s wishes for 15-20 of the States. They would become totally irrelevant – who would care about them then in the federal scheme of things? It would be just like in 1860 - the winner a foregone conclusion. We all know how that turned out.

edit on 27/9/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

There are a number of ATS members out there that should read what you have written here over and over again. The above well written explanation of the popular vote is exactly why the electoral college does exist. Without it, the smaller states would have no true say in elections. Great job with your response.

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by Golf66

Your argument seems to be that just a few "Democratic states" dictate all the elections by having so much say.
So I guess one party always wins?

No - my argument was for keeping the electoral college as if we went with the popular vote (Guess which party wants that?) Then it could happen that the more populated NE States (who vote liberal more than not) along with California, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin Illinois (who also vote liberal could negate the entire rest of the country. So in effect 1/3 or less of the States could in effect dictate to the rest what the national agenda would be. Large population centers tend to vote democrat thus they’d lock it up. It’s bad enough with the EC the apportioned the way it is that you can see a literal sea of red in the middle of the US with blue edges and have a Democratic POTUS. They don’t even need to try and worry about what the flyovers want – we have become irrelevant.

Last time that happened (1860) we had secessions and a Civil War. No one likes being ignored.

If it were not for the large population of Texas and Florida and their conservative leanings we would never have another conservative POTUS.

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Alxandro
Any true objective voter should have known the polls were skewed when they "revealed" 0% of blacks support Romney.
These same polls had Carter ahead of Reagan, and the landslide went in the other direction.

Btw, ever wonder why the economy tends to do slightly better when Obama is vacationing, campaigning or golfing?

You do know your avatar is an Obama supporter, right? I love the irony.

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:45 AM
Perhaps the funniest thing in all this election is the Right's carping about Obama's record. Anyone with 1/2 a brain knows the record extent to which the Republican Party has actively worked to destroy the economy the past four years, putting their own power above American interests. Anyone with 1/3 a brain knows the toxic sinkhole Obama walked into where the head of the Fed and Paulson at Treasury literally told leaders of Congress that if they did not act immediately with an unprecedented (and unpopular) bail out of the banks they'd wake up -- literally -- on Monday morning to NO economy in the U.S. That's near verbatim what they told leadership.

And the grandest of them all....anyone with 1/8th of a brain want to imagine what the world would have looked like with had McCain and Palin....PALIN... won? We'd be in a blood bath in Iran and Syria, likely in active fighting with Russian elements. We'd still be in Iraq. There'd be a draft because our resources would have been drained. Our economy would be in tatters, with food lines 2 miles long in every major city.

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 02:00 AM
Personally I don't like either of them, but let's face it Obama is going to win this next election, Romney really doesnt stand a chance at this point. Obama is already ahead in the polls and swing states aren't looking very good for romney either.

Mr. Romney’s comments about the “47 percent” of Americans seemed to be undercutting him with other working-class voters here. “This last thing, where he was going on about the 47 percent who are dependent on government, is hard to swallow,” said Kenneth Myers, a Republican who lives in Mansfield and is unemployed. “I think I’m part of the 47 percent he is talking about. But I don’t want to be dependent on the government.”

<< 1  2   >>

log in