California is "Safe Obama", and Your Vote for Romney is Meaningless Here

I live in a heavily Republican county in California, and so of course the signs for Romney/Ryan are everywhere. Along with the numerous campaign signs/billboards for local political races, the Romney/Ryan signs are ubiquitous and unavoidable.

I'm not voting in the 2012 U.S. elections for personal reasons, but seeing all of the signs and other advertisements for Romney/Ryan has me puzzled on a common sense level.

I know that numerous signs and campaign ads are the norm for election season, but anyone who looks into the matter knows that California is "Safe Obama" for this election, and the Golden State will turn blue on the Electoral College map just minutes after the polls close. It's been this way in every election in 1992.

So what is the point of all of the Romney/Ryan advertising? I understand loyalty to political party, and that I'm in a heavily-Republican county. But couldn't all of the money that went into all those signs and ads been spent doing something else? Like helping Romney win in the close states?

I think the electoral college is garbage, but it lives on. Obama is locked in as the winner for 2012, according to virtually all media projections.

Doesn't this make a vote for Romney in California completely meaningless?

Party loyalty gets people out to vote on other important races and issues. That is the simple reason.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

you hit the nail on the head they know they cant swing cali red on a presidential level but they can occasionally get republican governors and a bunch of other laws passed by wining senate and house seats while conceding the presidential race,pretty much the further you get from the coast the redder the voting districts get at-least that's how i pictured it.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Party loyalty gets people out to vote on other important races and issues. That is the simple reason.

I agree; let me point out that there are virtually no Obama signs/ads anywhere in sight around town. Even though he's heavily favored to win the state.

It's as if it's not ok to publicly support Obama out here.

Originally posted by gfthree7

I'm not voting in the 2012 U.S. elections for personal reasons,

I stopped reading right there.
No need to go on.

For the sake of argument...If one were to make Los Angeles County and the counties of the Bay Area equal in standing to the rest of the state's populated areas, I'd say California would be anything but a toss up, 2008 went for Obama pretty heavily...yet even there..I hadn't guessed how split California actually is OUTSIDE of the 1000lb Gorilla the literal population numbers of those half dozen counties add.

A County by County national overview of voting blocks for 2008

...as well as similar displays for the 2010 Midterms.

Source

Ugh.... Looking at those, it just reinforces my worst fears about this, no matter WHO wins. It's going to be similar to 2000 for expectations right from the opening of the polls Tuesday morning.

Oh please...Whoever loses..I don't care which. Whoever it is...just take it and get clear. Don't fight for weeks or months over pennies...not unless something REAL clear and VERY compelling demands a fight for what's right in the process. Geeze... Our nation can't take another Presidential Election with the winner decided with mere thousands out of the whole nation's vote.

The majority of non East/West Coast states have the same issue, except with Obama. Which is kind of screwed up. A handful of populous states shouldn't lord over every other section of the nation. That's the electoral system, I guess.
Anyone in a "Safe Obama"/"Safe Romney" state, who's tired of the status quo, should vote for Gary Johnson. He obviously won't win, but a strong popular vote could make a statement to whoever does win, esp if it is Romney. His party has a strong Libertarian contingent. I have a feeling Obama would simply ignore it.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant


A popular voote would give 13 metropolitan areas the literal population totals to account for every vote cast in 2008. 13 major cities....would, in theory, be capable of ending the election without so much as looking at the rest of the nation.

The electoral college is the only reason the red in the middle has ANY say at all. Population to popular vote would truly make the whole center of the nation a place President's wouldn't have reason to even land in unless they lived there.

I would actually agree with you about not having a Presidential election based on a popular vote. However, the current electoral system is also unfair to the "flyover states". Maybe the nation is simply too big and too heterogoneous to run "one size fits all" solutions. If the 10th Amendment were re-instated (or just acknowledged as an actual amendment and part of the Constitutional law of the land), this wouldn't be an issue since the President wouldn't be nearly as powerful anyway.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

Well heck... I don't know what to do when someone doesn't stubbornly stick to the extreme of one side or the other!

Seriously... If both sides can agree to a true spirit of finding a logical and fair way of reforming it, as opposed to who can arm twist and threaten the other side more effectively behind closed doors....I really can't argue with the idea that the current system COULD sure work better.

It's gotten to where I hesitate to leave even that much open on a position though, because some seem to make great sport of taking any minor hitch in a position and using it like a hammer. Nice to see compromise isn't entirely dead! There be hope after all..maybe?

Yeah... Fair enough. The current system isn't ideal. Maybe after the silly season passes ...who knows. We'll see what the future brings I guess.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by gfthree7

I'm not voting in the 2012 U.S. elections for personal reasons,

I stopped reading right there.
No need to go on.

That's certainly ok with me.

I don't believe in the notion that if you don't vote in the elections you have no right to observe or commentate on them in any way. I'm not telling anyone who to vote for, nor am I explaining why I'm not voting.

This thread is about Romney/Ryan signs/advertising dominating the landscape in a Republican county, which lies within a state that is virtually a lock for Obama. Why does the Romney campaign still spend so much $ on ads and signs here?

Many of you have provided good discussion.

For saying so I hope that Romney wins California as implausable as it may seem. I choose to live in in a world where anything is possible.

AS others have mentioned, there are other matters at hand in your election, not just President. While California traditionally goes to the Democratic candidate, there are a number of other issues for you to vote on at that same time, many of which probably have a bigger impact on your life that who ends up elected as President. You should vote, just for that reason!

This is coming from one living in Texas that has no intention of voting for Romney. My vote still counts. You should consider what Wrabbit said about the electoral college. It is our best option. Without it, Texas would no longer be a Republican lock, as the big cities trend Democrat, but the large rural areas which make up the majority of the state are solid Republican.

It is highly likely that switching to a straight popular vote would mean you would never see another Republican President. For one side to gain all the control would certainly be a terrible thing.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
For the sake of argument...If one were to make Los Angeles County and the counties of the Bay Area equal in standing to the rest of the state's populated areas, I'd say California would be anything but a toss up, 2008 went for Obama pretty heavily...yet even there..I hadn't guessed how split California actually is OUTSIDE of the 1000lb Gorilla the literal population numbers of those half dozen counties add.

A County by County national overview of voting blocks for 2008

...as well as similar displays for the 2010 Midterms.

Source

Ugh.... Looking at those, it just reinforces my worst fears about this, no matter WHO wins. It's going to be similar to 2000 for expectations right from the opening of the polls Tuesday morning.

Oh please...Whoever loses..I don't care which. Whoever it is...just take it and get clear. Don't fight for weeks or months over pennies...not unless something REAL clear and VERY compelling demands a fight for what's right in the process. Geeze... Our nation can't take another Presidential Election with the winner decided with mere thousands out of the whole nation's vote.

edit on 21-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

I agree with what you're saying here....

In other words, the electoral college system is a farce.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
AS others have mentioned, there are other matters at hand in your election, not just President. While California traditionally goes to the Democratic candidate, there are a number of other issues for you to vote on at that same time, many of which probably have a bigger impact on your life that who ends up elected as President. You should vote, just for that reason!

This is coming from one living in Texas that has no intention of voting for Romney. My vote still counts. You should consider what Wrabbit said about the electoral college. It is our best option. Without it, Texas would no longer be a Republican lock, as the big cities trend Democrat, but the large rural areas which make up the majority of the state are solid Republican.

It is highly likely that switching to a straight popular vote would mean you would never see another Republican President. For one side to gain all the control would certainly be a terrible thing.

Star for a well-thought out, concise argument in favor of the electoral college. I would argue that the two-party system itself is the terrible thing, and the electoral college perpetuates the two-party system.