Republicans agree the 2012 election was a LANDSLIDE

This is how Romney really feels about Obama

reply to post by neo96


Because the smaller states how proportionally lower populations, never mind incredibly low representation in overall GDP on a per state basis, because the states that went blue on Tuesday produce 2/3 of the nations wealth in absolute GDP?

How would giving a state with 1/300th the population of say, California, a veto of California's electorate, be rational "fair" or remotely democratic?

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


There is an interesting set of maps:
www-personal.umich.edu...
adjusted for population. Red starts to run very, very thin.

reply to post by Kaploink


Yeah, the bankIng execs made out like bandits during the GW era.

After repubs turned control of our country to the banks.

reply to post by neo96


So you thing Maine with it's 1 million or so should be the same electoral votes as as California with 37 million people. Something tells me you are from a state with small amount of electoral votes

reply to post by muse7


Landslide? Not even close...

Ronald Reagan: 489 Carter: 49 Reagan won all but six states and DC.
Ronald Reagan: 525 Mondale: 13. Reagan won all but one state and DC.
George H.W. Bush: 426 Dukakis: 111. Bush won all but 10 states and DC.

Now that's a landslide! According to what I see, this country is deeply divided between the urban dwellers and rural dwellers. Thems that eat the food and thems that grow the food. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next four years!

reply to post by muse7


Call it what you want. It's not going to make it any easier to actually get things done. The people elected a Democratic President and a Republican House. They're gonna have to meet somewhere in the middle.