2012 Election results (spoiler alert)

Mott the Hoople said:
The only Repelican candidate who stands a snowballs chance in hell against Obama is Romney. Mainstream America won't tolerate another right wing wacko in the White house. Romney is the only competent moderate the Repelicans have....and I would consider voting for a man with his significant record of accomplishment. If Repelicans nominate anyone but Romney then it will be 4 more years of Obama.....which is fine by me.....God help this nation if some looney reactionary like Bachman get's nomnated. Repelicans need to nominate a candidate that will appeal to middle America.....their not going to do that with Bachman, Pawlenty or the rest of the bag of mixed nuts.
Click to expand...
if he doesn't get his act together and make his fourth year in office a lot different than his first three, the DEMS need to nominate a candidate that will appeal to middle America.......
 
obama-laughing.jpg
 
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, but Obama will certainly win Michigan (what makes you believe otherwise?) and lose the election. He will lose Florida, Ohio, several other swing states, and possibly even New Jersey and Wisconsin. This election has 1980 written all over it. Romney has to start fighting, though. So far the only GOP candidates who are willing to fight are Bachman, Cain, and Paul, none of whom are electable.
 
Volt said:
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, but Obama will certainly win Michigan (what makes you believe otherwise?) and lose the election. He will lose Florida, Ohio, several other swing states, and possibly even New Jersey and Wisconsin. This election has 1980 written all over it. Romney has to start fighting, though. So far the only GOP candidates who are willing to fight are Bachman, Cain, and Paul, none of whom are electable.
Click to expand...
I don't know were you got the idea Obama will carry MI, since all but three counties voted red in 2010 (Wayne, Macomb and Oakland)
 
Sterling Archer said:
He won't hold all the swing states (like I said MI is gonna be red). But he'll still take around 310 in the electoral. I'll post a map later. PA, OH, WI, MN are certainly gonna be blue. IN probably will be red but that's not a sure thing.

And technically speaking, either candidate can win 100% of the popular vote and still lose the electoral college. The electors are not bound to follow the popular results.
Click to expand...

Unless you have districts that are specifically gerrymandered, or the districts are hugely distorted, a winner-take-all system almost always follows the popular vote, and only really fails to in very close elections (in which case, it's still unlikely). The states, of course, can't be gerrymandered, and the +2 guaranteed overrepresentation isn't usually enough to make that much of a difference (although, again, it can matter in very close elections, the effect of the winner-take-all system in allowing the big states to throw all of their electors towards one candidate generally equalize things - if electors were proportionally distributed, it would make a larger difference). At a 57%-43% ratio, the chance of the electoral vote not following the popular vote is probably in the millionths.
 
Volt said:
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion, but Obama will certainly win Michigan (what makes you believe otherwise?) and lose the election. He will lose Florida, Ohio, several other swing states, and possibly even New Jersey and Wisconsin. This election has 1980 written all over it. Romney has to start fighting, though. So far the only GOP candidates who are willing to fight are Bachman, Cain, and Paul, none of whom are electable.
Click to expand...

The election has 1984 written all over it.
 
Why do you think he's going to lose New Jersey? New Jersey went for Obama by a 15 point margin in 2008. If there's a 15 point swing against Obama, he's going to lose a hell of a lot more than just New Jersey. He may lose some big states like Florida, which hurts, but he has a lot of room to lose electors without throwing the election.
 
Grand Wizard Watermark said:
Unless you have districts that are specifically gerrymandered, or the districts are hugely distorted, a winner-take-all system almost always follows the popular vote, and only really fails to in very close elections (in which case, it's still unlikely). The states, of course, can't be gerrymandered, and the +2 guaranteed overrepresentation isn't usually enough to make that much of a difference (although, again, it can matter in very close elections, the effect of the winner-take-all system in allowing the big states to throw all of their electors towards one candidate generally equalize things - if electors were proportionally distributed, it would make a larger difference). At a 57%-43% ratio, the chance of the electoral vote not following the popular vote is probably in the millionths.
Click to expand...
I was saying that the electors are not in any way legally obliged to follow the popular vote of their state. Theoretically they can vote for whomever they want. Realistically that hasn't happened and probably never will.
 
Sterling Archer said:
They're not required to vote any certain way. While it's never happened that way, it certainly is allowed.
Click to expand...
The distribution of electoral votes are determined by the laws of the respective states. Care to show ONE state whose laws allow the College delegates to completely ignore the popular vote?
 
Good Luck said:
The distribution of electoral votes are determined by the laws of the respective states. Care to show ONE state whose laws allow the College delegates to completely ignore the popular vote?
Click to expand...
Are they? It was my understanding otherwise. If that's not the case than I retract my statements and admit error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top