Hey Bernie, you only THOUGHT you won New Hampshire........

You left out Carson?

There is no way the press was going to allow either a woman or a Black man run against Hillarious-No-More ... now way in Hell ... and as for the former prosecutor who would toss her under the bus in a New Jersey second for lying and criminally handling classified documents ... who was "embraced' by the current President and who "embraced" him ... he was toast right out of the chute!!!!

The supers will probably hold out as long as they can until it gets embarrassing, so they won't have to refund the "gratuity" for committing, or is it a "signing bonus"? Then they can call it a "defense fund"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Has Carson officially quit? The smart thing for him is to coast into South Carolina on the 20th and hope that race is an issue that he can capitalize on.

Has Carson officially quit? The smart thing for him is to coast into South Carolina on the 20th and hope that race is an issue that he can capitalize on. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No, as far as I know he hasn't. He said he'll hit S.C.

Race is not going to be as big a factor as age and gender ... based on the stats.

Carson will not get the nomination. He's been successfully trashed by the liberals as "out of touch"!

Toast.

Rubio might be the next casualty after Carson. Possibly before because Carson is pretty much out of touch with reality.

Toast.

Rubio might be the next casualty after Carson. Possibly before because Carson is pretty much out of touch with reality. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

At least he doesn't lick crappers like you, Urinal Lips...

It's definitely disturbing and should be done away with.

However, I feel the same way about the electoral college as well. The election of the president should be based on the direct vote. The fact that it is possible for one candidate to win the popular vote, but not be the president, is messed up in the same way. Originally Posted by eatfibo

the electoral college was put in place to ensure the large urban population centers of the day didn't dominate the election process. it still works to this day. clearly, you don't understand why.

the little socialists who voted for bern, and bern himself, are getting a little taste of socialism, that's all

as far as the electoral college, its fine just as it is

we have a republic not a mobocracy, at least not yet, but the dims are wanting one

the electoral college is similar to the senate, respectful of the individual states

without the electoral college, some small states would have no say in the presidential election at all

federalism would be greatly damaged, ever more power would devolve to the central government

large urban areas would be where the candidates would concentrate, it would be all about getting out the most votes for the most promises where the population centers are. i think it would increase corruption, as if that were possible Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Correct.

If we took the 10th Amendment more seriously, and repealed the 17th Amendment, the Electoral College would make more sense. But there are a lot more serious problems with our system of elections than the Electoral College.

Carson will not get the nomination. He's been successfully trashed by the liberals as "out of touch"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Case in point ....

:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

,,,,the next casualty after Carson. Possibly before because Carson is pretty much out of touch with reality.

.. and a perfect example of Pot calling the Kettle ...!

Some brains Carson couldn't fix ... but YouRong has none to fix.

Look out Bernie, Jim Webb may reenter the race.

It's definitely disturbing and should be done away with.

However, I feel the same way about the electoral college as well. The election of the president should be based on the direct vote. The fact that it is possible for one candidate to win the popular vote, but not be the president, is messed up in the same way. Originally Posted by eatfibo

It gives equal say to the smaller states, dumbshit. Otherwise all presidents would be elected by the voters on the east and west coast.

Again, people, I understand why it was put in place. But we don't live in that time anymore and we know how it doesn't really stop the problem, it just shifts the problem.

What happens now is that the money and focus is poured into swing states. Why is it okay for them to focus on swing states, but not on coastal states? It seems like such an arbitrary distinction. This makes it much easier to attempt to buy an election, because you only have to focus your efforts in certain areas, instead of appealing to the most people in the country as a whole.

If the problem exists no matter what (focusing on specific areas), shouldn't each individual, when it comes to electing their representative, have equal say as everyone else?

Look out Bernie, Jim Webb may reenter the race. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I'm uncertain about ballot deadlines. I think a bunch of these states have December 2015 cutoff dates with petition requirements. The requirements are tad more onerous than BigTitsIdiot2016 getting his name on the Idiot ballot. He's politicking now for 2017 .... BigTits that is.

I'm uncertain about ballot deadlines. I think a bunch of these states have December 2015 cutoff dates with petition requirements. The requirements are tad more onerous than BigTitsIdiot2016 getting his name on the Idiot ballot. He's politicking now for 2017 .... BigTits that is. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Could be , there is a chart in link.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/times-run...-the-2016-race

the electoral college allows people to have an equal say,

doing away with it wouldn't

the number of electors given states based on population winnows down the worth of a vote in a small state to the mean.

the electoral college system increases the worth of a single vote within a state as opposed to the worth of a vote in a national election. every single vote is worth more, no matter a given state's size, than it would be worth in a national election.

then because the number of electors a given state receives is based on it's population size, the worth of all votes are indirectly equalized, but the current system gives each state some say

doing away with it would also severely damage federalism, all states at least have some sway currently

swing states are not near the issue as large population centers would be without the electoral college, as they come and they go.

the dims had some scheme to make texas purple.
they made the once red state of Virginia purple, if not blue.
Wisconsin may go the other way.
florida is the current idea of a swing state, that once solid conservative state, but with all the new yorkers retiring there, who probably vote in both states, its changed.
Colorado has changed.

large cities rarely, if ever reduce in size, they only ever grow, and that's where the favoritism and electioneering would head, and remain, and would not change near as readily as a swing state might, without the electoral college

but what would change is the idea and concept and the idealistic idea it might be, of 50 separate states

along with a type of protection of the minority

the electoral college allows people to have an equal say, Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

No it doesn't. Electoral votes are distributed to the states by their number of seats in congress. And even the seat distribution isn't even close to even based on difficulties in balancing. This means that there are less than 200k people per electoral in Wyoming, but over 700k per electoral vote in Texas. This means a vote in Wyoming is worth 3 votes in Texas.

the number of electors given states based on population winnows down the worth of a vote in a small state to the mean.

Except the number of electors isn't just based on the population.

the electoral college system increases the worth of a single vote within a state as opposed to the worth of a vote in a national election. every single vote is worth more, no matter a given state's size, than it would worth be in a national election.

This doesn't make any logical sense. "Worth more" is a relative term. If they are all "worth more" than they are all worth the same. It's like saying if everyone is a winner, nobody really is.

then because the number of electors a given state receives is based on it's population size, all vote worth's are indirectly equalized

Again, this is wrong.

doing away with it would also severely damage federalism, all states at least have some sway currently

And a lot of individuals lose their say. You would rather "the states" have say in the election of the president, I would rather it be up to the individuals they represent.

swing states are not an issue, they come and they go.

Who cares if they come and go? It usually isn't much of a guess which states are going to be the swing states. So the presidential nominee focus their efforts in those few states. You accept that this is a problem for large states, but not for swing states. If the electoral college solved the problem it was trying to solve, spreading out the campaigning and promises, I would be all for it. But the reality is that it just switched who they were focusing on and, at the same time, took some of the power out of the citizen's hands to elect their leaders.

large cities rarely, if ever reduce in size, and that's where the favoritism and electioneering would head, and remain, without the electoral college

I don't get why it "switching around" changes anything. Why should people in large cities get screwed for living in a large city?

the little socialists who voted for bern, and bern himself, are getting a little taste of socialism, that's all

as far as the electoral college, its fine just as it is

we have a republic not a mobocracy, at least not yet, but the dims are wanting one

the electoral college is similar to the senate, respectful of the individual states

without the electoral college, some small states would have no say in the presidential election at all

federalism would be greatly damaged, ever more power would devolve to the central government

large urban areas would be where the candidates would concentrate, it would be all about getting out the most votes for the most promises where the population centers are. i think it would increase corruption, as if that were possible Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You have it exactly backwards. The electoral college negates the input of smaller states, and gives inordinate sway to larger states. In order to win 100% of the electoral from a state, you need only secure the most votes, even if you don't earn 50.1%.

Lets say we have 5 states.

Four states each have a population of 200,000
One state has a population of 1 million

Electors are apportioned to each state according to population. For each 50,000 people you get 1 elector. So the 4 states each get 4 electors. The fifth state gets 20 electors.

Candidate A runs a nationwide campaign, visiting each state, and spending campaign dollars in every state on ads, events, etc. For his efforts in the smaller states, he receives 70% of the vote in the 4 small states. He earns 16 electors, and gets a total of 560,000. He gets 49.9% of the votes in the fifth state. He earns no electors there, but gets a total of 499,900 votes, for a total of 1,059,000 votes.

Candidate B is no dummy. He flies over the 4 small states, focusing only on the fifth state. He invests all of his resources on campaigning in that state. For his efforts he receives 50.1% of the vote in that state. He gets 20 electors, and 501,000 votes. In the smaller states he only earns a total of 240,000.

Candidate B wins the election with 20 electors to Candidate A's 16. However, Candidate A trounced his opponent in the popular vote with 1,059,000 to 741,000 votes.

In other words, THIS is why we see so little of the candidates out campaigning in Iowa (after the primaries that is), Kansas, Nebraska, and all the other "fly over" states. The electors in these states simply aren't worth the investment of time and resources to candidates.

In a system where every single vote counts the same as any other, then every vote counts, regardless of whether it is cast in Kansas, Texas, or California - making every state worth campaigning in, and speaking to.