The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012

[BFT3K]

What do you guys, from all sides of the isle, think of this strategy?

Serious question, what do you think about this, and why?


Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.

continues here...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...eat-obama-2012

[Joshua G]

no different then when a florida supreme court throws out an entire vote count & orders all the counties to re-count the votes based on standards they can make up on the fly.

[V_RocKs]

Lovely system...

[Gouge]

Odd they would try this in Pennsylvania considering both Maine and Nebraska Republicans voted in the last few years to go back to the winner-take-all system. Pennsylvania is generally considered a swing state, although it has voted Democratic in the last five elections. Barry won by about 11% in 08 and i doubt it will change that much this time around considering there voting record over the past 20 years.

And lets be serious, Pennsylvania can be lost if you take Ohio and Florida and you are holding California and New York, and we all know those two states are never going Red. Anyway its a dumb idea, the winner-take-all system is still ok in my book.

[raymor]

So if candidate wins half the state, he gets half the electoral votes.
If he wins 10% of the districts, he gets 10% of the electoral votes. Hmm, sounds a lot more democratic. Democracy - how devious.

[Ronzo]

This only matters if the election is close, and it won't be. Romney or Perry will trounce Obama the same way Reagan overwhelmed Carter. It's already taking shape. And, if the emerging Solyndra scandal grows and implicates the White House as being either corrupt or highly-negligent... as uncovered e-mails seem to indicate... Barry Obama won't have a prayer.

[kane]

Originally Posted by raymor

So if candidate wins half the state, he gets half the electoral votes.
If he wins 10% of the districts, he gets 10% of the electoral votes. Hmm, sounds a lot more democratic. Democracy - how devious.

Actually is based on districts not total votes. Here is an example right from the article: "Under the Republican plan, if the GOP presidential nominee carries the GOP-leaning districts but Obama carries the state, the GOP nominee would get 12 electoral votes out of Pennsylvania, but Obama would only get eight?six for winning the blue districts, and two (representing the state's two senators) for winning the state. "

What this does is allow the republicans to redistrict the state any way they want so Obama could win 75% of the vote and still not get as many electoral votes as the republican.

This is another perfect example of why the electoral collage is outdated and rife with potential corruption and needs to be done away with. No more electoral votes. It should be one big nationwide vote, the candidate that gets the most votes wins just like every other election we have.

[$5 submissions]

I didn't click when I saw the link had "mother" and "jones" on it. Not exactly a balanced source.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by kane

Actually is based on districts not total votes. Here is an example right from the article: "Under the Republican plan, if the GOP presidential nominee carries the GOP-leaning districts but Obama carries the state, the GOP nominee would get 12 electoral votes out of Pennsylvania, but Obama would only get eight?six for winning the blue districts, and two (representing the state's two senators) for winning the state. "

What this does is allow the republicans to redistrict the state any way they want so Obama could win 75% of the vote and still not get as many electoral votes as the republican.

This is another perfect example of why the electoral collage is outdated and rife with potential corruption and needs to be done away with. No more electoral votes. It should be one big nationwide vote, the candidate that gets the most votes wins just like every other election we have.

[dodger21]

I don't think the GOP has to worry. Obama is doing a pretty good job of defeating himself.

Originally Posted by BFT3K

What do you guys, from all sides of the isle, think of this strategy?

Serious question, what do you think about this, and why?


Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election?not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.

continues here...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...eat-obama-2012

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by kane

This is another perfect example of why the electoral collage is outdated and rife with potential corruption and needs to be done away with. No more electoral votes. It should be one big nationwide vote, the candidate that gets the most votes wins just like every other election we have.

Except of course for two things. One, the constitution, (i.e. the 10th amendment and all it's implications), and two, the electoral college is that only way that people that don't live in big cities can still have a say in national elections. The fact is that what is important to people in NY is not the same as what is important to people in Wyoming. Each state needs to have a say or you will end up with LESS representative government.



.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

This only matters if the election is close, and it won't be. Romney or Perry will trounce Obama the same way Reagan overwhelmed Carter. It's already taking shape. And, if the emerging Solyndra scandal grows and implicates the White House as being either corrupt or highly-negligent... as uncovered e-mails seem to indicate... Barry Obama won't have a prayer.

Romney or Perry will not be the nominees

[BFT3K]

The Republitards know, for a fact, that if every legal American were to vote, and every vote carried equal weight, the GOP would almost always lose.

I would love for voting to become equal and compulsory here in the states. Most people are not in the top 2% tax bracket for example.

This is why the Republitards continuously play fucking games with our democracy. If it was an equal playing field, they would almost always lose.

[nickey1952]

First they need a candidate with a brain, not someone that will pray us out of being gay or one that believes Jesus will save us all. The should ask Palin and Bachman to have a stripping contest and then they migh have a chance...

[ruff]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

This only matters if the election is close, and it won't be. Romney or Perry will trounce Obama the same way Reagan overwhelmed Carter. It's already taking shape. And, if the emerging Solyndra scandal grows and implicates the White House as being either corrupt or highly-negligent... as uncovered e-mails seem to indicate... Barry Obama won't have a prayer.

We better hope Romney or Perry don't win or this country will go to hell in a handbasket. You think the Republicans are going to fix the mess they got us into in the first place? We need to get the Republicans the fuck out of office so this country can move forward.

[Brujah]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

I didn't click when I saw the link had "mother" and "jones" on it. Not exactly a balanced source.

but you'll post links and youtube videos featuring crackpots.

[Tom_PM]

Boehner just laid out the GOP plan.

No tax credits for the non-wealthy, less regulations on businesses, ban all tax increases including banning the expiration of the bush tax cuts which bush set to expire years ago, and cut entitlement spending which again applies only to the non-wealthy.

The only surprise was that he didnt wear a black mask or carry a big sack with a dollar sign on it.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

The Republitards know, for a fact, that if every legal American were to vote, and every vote carried equal weight, the GOP would almost always lose.

I would love for voting to become equal and compulsory here in the states. Most people are not in the top 2% tax bracket for example.

This is why the Republitards continuously play fucking games with our democracy. If it was an equal playing field, they would almost always lose.

actually, if only people who paid income tax were allowed to vote, there wouldn't even BE a democratic party.

[ReGGs]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

actually, if only people who paid income tax were allowed to vote, there wouldn't even BE a democratic party.

If your solution is making the poor pay more in taxes it's gonna be a long time till the problem is solved especially when you factor in the whole thing about them really not having any money. You know.. Poor.

Considering the group that doesn't pay any income taxes truthfully only makes up 1% of the country I am sure the democratic party will be just fine. When you get past the soundbites of "50% pay no taxes!" you realize that the truth is a little more complicated. As usual.

"The Tax Policy Center?s estimate means that some 76 million households won?t pay federal income tax in 2011. But they still owe other taxes. About two-thirds pay payroll taxes, and most pay state and local income and sales taxes as well as excise taxes on gas, tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol. Of the one third who don?t pay payroll taxes, more than half are elderly who no longer work, and just under half are families with incomes under $20,000. Only about 1 percent of the population pays neither income nor payroll taxes and earns more than $20,000 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. "

Read more: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...#ixzz1Y2q6Ivg0

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Except of course for two things. One, the constitution, (i.e. the 10th amendment and all it's implications), and two, the electoral college is that only way that people that don't live in big cities can still have a say in national elections. The fact is that what is important to people in NY is not the same as what is important to people in Wyoming. Each state needs to have a say or you will end up with LESS representative government.



.

See you made a mistake here..

Constitution and Amendment in the same sentence.

Thank god the constitution was written in pencil.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Boehner just laid out the GOP plan.

No tax credits for the non-wealthy, less regulations on businesses, ban all tax increases including banning the expiration of the bush tax cuts which bush set to expire years ago, and cut entitlement spending which again applies only to the non-wealthy.

The only surprise was that he didnt wear a black mask or carry a big sack with a dollar sign on it.

How much income tax does 40% of the country pay again? So you want to give more tax money to people who dont pay any income tax at all and are already getting more back then they put in? I don't get how that makes any sense.


Not that I agree with Boehner's plan I am just trying to understand how the "non-wealthy" deserve more when they put nothing in? And what do you define as "non-wealthy"?

[Mutt]

flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax flat tax ........

rich would never go for it unfortunately.

US debt problem would be corrected if the medical industry would be treated differently than other industries, dunno why even the Republicans would have an issue with making an industry that overcharges the rich and the poor fall in line. $6,500 per US citizen goes to the medical industry - chop 2 grand off that times 330 million.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

The Republitards know, for a fact, that if every legal American were to vote, and every vote carried equal weight, the GOP would almost always lose.

I would love for voting to become equal and compulsory here in the states. Most people are not in the top 2% tax bracket for example.

This is why the Republitards continuously play fucking games with our democracy. If it was an equal playing field, they would almost always lose.

name any democrat that carried 49 states in a presidential election? what secret majority do you speak of.

So welfare junkies staying home, & old farts in FL who cant read a ballot, thats your excuse that dems dont win every time.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by pornguy

See you made a mistake here..

Constitution and Amendment in the same sentence.

Thank god the constitution was written in pencil.

[Minte]

Originally Posted by ruff

We better hope Romney or Perry don't win or this country will go to hell in a handbasket. You think the Republicans are going to fix the mess they got us into in the first place? We need to get the Republicans the fuck out of office so this country can move forward.

Were you in a coma for 2008 & 09? All the democrats did was make an already bad situation,worse.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

name any democrat that carried 49 states in a presidential election? what secret majority do you speak of.

So welfare junkies staying home, & old farts in FL who cant read a ballot, thats your excuse that dems dont win every time.

Read this article, and then write back...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...oting-20110830

[kane]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Except of course for two things. One, the constitution, (i.e. the 10th amendment and all it's implications), and two, the electoral college is that only way that people that don't live in big cities can still have a say in national elections. The fact is that what is important to people in NY is not the same as what is important to people in Wyoming. Each state needs to have a say or you will end up with LESS representative government.



.

The amendments can have been changed. It shouldn't be taken lightly, but it isn't something that is set in stone.

As for people in small areas not having a say. . . .actually they would have more of a say and more of a reason to actually get out and vote.

For example. I live in a state that is very liberal. It doesn't matter who the republican is, this state will go Obama in the next election. So in reality if I want to vote republican, my vote has zero say and is, in essence, a worthless vote. The same can be said for any democrat in states like Texas or Oklahoma. If you happen to have be a democrat and living in one of those states your vote is worthless. Because of this candidates pretty much only come to those states for a quick hello and and fund raise and do little if any campaigning there. The voters are pretty much ignored. If it were a nationwide campaign a democrat might actually care about the democratic voters in Texas and a republican might care about the republican voters in Oregon or California. They might actually encourage people to get out and vote for them because those people could effect some change now and their vote would not be lost. Instead of focusing all their efforts on squeezing every last vote out of a state like Florida or Ohio which is likely to decide the election a democrat could go to Texas and maybe round up an extra 30,000 or 40,000 votes. The same for a republican. They could go to New York and rally their supporters there.

It would force candidates to service their voters all across the country not just in the states that are likely to be battleground states in the next election.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Read this article, and then write back...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...oting-20110830

All told, a dozen states have approved new obstacles to voting. Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering.

i closed your op-ed at this point, because wanting voters to prove they are eligible is not voter supression. Nothing is wrong with confirming eligibility...unless your voter base are illegal immigrants.

anyway. the rules of voting are set by politicians. Naturally both parties work to bend the rules their way. No news here.

[GatorB]

Actually I've had this idea for years and it makes the most sense if one is going to continue to use to stupid electoral college anyways. Sometimes it would favor one party sometimes the other. In 2000 Gore would have gotten elected.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by kane

It should be one big nationwide vote, the candidate that gets the most votes wins just like every other election we have.

A large number of wolves will decide what a smaller number of sheep will have (or be!) for lunch.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Minte

Were you in a coma for 2008 & 09? All the democrats did was make an already bad situation,worse.

you=retard. Seriously consider suicide

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

A large number of wolves will decide what a smaller number of sheep will have (or be!) for lunch.

Funny how popular vote is good enough for governors, senators, representaitves but not the President.

[iamtam]

the republicans and baggers are crooks.

[DaddyHalbucks]

This thread made my day.

The genius of our founding fathers is amazing.

They are still saving the Republic.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

How much income tax does 40% of the country pay again? So you want to give more tax money to people who dont pay any income tax at all and are already getting more back then they put in? I don't get how that makes any sense.


Not that I agree with Boehner's plan I am just trying to understand how the "non-wealthy" deserve more when they put nothing in? And what do you define as "non-wealthy"?

The fact is the rich benefit the most that the USA is a free capitalist country. They have the most to lose so they should pay more of the cost to run it. Honeslty if I made $1 million I would happily write a check to the IRS for 40%.

Simple quesion. Would you rather

A) Make $1 mil per year but owe 50% in taxes.

B) Make minimum wage( $15,000 a year ) and owe zero taxes.

99.9999999999% say A.

[kane]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

A large number of wolves will decide what a smaller number of sheep will have (or be!) for lunch.

I disagree. The number just don't tell that story. Look at the this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2008

while some states are dark red and dark blue, many of them are actually pretty close. As technology advances more and more companies are leaving the population centers and moving into rural areas and going with them are the workers that have jobs in those fields.

The population centers of this country have always controlled it and always will. The question is how much power do those who live outside of those centers now have? The answer is plenty. By forcing candidates to pay attention to all of the voters nationwide not just those states they need to carry in the next election everyone is better off not just those who happen to live in battleground states.

[Bladewire]

Politics is a game and the rules will always change.

It's about winning for politicians, then the country, lastly the people, but only the important ones that can sway votes ;)

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

This thread made my day.

The genius of our founding fathers is amazing.

They are still saving the Republic.

the constitution was full of mistakes. there is nothing sacrosanct about it. & as for strict constructionism, the country cannot rule forever based on 18th century laws. Time brings out issues like abortion & machine guns, & one cannot state intellectually that the government has no role on these matters because they did not exist when grown men wore white wigs.

[kane]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

the constitution was full of mistakes. there is nothing sacrosanct about it. & as for strict constructionism, the country cannot rule forever based on 18th century laws. Time brings out issues like abortion & machine guns, & one cannot state intellectually that the government has no role on these matters because they did not exist when grown men wore white wigs.

I agree. As brilliant and amazing as our founding fathers were they likely didn't foresee things like the internet or stealth bombers. The world changes and our constitution should be allowed to evolve with it. It shouldn't be something that is done lightly, but it is a living document that was designed so that it could be changed.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

the constitution was full of mistakes. there is nothing sacrosanct about it. & as for strict constructionism, the country cannot rule forever based on 18th century laws. Time brings out issues like abortion & machine guns, & one cannot state intellectually that the government has no role on these matters because they did not exist when grown men wore white wigs.

Why would anyone expect that there would be no mistakes and no changes over 200+ years? Even our founding fathers wrote in provisions for amending it.

What is amazing is not the few things that have been problematic.

What is absolutely astounding is the incredible number of things they got right, things that still serve our national interest after 10 generations.

[ManPuppy]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

This only matters if the election is close, and it won't be. Romney or Perry will trounce Obama the same way Reagan overwhelmed Carter. It's already taking shape. And, if the emerging Solyndra scandal grows and implicates the White House as being either corrupt or highly-negligent... as uncovered e-mails seem to indicate... Barry Obama won't have a prayer.

Granted similarities between Obama and Carter aside, Romney, maybe. Perry, I doubt, simply because he sounds too much like a high-octane Bush.

[Tom_PM]

"non-wealthy" are those who benefit from social programs that the GOP of 2011 wants to eliminate in their perverted quest to keep all the money.

[JamesGw]

I like the general premise of the idea, but trying to game it with redistricting is pretty fucking lame. I do think that electoral votes should be split, though.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by kane

I agree. As brilliant and amazing as our founding fathers were they likely didn't foresee things like the internet or stealth bombers. The world changes and our constitution should be allowed to evolve with it. It shouldn't be something that is done lightly, but it is a living document that was designed so that it could be changed.

I love when people make this sort of statement. Ok, I'll bite. Where does should the constitution be changed because of the internet or stealth bombers?


.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by kane

I disagree. The number just don't tell that story. Look at the this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2008

while some states are dark red and dark blue, many of them are actually pretty close. As technology advances more and more companies are leaving the population centers and moving into rural areas and going with them are the workers that have jobs in those fields.

The population centers of this country have always controlled it and always will. The question is how much power do those who live outside of those centers now have? The answer is plenty. By forcing candidates to pay attention to all of the voters nationwide not just those states they need to carry in the next election everyone is better off not just those who happen to live in battleground states.

EXACTLY!!!!!


.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Funny how popular vote is good enough for governors, senators, representaitves but not the President.

That is the difference between elections WITHIN A STATE, and elections including and between all the states. The constitution makes the US a collection of self-running states, that cede some powers to the Federal government (10th Amendment). I say thank god for this, (even though the feds are TOTALLY over-reaching the powers that the states allowed them), it would be FAR worse if the 10th amendment didn't exist. The fact is that the larger an area and population that a government controls, the less representative and more removed from the people it becomes. That's why the 10th amendment exists, and that's why states can control how they each decide their votes for the President.


.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by raymor

So if candidate wins half the state, he gets half the electoral votes.
If he wins 10% of the districts, he gets 10% of the electoral votes. Hmm, sounds a lot more democratic. Democracy - how devious.

If that's the real reason behind it, then why not go with popular vote? IE the people's vote.

Why, because they couldn't cheat their way with that.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by Minte

Were you in a coma for 2008 & 09? All the democrats did was make an already bad situation,worse.

Before you get involved, you need to educate yourself dipshit.

[DWB]

You're just going to replace one ass hat with another.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by DWB

You're just going to replace one ass hat with another.

Or keep the same one. Replacement is not inevitable.