Are democrats intentionally trying to lose the 2016 election?

[Wildman]

If the democrats cannot stop themselves from trying to repeal self defense laws, they don't have a prayer in 2014 or 2016. If the right to self defense (not even gun rights, just self defense rights) becomes a political issue, the democrats have already lost.

Democrats are pushing increased background checks and sensible gun restrictions on magazines and assault weapons

Gabby Giffords and Sandy Hook parents will haunt GOP Congressmen who blocked legislation.

Lets see who pays a political price

let me see you define and explain what you mean by sensible gun restrictions i know what "sensible" means to me, but i want your definition .., OK ?

you use that term "assault weapons".., i'll bet you can NOT describe an "assault weapon", but i'll give you an opportunity to do so right here for all to see.

Gabby is nothing more than a puppet on a dog leash being dragged around by that political hustler husband of hers. they both are hypocrites

 

[expatriate]

you said "women and minorities still don't trust them" implying that ALL women and minorities don't trust them.

the stupid examples that you posted do not represent the majority view of republicans.

republicans do not want to take women's rights, but they are concerned about the rights of helpless unborn children

please tell me where the RNC or republicans in general have said that Trayvon needed to die. you are a frickin liar Joe.

wanting a secure border and a workable immigration policy is not "killing immigration" once again, you are a frickin liar.

silly post. women and minorities voted for Obama. that doesn't mean that every single female and every single non-caucasian in America voted for him... it means that percentages that were significantly higher than a simple normal distribution voted for him. No one is suggesting that EVERY black in America votes democrat, but, regularly, 90+% do. The hispanic vote is the real killer for the GOP... it is a rapidly growing segment of the population in a lot of red states, and if the democrats pull three quarters of them, then there really WON'T be enough white angry men left to win elections for republicans.

Oh... and I laughed when you ran away from your stupid electoral college arguments... you even ran away from the one that said that NY and CA had disproportionately large impacts on election night.

You really need to get your political education from somewhere other than Faux News.

Run away? nope, I simply destroyed your politically biased bullshit position with simple facts. in the post above you confirm the point I was trying to make. because of the EC, NY and CA have more that 1/50th of the state voting power. without those two states it becomes very difficult for any candidate of either party to win.

again, I am not taking a position on whether that is right or wrong. If we used the popular vote those states would still have more voting power than any other. Its just a simple fact.

My only point, that you seem too dense to grasp, is that the states with small populations do not have much say in who becomes president--no matter which system is used.

and the point that you completely fail to grasp is that, by and large, people elect presidents, real estate does not. With the electoral college, people living in small states have a greater PROPORTIONAL influence on the election than folks living in large ones do. In some cases, more than three times the influence.

 

[Redfish]

silly post. women and minorities voted for Obama. that doesn't mean that every single female and every single non-caucasian in America voted for him... it means that percentages that were significantly higher than a simple normal distribution voted for him. No one is suggesting that EVERY black in America votes democrat, but, regularly, 90+% do. The hispanic vote is the real killer for the GOP... it is a rapidly growing segment of the population in a lot of red states, and if the democrats pull three quarters of them, then there really WON'T be enough white angry men left to win elections for republicans.

Oh... and I laughed when you ran away from your stupid electoral college arguments... you even ran away from the one that said that NY and CA had disproportionately large impacts on election night.

You really need to get your political education from somewhere other than Faux News.

Run away? nope, I simply destroyed your politically biased bullshit position with simple facts. in the post above you confirm the point I was trying to make. because of the EC, NY and CA have more that 1/50th of the state voting power. without those two states it becomes very difficult for any candidate of either party to win.

again, I am not taking a position on whether that is right or wrong. If we used the popular vote those states would still have more voting power than any other. Its just a simple fact.

My only point, that you seem too dense to grasp, is that the states with small populations do not have much say in who becomes president--no matter which system is used.

and the point that you completely fail to grasp is that, by and large, people elect presidents, real estate does not. With the electoral college, people living in small states have a greater PROPORTIONAL influence on the election than folks living in large ones do. In some cases, more than three times the influence.

how many people are represented by each of Louisiana's 8 electoral votes, how many are represented by each of california's 55?

do that math and then tell me how the small states have a proportional advantage.

 

[Redfish]

and I bet you were bitching about the EC after that election---right?

I was bitching about the EC before that election. It's a horrible system.

It's also one that helps Democrats more than Republicans.

If the GOP had brains, they'd be for getting rid of the EC.

The states the Democrats have won consistantly in the last 6 elections constitute 242 electoral votes.

The states that they won 5 out of 6 times ads another 15.

So that means the GOP has to get EVERYTHING right in the remaining states to have a shot of winning. And the Democrats only have to pick off one or two.

When Hispanic population growth flips Texas from Red to Blue, the Republicans will never win another election save for another demographic reallignment. like we had in 1968 or 1992.

right, hispanics are going to be very happy about the way obama and DOJ are attacking zimmerman after a trial found him not guilty.

if we dump the EC the west coast and the NE still would control the elections.

If you "dump" the EC, the President is then elected by the "popular" vote. Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last six elections.

How does the EC "favor" Democrats exactly?[/QUOTE]

ask Joe, he made that claim not me.

 

[Redfish]

silly post. women and minorities voted for Obama. that doesn't mean that every single female and every single non-caucasian in America voted for him... it means that percentages that were significantly higher than a simple normal distribution voted for him. No one is suggesting that EVERY black in America votes democrat, but, regularly, 90+% do. The hispanic vote is the real killer for the GOP... it is a rapidly growing segment of the population in a lot of red states, and if the democrats pull three quarters of them, then there really WON'T be enough white angry men left to win elections for republicans.

Oh... and I laughed when you ran away from your stupid electoral college arguments... you even ran away from the one that said that NY and CA had disproportionately large impacts on election night.

You really need to get your political education from somewhere other than Faux News.

Run away? nope, I simply destroyed your politically biased bullshit position with simple facts. in the post above you confirm the point I was trying to make. because of the EC, NY and CA have more that 1/50th of the state voting power. without those two states it becomes very difficult for any candidate of either party to win.

again, I am not taking a position on whether that is right or wrong. If we used the popular vote those states would still have more voting power than any other. Its just a simple fact.

My only point, that you seem too dense to grasp, is that the states with small populations do not have much say in who becomes president--no matter which system is used.

and the point that you completely fail to grasp is that, by and large, people elect presidents, real estate does not. With the electoral college, people living in small states have a greater PROPORTIONAL influence on the election than folks living in large ones do. In some cases, more than three times the influence.

I do think that doing away with the "all or nothing" application of each states electoral votes and going to a proportional allocation would be more fair. A state could be 51/49 on the popular vote but 100% of that state's votes would go with the 51%. does that seem right to you?

 

[Seawytch]

It's also one that helps Democrats more than Republicans.

ask Joe, he made that claim not me.

Your words, not Joe's. how does the EC help Democrats more than Republicans?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins.

 

[expatriate]

Run away? nope, I simply destroyed your politically biased bullshit position with simple facts. in the post above you confirm the point I was trying to make. because of the EC, NY and CA have more that 1/50th of the state voting power. without those two states it becomes very difficult for any candidate of either party to win.

again, I am not taking a position on whether that is right or wrong. If we used the popular vote those states would still have more voting power than any other. Its just a simple fact.

My only point, that you seem too dense to grasp, is that the states with small populations do not have much say in who becomes president--no matter which system is used.

and the point that you completely fail to grasp is that, by and large, people elect presidents, real estate does not. With the electoral college, people living in small states have a greater PROPORTIONAL influence on the election than folks living in large ones do. In some cases, more than three times the influence.

how many people are represented by each of Louisiana's 8 electoral votes, how many are represented by each of california's 55?

do that math and then tell me how the small states have a proportional advantage.

from post 163:

The population of California: 37,253,956
The number of electoral votes for California: 55
The number of people who are represented by each electoral vote: 677,344


The population of Wyoming: 563,626
The number of electoral votes for Wyoming: 3
The number of people who are represented by each electoral vote: 187,875

So... the people in Wyoming have more than three times as much clout as the folks in California do in terms of electoral votes.

and now let's add Louisiana as per your request:

The population of Louisiana: 4,533,372
The number of electoral votes for Louisiana: 8
The number of people who are represented by each electoral vote: 566,671.

So the folks in Louisiana have more electoral college clout than the folks in California do too... but nowhere near as much clout as the folks in Wyoming have.

I look forward to redfish's apology

 

[Katzndogz]

If the democrats cannot stop themselves from trying to repeal self defense laws, they don't have a prayer in 2014 or 2016. If the right to self defense (not even gun rights, just self defense rights) becomes a political issue, the democrats have already lost.

Democrats are pushing increased background checks and sensible gun restrictions on magazines and assault weapons

Gabby Giffords and Sandy Hook parents will haunt GOP Congressmen who blocked legislation.

Lets see who pays a political price

From what eric holder said, it's repeal self defense laws. Democrats should run with that.

 

[Redfish]

It's also one that helps Democrats more than Republicans.

ask Joe, he made that claim not me.

Your words, not Joe's. how does the EC help Democrats more than Republicans?

see post #177.

what I said is that Ca and Ny can swing any election----not that either party has an adbvantage because of that.

 

[Seawytch]

Sorry, Red...my bad. Ipad malfunction. Question to Joe.

 

[Seawytch]

It's also one that helps Democrats more than Republicans.

ask Joe, he made that claim not me.

Your words, not Joe's. how does the EC help Democrats more than Republicans?

see post #177.

what I said is that Ca and Ny can swing any election----not that either party has an adbvantage because of that.

You're right. Quote malfunction. My apologies again. Any single state can swing the election.

 

[Redfish]

It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins.

there is no question that the country is turning left, you may think thats a good thing, I do not.

you may think that one party rule would be a good thing, I do not.

you may think that a dictatorship would be good, I do not.

 

[expatriate]

Run away? nope, I simply destroyed your politically biased bullshit position with simple facts. in the post above you confirm the point I was trying to make. because of the EC, NY and CA have more that 1/50th of the state voting power. without those two states it becomes very difficult for any candidate of either party to win.

again, I am not taking a position on whether that is right or wrong. If we used the popular vote those states would still have more voting power than any other. Its just a simple fact.

My only point, that you seem too dense to grasp, is that the states with small populations do not have much say in who becomes president--no matter which system is used.

and the point that you completely fail to grasp is that, by and large, people elect presidents, real estate does not. With the electoral college, people living in small states have a greater PROPORTIONAL influence on the election than folks living in large ones do. In some cases, more than three times the influence.

I do think that doing away with the "all or nothing" application of each states electoral votes and going to a proportional allocation would be more fair. A state could be 51/49 on the popular vote but 100% of that state's votes would go with the 51%. does that seem right to you?

states are free to change the allocation formula. Some already have. THe fact remains...when each state gets two electoral votes because of their senators, that tilts the proportional power to smaller states. It is YOU who doesn't understand math.

 

[expatriate]

It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins.

there is no question that the country is turning left, you may think thats a good thing, I do not.

you may think that one party rule would be a good thing, I do not.

you may think that a dictatorship would be good, I do not.

another silly post. Just because people might think that turning left is a good thing does NOT mean that they think that one party rule is a good thing, or that a dictatorship is a good thing.

The more I read from you, the more I realize what a moron you really are.

 

[Redfish]

and the point that you completely fail to grasp is that, by and large, people elect presidents, real estate does not. With the electoral college, people living in small states have a greater PROPORTIONAL influence on the election than folks living in large ones do. In some cases, more than three times the influence.

how many people are represented by each of Louisiana's 8 electoral votes, how many are represented by each of california's 55?

do that math and then tell me how the small states have a proportional advantage.

from post 163:

The population of California: 37,253,956
The number of electoral votes for California: 55
The number of people who are represented by each electoral vote: 677,344


The population of Wyoming: 563,626
The number of electoral votes for Wyoming: 3
The number of people who are represented by each electoral vote: 187,875

So... the people in Wyoming have more than three times as much clout as the folks in California do in terms of electoral votes.

and now let's add Louisiana as per your request:

The population of Louisiana: 4,533,372
The number of electoral votes for Louisiana: 8
The number of people who are represented by each electoral vote: 566,671.

So the folks in Louisiana have more electoral college clout than the folks in California do too... but nowhere near as much clout as the folks in Wyoming have.

I look forward to redfish's apology

Ok, I agree, each EC vote in CA represents more people than each vote in WY. Who determines how many votes reside with each state? I would support a change that has each vote represent exactly the same number of people, but if that was done, why bother with the EC at all?

the best solution would be a proportional allocation of the EC votes based on the popular vote.

The EC was put in place to give some voice to the less populated states and not to let the west coast and northeast control elections, but its happening anyway.

 

[expatriate]

HEY REDFISH! California... Louisiana???? remember the math problem you asked me to solve for you? No comments???

 

[Seawytch]

The Country is not turning "more left"....it's just the far right doesn't know where the center is....which is why they call our very moderate President a socialist or Marxist or even Communist. (Mostly because they don't understand the meanings of those terms)

 

[rightwinger]

If the democrats cannot stop themselves from trying to repeal self defense laws, they don't have a prayer in 2014 or 2016. If the right to self defense (not even gun rights, just self defense rights) becomes a political issue, the democrats have already lost.

Democrats are pushing increased background checks and sensible gun restrictions on magazines and assault weapons

Gabby Giffords and Sandy Hook parents will haunt GOP Congressmen who blocked legislation.

Lets see who pays a political price

let me see you define and explain what you mean by sensible gun restrictions i know what "sensible" means to me, but i want your definition .., OK ?

you use that term "assault weapons".., i'll bet you can NOT describe an "assault weapon", but i'll give you an opportunity to do so right here for all to see.

Gabby is nothing more than a puppet on a dog leash being dragged around by that political hustler husband of hers. they both are hypocrites

Republicans attack Gabby Giffords on sensible gun control at their own peril. Gabby definitely has a dog in this fight and the voters will listen to her

Sensible gun restrictions? Lets start with keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and felons. Background checks are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Even most NRA members support enhanced background checks. Republican representatives who block this legislation will pay a price

30-50 round magazines have one purpose....to kill lots of people quickly. Let GOP lawmakers defend why the public needs them

Assault weapons? Lets start with anything that takes one of those 30-50 round magazines. In essence when you put a weapon that says "Look at me, I'm a badass" into the hands of a crazy person, you are asking for trouble

 

[expatriate]

how many people are represented by each of Louisiana's 8 electoral votes, how many are represented by each of california's 55?

do that math and then tell me how the small states have a proportional advantage.

from post 163:

The population of California: 37,253,956
The number of electoral votes for California: 55
The number of people who are represented by each electoral vote: 677,344


The population of Wyoming: 563,626
The number of electoral votes for Wyoming: 3
The number of people who are represented by each electoral vote: 187,875

So... the people in Wyoming have more than three times as much clout as the folks in California do in terms of electoral votes.

and now let's add Louisiana as per your request:

The population of Louisiana: 4,533,372
The number of electoral votes for Louisiana: 8
The number of people who are represented by each electoral vote: 566,671.

So the folks in Louisiana have more electoral college clout than the folks in California do too... but nowhere near as much clout as the folks in Wyoming have.

I look forward to redfish's apology

Ok, I agree, each EC vote in CA represents more people than each vote in WY. Who determines how many votes reside with each state? I would support a change that has each vote represent exactly the same number of people, but if that was done, why bother with the EC at all?

the best solution would be a proportional allocation of the EC votes based on the popular vote.

The EC was put in place to give some voice to the less populated states and not to let the west coast and northeast control elections, but its happening anyway.

are you actually saying that you do NOT know how electoral college votes are apportioned to the states?

Wow. You are even dumber than I thought.