|
Post by Jason Giambi on Nov 5, 2008 9:43:28 GMT -5
which was blamed on Bush. Bush did a shitty job, and the voters took out their frustrations on McCain.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 5, 2008 10:07:02 GMT -5
I'll give you that.
Thing is, Bush did not do NEARLY as shitty a job as the democrats and media made it out to be. Until Lehman collapsed, the economy grew overall. But Bush failed on several fronts. When the Republicans had total control, they governed like democrats. Spend spend spend. It was terrible. It was like they forgot who they were and what got them elected. As the leader of the party, Bush should have stepped in and kicked them in the balls.
When the democrats took over, they made things worse. Not surprising. If you punish someone by changing them out for someone who does the same but worse, things are going to get worse.
Yet as the party in the White House, Bush and the GOP still managed to take the blame.
And that was Bush's greatest crime.
He never fought back.
Never.
He never defended himself. Never defended his policies. Never defended his administration. Never turned the tables.
It's no secret that I think Bill Clinton was the biggest piece of garbage to hold that office in our lifetime. Obama is more Carter than Clinton. But one thing Clinton did extremely well at was selling himself and his legacy. He was one of the most full of shit people out there, but people still bought into it.
The guy got caught lying under oath redhanded. He DESERVED his impeachment, and SHOULD have been removed for obstruction of justice. But he fought back.
Bush never fought back.
For a guy who did so much good in the war on terror, for Bush to leave office with this reputation is a disgrace. But that's his own fault. Unfortunately, the country is going to first suffer now, if Obama governs the way I think he will and caters only to the far extremist left.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 5, 2008 11:56:38 GMT -5
EIGHT YEARS LATER...and the anti-Clinton rhetoric continues.
Makes sense though....I still, to this day, LOATHE the insignificant Diamondbacks...and rightfully so....their success made my team look bad!
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Nov 5, 2008 12:00:01 GMT -5
You know why Apathy doesn't kill? Cause I can see how both are fucking idiot canidates.
Here's what I know, McCain is a bore, fuck him. Obama is an idiot cause he's never heard of gravity. It's the trickle down theroy, not trickle up, water falls down you dumb mother fucker(yeah I stole that joke from Ant on OnA, so what?)!
All I know is, I did enjoy last night, I was entertained by the sport of politics for the first time. And yet, it's still one of the two biggest evils in the world, politics and religion cause the most confrontation. People will never get along as long as religion and politics are such an important part of peoples lives. I won't go into Imagine lyrics but by putting your vote or faith in one basket is narrow minded to say the least and takes away from individuality. And even scarier is most religious people tend to vote one way so there's no room for interpretation at all.
And the electoral votes is poppicock. How the fuck does Rhode Island have more electoral votes than fucking Wyoming? Why is Long Island considered part of NY when voting and more people live on LI than in both the fucking Dakotas? It's poppicock and I'm not even registered so I never have to deal with that shit.
Wait, fuck is ok to say, but if I say something is shit from a bull, it's poppicock? Censorship blows.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 5, 2008 12:12:20 GMT -5
James, what will trickle up is poverty. And as much as I hate Clinton, that was actually an attempt at a compliment. This guy deserved to be villified but he fought back. It didn't hurt that the liberal media supported him, but the style he had outweighed everything. The guy could rob you, and people would thank him for it.
And as for the Electoral College, it was one of the most brilliant designs that the Founding Fathers came up with.
It ensures that smaller states actually have a say as to who becomes President, and that candidates need them to get elected. No better example of that can be found than in 2000.
The reason Rhode Island gets more electoral votes is because there are more people there.
Long Island is a part of NY because it is in the state of NY. But keep in mind that NY has significantly more electors than the Dakotas--again, because more people are there. It's not 100 percent perfect, but it's as good as they can make it.
My biggest issue with the Electoral College is the winner take all thing. But that's not a federal thing, that's a state thing, and I don't think it will change in our lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Nov 5, 2008 12:20:10 GMT -5
I know Wyoming is spacious, I get why the system is in place, I mean look, if McCain wins Ohio, we might be having a different discussion today, forget 4 and 8 years ago, I just don't buy it. I've been to Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, etc, this places aren't barren lands. There's plenty of people and plenty of locals. I won't sit here and say RI is tiny no one lives there, I know that's untrue, and maybe it has a higher population than a Wyoming, but I still think it's nuts it has more swing than a bigger state.
And again, LI has a bigger population than both Dakotas combined, yet Cali still has 55 Electoral Votes where if you take upstate, the city and then LI, there's no way this shit is evenly spread out. Yes, it makes it fair, but to say some state has 11 electoral votes, and NY can only have 11 more when there's millions of more people in this state compared to others? It's crazy talk.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Nov 5, 2008 12:38:53 GMT -5
And oh, enough of Obama being some great speaker. Good, he speaks and articulates himself well, his speeches are so similar it's crazy. Last night, his speech wasn't different than any other he had, it was just currently updated to President Elect. Watch a Monday Night Raw, it's Promo 101. Strt with a cheap pop, get fans to agree with you, finish strong with the big catch phrase. And some people will say, that's what you're supposed to do little boy. Yes, you're right, but I bring it up cause of the notion he's a sincere guy and not a regular politician. He said what he had to say to get elected, anyone running would have to. So why does this shit dick get so much credit for being so honest and truthful and sincere, cause he said what some people wanted to hear? So he's the right man, and change will happen automatically? I can't stand the flocks of people, who are more like Apostles than supporters sucking his dick cause his campaign spoke to you....that's the point of running a campaign. He's every other douche who will say what's needed to get in office.
I can't wait for the bottom to fall out on this. And so there's no question where I stand, McCain should dip his face in a wood chipper as well. 8 years of maintaining, business as always that's what I predict, not a shooting, like some baboon thinks. Which is why I don't care, I'm just sick of this change people talk about. I mean really, the last guy to say the shit Obama is saying was Lennon, and in 28 years of him being popped by some looney, nothing has changed. So why will it now? People are afraid to be hopeful, cause of the uncertainty. But yeah, it's all changing now. These morons will have you think change is happening by Feb too.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 5, 2008 12:46:03 GMT -5
They do a census every 10 years to determine population. It's not perfect, because if it were, then the House of Representatives today would look like the Senate in Star Wars. You get an elector for every member in the House of Representatives plus 1 for each senator. The exception is DC, which is not a state, and gets the minimum of 3 electors.
A state like Wyoming, which has a relatively small population, gets just one representative in the House. So 3 electors.
New York though has 29 representatives, and I would think more than 1 come from Long Island, though I'm not 100 percent sure what the districts are there.
New York actually has 31 electoral votes. It's not that far off from what they should have based on population.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 5, 2008 12:49:37 GMT -5
For the record I have no complaints with either the Electoral College system, or how the seats are all broken up.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Nov 5, 2008 12:56:51 GMT -5
Not saying it is, but Cali has 55, and again I don't have exact numbers, but it'd be hard to think there's a big difference in people living in California as opposed to New York. Now, I know saying Texas, Cali and NY all deserve 55 votes, but the difference in seperation is still weird to me. I mean it got to a point where McCain loses Ohio, anyone paying attention knows it's over there, there weren't enough big states left to make a dent in Obama's lead. My thinking is just make certain states like 2 or 3 points more. Not just so McCain and McCainiacs could have had a better chance, just cause every state McCain did win, was 3 to 5 votes, where Obama off the bat is winning states worth 20 and 30 votes. So by the time later poles are closing, none of them mattered, and some of those values are nonsense. And with a state like Rhode Island, fuck how many people live there, why isn't the same as Long Island, a part of NY? Cause again, a state like North Dakota gets points in doesn't deserve, RI get's more than it should. If I'm right, each state has to have a minimum of 3? Make the minimum 4 or 5 and keep the big states where they are. But lump in those ferry taking fucks who live on RH just to get to NY with New York. Take a nuke and drop it on the Dakotas, who needs them? How the fuck do they count as much as they do? It's nutty.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 5, 2008 13:10:48 GMT -5
Quick google search:
NY has about 19.3 million people. California has 33.8 million. So California has about 75 percent more people than NY. Using NY's 31 votes as a guide, 1.75*31=54.25.
It's actually not that bad.
Interestingly enough, it's arguable that the smaller states actually have MORE say, because the bigger states are capped.
The population of Wyoming on the last census was 493000.
So 493000/3= 164333.33 per elector. In NY, where the population is 19.3 million, and 31 electors, that's 1 elector for every 622580.64 people.
Technically, the guy in Wyoming has 3.8 times more power in his vote.
It's not perfect, but if anything, it's the BIGGER states getting hurt there. The problem is you can't give Wyoming less power.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Nov 5, 2008 13:18:23 GMT -5
Ok so I was sorta wrong, but I agree it's not perfect. Yes, it works, but an argument can be made from either side, I just picked bad examples. To me, the Dakotas and Rhode Island is a way better example. But it's still interesting to see those numbers. The only thing I know out of this, because of how screwed the censuses are, going by popular vote to elect the pres is not a smart idea. i thought that a few times last night, seeing how close the popular vote was but how so many of the electoral votes went the other way.
I swear man, politics if a better sport than NASCAR.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 5, 2008 13:36:38 GMT -5
The problem with dumping the electoral college is then a state like Wyoming has virtually no say in the presidency. No candidate would waste time campaigning there and no candidate would give a shit about representing that state. This was one of the bigger issues when making the Constitution in the first place. Smaller states didn't want the bigger states to run everything.
The electoral college guarantees that all states have a legit say in the election in a real way. See the election of 2000 for proof of that. The last thing we need is NYC and LA running the country.
But I hate that winner take all thing. That's malarky too. Let's say LA has 25 representatives and the rest of California has 28. And let's say that in areas where those 28 representatives are, Candidate A wins, but in LA, Candidate B wins. Let's say that Candidate A's wins were close, but clear, but in LA, Candidate B wins by a landslide--enough to tip the whole state--barely to Candidate B. Is it right that Candidate B gets ALL of the votes? Or the reverse, where Candidate B wins in an area with 25 votes by a landslide, but not quite enough to tip the scales. In either case, about half the state is getting screwed.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Nov 5, 2008 13:51:30 GMT -5
I agree Balls, Bush never fought back, and McCain didn't either. There was a guy on CNN critiquing why McCain lost, and one of the things he did point to, was the fact that once McCain knew he won his side, he went to the White House. I would have distanced myself more from him. Oh well. The one thing this tells us, is that the Reps need to get their house in order. They need to pick a winnable candidate. They need a younger guy with a little charisma. I looked at how Fl actually voted. There was the blue in miami, etc where the minorities were, Tampa, Orlando, a couple more counties. For the most part, everything was red, except for Alachua county in the middle of nowhere, in farm country. Why was it so blue, because of the University of FL. The young people came out in droves for Obama, thinking he was going to do all the crap he promised. The Republicans need that kind of guy in 2012.
Is McCain still a Senator?
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Nov 5, 2008 13:52:46 GMT -5
McCain didn't do shit in PA, he didn't even run an ad there I bet. To me, if it's by popular vote, or the electoral college, do something in as many places as possible. There are states where candidates should campaign they don't, and if you're running for Pres, and you're going over places to campaign, if you can chop of Wyoming, the Dakotas, Rhoide Island, instead of asking why would you, you should ask why not scrap those shit holes?
And I don't think 50 states, let alone the state of Wyoming was a concern for the founding fathers writing the Constitution. That had 13 colonies, they not only didn't worry about Wyoming, they didn't know it existed. The Louisiana Purchase wasn't till like 18something, how the fuck did they come up with the constitution thinking of the west coast?
But I do agree for the most part, I just find it a bit screwy.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Nov 5, 2008 14:01:07 GMT -5
McCain Campaigned hard in PA.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 5, 2008 14:06:03 GMT -5
They did actually have similar issues, except the smaller states were like Delaware or Rhode Island. They didn't necessarily expect the country to grow to 300 million people, but they did anticipate growth.
McCain actually did campaign hard in PA.
McCain is still a senator, and I agree that McCain did not have the charisma to match Obama, but again, despite that, McCain's popularity rating was high, and he WAS winning until Lehman collapsed. But McCain had such an uphill battle with Bush's approval rating weighing him down, and Bush's approval rating is Bush's fault--and the failure to fight back.
As for UF, I can say that I've never met anyone who went there that I didn't like, but that fucking sucks.
Still want them to win the National Championship though.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Nov 5, 2008 14:19:53 GMT -5
I just used UF to show the power of the college vote. We welcome you as a fan.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Nov 5, 2008 14:23:27 GMT -5
Fuck, my mistake, I know there was one state Obama was favorite, and I could have sworn it was a state worth like 11 to 15 votes, so maybe I'm thinking Ohio but still, why not give it a shot, why say fuck that state? It's because he knew like you said, it was an uphill battle in a bunch of states and some of these states aren't worth shit with electoral votes. So that's two issues why anyone would say, I'm not going to do work there. As fair as it is, there are still flaws, and no matter how close the popular vote was, the election was over by 9:15 last night, coverage just ran late.
And way for Obama to wait like an hour after McCain spoke to make his speech, Obama had to finish his Henny first.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 5, 2008 14:38:40 GMT -5
I am a UF rookie in all things. I've been a Division I free agent my whole life. I went to a DIII school, and never had any attachment. But in recent years, I've met more and more UF alumni, including most of my volleyball team. Some things I've noticed--almost every UF female is hot, and almost every single person who went there is really cool.
They don't make rookies feel like frontrunners either, which is so not NY. I refuse to buy a UF shirt because I don't feel that I have a right. But I have been going weekly to a UF bar to watch the games, and where my METS SUCK shirt.
I guess that's a topic for another thread.
James--you may be thinking of Michigan, which was a battleground state for awhile. But Obama pulled ahead and McCain devoted resources elsewhere. He probably wouldn't have taken it though.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Nov 5, 2008 16:57:46 GMT -5
at least you wear the colors... lol. I didn't realize there were so many Gators in NYC.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 5, 2008 18:04:11 GMT -5
It's been a gradual process. First I wore my super awesome Mr. T shirt. Then so I had something that said Gators on it, I wore my softball shirt (Fighting Gators). They lost that game. Then I broke out the Mets Suck shirt to have the right colors. They've outscored their opponents 112-15 in 2 games.
|
|
|
Post by elliejay21 on Nov 5, 2008 18:26:49 GMT -5
FYI, 5 of NY's 29 Congressional Districts are on Long Island, 12 are within the 5 boroughs and 3 districts cover the rest of the downstate area. This leaves 9 of 29 districts to cover *everything* north of Westchester/Putnam/Orange/Rockland, including urban areas in places like Albany, Buffalo and Rochester.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 5, 2008 19:53:48 GMT -5
I had to laugh last night, while I was listening to the radio driving home. It was still early in the evening here, exit poll and actual vote-count results were just barely beginning to be made public, and the old "THIS JUST IN...BREAKING NEWS" bulletin announced that FOX was calling Obama the winner in Vermont. I literally LOL'd! Vermont....for Obama.......ohhh, YA THINK? That is hardly breaking news....Karl Marx could have run for President and you could call him a winner in Vermont.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Nov 5, 2008 21:21:21 GMT -5
i don't know why they didn't start off the map with ny, nj, ca and Il as blue. why draw it out?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 5, 2008 21:56:26 GMT -5
Vermont....for Obama.......ohhh, YA THINK? That is hardly breaking news....Karl Marx could have run for President and you could call him a winner in Vermont. You know that, I know that, probably everyone on the board knows that. That homo Mac knows that. But a lot of people fiddling around on the dials last night dont know these things. They play to the rube.
|
|
|
Post by massyanksfan on Nov 5, 2008 22:20:44 GMT -5
Well, the world as we know it has changed. Kind of like 9/11, only the terrorist didn't fly a plane into a building, he won an election.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 6, 2008 6:52:47 GMT -5
I was about to ask how someone from Massachusetts can actually be a Republican, but then I realized I live in Manhattan and I'M a Republican.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 6, 2008 6:58:16 GMT -5
So one thing I'm curious about will be how the Bush Administration acts toward the transition. The Clinton Administration showed what kind of classless pieces of garbage they were when they vandalized the White House in the last days, including ripping the Ws out of every computer keyboard.
In total the Clinton people caused about $100K in damage.
I hope the Bush Administration is classier.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 12:30:53 GMT -5
"Not saying it is, but Cali has 55, and again I don't have exact numbers, but it'd be hard to think there's a big difference in people living in California as opposed to New York."
Uhhh DUDE, you're right, you don't know the census.
If California were a country, in terms of a population/economic ratio, it would be the FIFTH BIGGEST NATION on the planet.
Gimme a break...the electoral college breakdown is just fine.
|
|