PDA

View Full Version : Making sense of the election, 3 weeks away.



Tetragrammaton
10-16-2012, 03:59 PM
The election is winding down, and a lot of states have left the toss-up column. Who is going to win? Well, look at the numbers and make a decision. I am using Wikipedia's roundup of statewide polling, as well as my own work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Anywa, lets start with a baseline. I am going to give Obama every state that he, Gore, and Kerry all won. That is Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland. This is a baseline of 242 electoral votes for Obama. Romney stopped playing for Michigan a while ago and polling indicates Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are not as toss-up as Romney would like to believe.

I will also give Romney every state that McCain won and Bush took twice. Those include Alaska, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia. This gives Romney a baseline of 180 electoral votes.

There are two states that, despite showing movement in other elections, seem firm. Indiana went for Obama in 2008, but Romney has shown double digit leads, giving him 191 electoral votes. New Mexico has become a blue state, giving Obama 247 electoral votes.

Now, unless Romney can steal Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin, he starts with a severe deficit. Big states like Florida and Ohio remain open, and Obama wins would be disastrous for Romney. Let us look at every remaining swing state. For the sake of accuracy, I am ignoring all pre-October polls. Don't worry, because there have been plenty since then.

Colorado:
A true toss-up. When a Republican-leaning firm like Rasmussen shows an Obama lead and the New York Times shows a Romney lead, it is hard to get a handle on anything. Romney cracked fifty percent once, and Obama reached forty-nine percent once, but the rest have been smaller leads. I would put money on Obama, but it would not be with confidence.

Florida:
Obama's lead has disappeared since the debate. Romney has led the last four polls, twice with fifty-one percent. Since the state alone would win the election for Obama, you can expect Romney to keep hitting the state hard and Obama responding in kind. A good chance of a Romney win in Florida.

Iowa:
Obama has done well here, leading by two points even in a Rasmussen poll. Only two October polls make this a bit muddier, and its small size makes it less important for most people. Obama could use the six electoral votes to pivot with others to mount a victory, so he will likely put more money in.

Nevada:
The best Romney has done in the state is to tie in a Rasmussen poll. Harry Reid is going to make sure Obama wins Nevada.

New Hampshire:
Massachusetts' commuters could be a key to a Romney victory. An American Research Group poll showed a four point Romney lead, but how much of this is debate hysteria is difficult to ascertain. Obama will likely pull it out based on regional trends, however.

North Carolina:
Obama will keep fighting in the state, but it looks like Romney will take this one from Obama's column. Romney has cracked the fifty-percent threshold multiple times.

Ohio:
Assuming Romney wins Florida, Ohio is the most important state in the election. An Obama victory would put him at 265 electoral votes, and any other state would give him a win, except for a tie by New Hampshire. There is a reason there have been eleven polls in the state since October began. Obama has consistently led, but by small margins. This is a state that could depend on turnout or those lunatics who watch the debates.

Virginia:
What looked like a win for Obama earlier in the year has turned into a slight Romney favorite. While Obama cracked fifty percent early in the month, Romney has led the last three. Another true toss-up state.

So, looking at these results, I would give Romney North Carolina and give Obama Nevada. This leaves us with a 253-206 Obama lead. Obama wins the election with a win of either Florida or Ohio; Romney must win both. That is not to say Obama cannot win if he loses both; if Romney took both it would be a 253-253 tie. If Obama did as he should in Iowa and New Hampsire, he would be at 263, and at that both either Virginia or Colorado would win the election for Obama.

So what should you watch for on Election Day? Well, if Romney steals one of the Leaning Democrat states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan), then the election will go late into the night. However, if Obama holds them, it comes down to those two big states. Romney has tightened the race, but there are very big odds to overcome. It is probably a 75 percent chance of an Obama victory, as of today.

Locke
10-16-2012, 04:18 PM
Thanks for the post Zest. I said this, much less eloquently and with much less detail, in some other thread that I'm sure no one will read. It's a good objective breakdown that everyone in the PoFo needs to read...

MoFinz
10-16-2012, 04:57 PM
great post. I've missed those.

:thanks:

Eshlemon
10-16-2012, 05:30 PM
The Obama campaign has spent a lot to make Romney into the Bain monster...

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/BaneandMittRomney006-1.jpg

...but thats not who showed up at the debate. Think its a tossup at the moment, 283-257 if Obama wins Ohio, 275-265 if Romney does. During the next debate, expect Obama to try to inject Venom into Romney to recreate the campaigns Bain monster. But without going overboard, or you start cutting into your big edge with women as with what happened with Biden.

Tetragrammaton
10-16-2012, 06:42 PM
I should add that many of the swing states have begun early voting. A lot of people claim to know how they are going precisely but I would just weigh today's polls against election day polls and split the difference in those states.

JamesBW43
10-16-2012, 07:36 PM
The electoral math clearly favors the President. I think the Obama campaign has done a solid job of attacking Governor Romney, but I don't think they have done a very good job of presenting the President. They seem to think that they should not campaign on anything the President has done. Hell, I heard one ad today in which the President says, "I'm Barack Obama, candidate for President, and I approve this message."...

Candidate? You ARE the President. Playing defense may not score points, but you can't forgo it completely. The campaign isn't giving Democrats enough reasons to go vote on Election Day.

Not only that, but I think the Obama campaign is choosing the worst line of attack right now. Criticizing Governor Romney for vagueness and flip flopping might convince some independents, but it won't send most of the Democrats running to the polls because their disappointment in the President stems from nearly the same things.

The Romney campaign may have a similar problem getting Republicans to the polls to support the former Governor, but I think his lofty promises will alleviate some of that and I think the anti-Obama vote is much stronger than the anti-Romney vote.

The Republicans will also have a much stronger ground game this time around and supposedly a blitzkrieg of ads in these final weeks.

Despite the math, I think Governor Romney has a decent chance.

Dolphins9954
10-16-2012, 07:40 PM
My take is Obama deserves to lose. He's been a horrible president. Unfortunately Romney is the replacement. "Hold on lady we going for a ride".

Tetragrammaton
10-16-2012, 08:06 PM
My take is Obama deserves to lose. He's been a horrible president. Unfortunately Romney is the replacement. "Hold on lady we going for a ride".

Of course Obama fails in the abstract, but it is Obama versus Romney. I know you won't answer who you prefer though.

trojanma
10-16-2012, 08:36 PM
If anyone wants a no nonsense mathematical look at the polls then I recommend this blog. Nate Silver looks at all the polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

I agree with your post Tetra.

Right now Obama should ride Ohio to the win, but this is a moving target and Obama cannot afford many more PR defeats like debate #1.

I think the foreign policy debate will be a little kinder to him sense he has easier facts to defend himself with.

Dolphins9954
10-16-2012, 08:57 PM
Of course Obama fails in the abstract, but it is Obama versus Romney. I know you won't answer who you prefer though.

Firing Squad or Hanging? I prefer neither. I'll admit getting a chuckle out of the "Messiah" going down. But make no mistake that's not an endorsement of douchebag at all. He's just as bad or worse than Obama on every level. This election is the epitome of prison rape.

Tetragrammaton
10-16-2012, 09:41 PM
Firing Squad or Hanging? I prefer neither. I'll admit getting a chuckle out of the "Messiah" going down. But make no mistake that's not an endorsement of douchebag at all. He's just as bad or worse than Obama on every level. This election is the epitome of prison rape.

I think Obama has been a terrible President. From health care to foreign policy to economic measures, he has been a staggering failure. He is the same type of corporate lackey that Bush was. However, as much as I might prefer Dennis Kucinich or Alan Grayson or Ralph Nader or Jill Stein, it ain't happening. I figure Romney will be a little worse, so I would prefer an Obama victory.

Dolphins9954
10-16-2012, 09:56 PM
I think Obama has been a terrible President. From health care to foreign policy to economic measures, he has been a staggering failure. He is the same type of corporate lackey that Bush was. However, as much as I might prefer Dennis Kucinich or Alan Grayson or Ralph Nader or Jill Stein, it ain't happening. I figure Romney will be a little worse, so I would prefer an Obama victory.

If you really feel that way about Obama then voting for him again makes no sense IMO. Granted the system is rigged and this is all an illusion anyways. But falling in line has never been my approach to it. I'm a rebel at heart and refuse to go along with the status quo. Obama and Romney are the problem. Voting for them makes you an accessory to it.

Tetragrammaton
10-16-2012, 10:25 PM
If you really feel that way about Obama then voting for him again makes no sense IMO. Granted the system is rigged and this is all an illusion anyways. But falling in line has never been my approach to it. I'm a rebel at heart and refuse to go along with the status quo. Obama and Romney are the problem. Voting for them makes you an accessory to it.

I am voting for Jill Stein, but I would prefer an Obama victory.

Dolphins9954
10-16-2012, 10:35 PM
I am voting for Jill Stein, but I would prefer an Obama victory.

She got arrested outside the debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/hofstra-debate-jill-stein-arrested-green-party_n_1971960.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

phins_4_ever
10-16-2012, 10:57 PM
She got arrested outside the debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/hofstra-debate-jill-stein-arrested-green-party_n_1971960.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

In my opinion this 15% in national polls is BS. If people who create the polls only ask about Romney and Obama how can anybody get 15% in national polls. Bipartisan debate commission? Well they may consist of Democrats and Republicans but both are better served leaving any third party candidate out of the debates. I think any presidential candidate should be allowed into the debates.

Flip Tanneflop
10-16-2012, 11:56 PM
I am voting for Jill Stein, but I would prefer an Obama victory.

:bobdole: You must be talking about some small local election. Surely you arent speaking about the office of PRESIDENT of the United States.

CedarPhin
10-17-2012, 12:24 AM
I'm voting for Gary Johnson, or writing in Ron Paul, or just putting some random name, and just voting on the issues.

COphinphan89
10-17-2012, 12:55 AM
I'm voting for Gary Johnson, or writing in Ron Paul, or just putting some random name, and just voting on the issues.
Same here. Gary Johnson and YES on Amendment 64 (legalize weed).

Tetragrammaton
10-17-2012, 01:04 AM
:bobdole: You must be talking about some small local election. Surely you arent speaking about the office of PRESIDENT of the United States.

No.

Tetragrammaton
10-17-2012, 01:06 AM
In my opinion this 15% in national polls is BS. If people who create the polls only ask about Romney and Obama how can anybody get 15% in national polls. Bipartisan debate commission? Well they may consist of Democrats and Republicans but both are better served leaving any third party candidate out of the debates. I think any presidential candidate should be allowed into the debates.

The two party system will always exist as long as we have the election system we have. Even if you allowed the Greens and the Libertarians at the debate it would still be the Democrats versus the Republicans because people will vote for the one they like better that has a real shot at winning. Parliamentary systems would be better at fostering additional parties.

TheWalrus
10-17-2012, 01:29 AM
The two party system will always exist as long as we have the election system we have. Even if you allowed the Greens and the Libertarians at the debate it would still be the Democrats versus the Republicans because people will vote for the one they like better that has a real shot at winning. Parliamentary systems would be better at fostering additional parties.

I agree. In that sort of system there also wouldn't be the constant accusations of illegitimacy that occur when Congress and the President are from different parties. The electorate would be allowed to try different style of governance on a more up-to-the-election basis, making for more decisive shifts in policy. Not that a fast moving government doesn't have it's drawbacks too.

Flip Tanneflop
10-17-2012, 10:43 AM
I'm voting for Gary Johnson, or writing in Ron Paul, or just putting some random name, and just voting on the issues.

Whats the point in that? Seriously, no offense but you guys smoke too much weed. You know I like you Cedar, but you guys need to explain how writing in whoever accomplishes anything. What is the point?

JackFinfan
10-17-2012, 11:05 AM
Whats the point in that? Seriously, no offense but you guys smoke too much weed. You know I like you Cedar, but you guys need to explain how writing in whoever accomplishes anything. What is the point?

I'm Voting for Gary Johnson as well. The point is that candidates should have to earn your vote, not win them by default because they're just slightly better than the other horrible candidate. If more people thought like Cedar both parties would actually have to worry about nominating great candidates in order to win. Both R's and D's know that they can make promises to get elected and not fulfill them, yet still get reelected because their respective base will vote for them no matter what. If that changed and more people stopped voting for a guy by default, then maybe both sides would actually keep the promises they make, or stop making unrealistic promises during the campaign.

Flip Tanneflop
10-17-2012, 11:41 AM
I'm Voting for Gary Johnson as well. The point is that candidates should have to earn your vote, not win them by default because they're just slightly better than the other horrible candidate. If more people thought like Cedar both parties would actually have to worry about nominating great candidates in order to win. Both R's and D's know that they can make promises to get elected and not fulfill them, yet still get reelected because their respective base will vote for them no matter what. If that changed and more people stopped voting for a guy by default, then maybe both sides would actually keep the promises they make, or stop making unrealistic promises during the campaign.

I can understand what youre saying, and I would agree that generally we are left choosing between 2 options that dont look so great. I get that.

But, you have to be realistic. More people arent going to think like Cedar. Its just not going to happen. We live in a country where the large majority of people are clueless. Youre not going to change that. It would take a LONG time to change the culture to where most people have a clue and we could have a system of multiple parties and a government that could work with rapid changes like that.

And what are you guys doing to get this change started? Writing in people that nobody cares about? How does that help? Sitting on your couch smoking bongs? How does that help? Posting on FH? How does that help? If you truly believe this **** needs to happen, then make it your life cause and get out there and stir the ****. Create the change. Be the change.

Fact is we have 2 candidates to choose from who can win. Thats the situation we are in. So you need to get real and deal with the situation we are in instead of trying to escape that reality. Choose the best option of the two. When this is over, start your campaign to make **** different. As for now, we have a circumstance where the incumbant President has done possibly the worst job of any president for 4 years now. He needs to be removed. You dont like Romney? Fine. But, could he really do worse than Obama?

You need to decide that and choose one of those 2 men. Reality is that one of them will be our leader for the next 4 years. Writing in RuPaul will have ZERO effect on anything.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFDND9SRJbs

LouPhinFan
10-17-2012, 12:51 PM
I've come to the decision that since my voting location has already been switched over (so I'll be able to vote) since my move, that I'll be voting for...

Gary Johnson.

That's right I said it. Eat it D9954.:lol:

---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------


I can understand what youre saying, and I would agree that generally we are left choosing between 2 options that dont look so great. I get that.

But, you have to be realistic. More people arent going to think like Cedar. Its just not going to happen. We live in a country where the large majority of people are clueless. Youre not going to change that. It would take a LONG time to change the culture to where most people have a clue and we could have a system of multiple parties and a government that could work with rapid changes like that.

And what are you guys doing to get this change started? Writing in people that nobody cares about? How does that help? Sitting on your couch smoking bongs? How does that help? Posting on FH? How does that help? If you truly believe this **** needs to happen, then make it your life cause and get out there and stir the ****. Create the change. Be the change.

Fact is we have 2 candidates to choose from who can win. Thats the situation we are in. So you need to get real and deal with the situation we are in instead of trying to escape that reality. Choose the best option of the two. When this is over, start your campaign to make **** different. As for now, we have a circumstance where the incumbant President has done possibly the worst job of any president for 4 years now. He needs to be removed. You dont like Romney? Fine. But, could he really do worse than Obama?

You need to decide that and choose one of those 2 men. Reality is that one of them will be our leader for the next 4 years. Writing in RuPaul will have ZERO effect on anything.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFDND9SRJbs

Horrible, single minded thinking.

Dolphins9954
10-17-2012, 06:51 PM
Good job Lou!!!!

TrojanFin
10-17-2012, 07:14 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/12/mitt-romney-heading-for-a-landslide-win/

:thumbup::hclap:

It's all a matter of opinion, but above is a contrary argument that Obama is likely to lose next month.

I get that people are dissatisfied with the two party process, but until third parties are included in the presidential debates and taken seriously neither the Libertarian, Green or Reform party will ever hold the office of POTUS. Your best bet is for Libertarians to try and carve out their own niche within the GOP, and attempt to have more influence than the Christian Coalition, while the Green Party should attempt to do the same within the Democratic Party. We are society that embraces dichotomy: Coke or Pepsi, Droid or iPhone, Chevy or Ford, Marvel or DC, Analog or Digital, Paper or Plastic, etc.

People are entitled to vote for the third option but know that you end up with options like: Shasta, Blackberry, Chrysler, Darkhorse Comics, cloth bags - all of which have their own merits, but are not likely to embraced by the larger population. The better option is to donate money or support candidates that share similar values to your own and have them succeed within the two party system. The Tea Party did this to some degree, and forced the GOP to take notice that the status quo is not acceptable.

Locke
10-17-2012, 07:21 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/12/mitt-romney-heading-for-a-landslide-win/

:thumbup::hclap:

It's all a matter of opinion, but above is a contrary argument that Obama is likely to lose next month.

I get that people are dissatisfied with the two party process, but until third parties are included in the presidential debates and taken seriously neither the Libertarian, Green or Reform party will ever hold the office of POTUS. Your best bet is for Libertarians to try and carve out their own niche within the GOP, and attempt to have more influence than the Christian Coalition, while the Green Party should attempt to do the same within the Democratic Party. We are society that embraces dichotomy: Coke or Pepsi, Droid or iPhone, Chevy or Ford, Marvel or DC, Analog or Digital, Paper or Plastic, etc.

People are entitled to vote for the third option but know that you end up with options like: Shasta, Blackberry, Chrysler, Darkhorse Comics, cloth bags - all of which have their own merits, but are not likely to embraced by the larger population. The better option is to donate money or support candidates that share similar values to your own and have them succeed within the two party system. The Tea Party did this to some degree, and forced the GOP to take notice that the status quo is not acceptable.

That's not an argument, that's a guy who pretty much said "I've made wild guesses in the past and been right, and I'm going to do it again." He offers no discussion of why not only Romney will win, but do it in a landslide. He just says it's going to happen. That's not even close to the same as what Zest just did...

Tetragrammaton
10-17-2012, 07:34 PM
WV, one vote changes nothing anyway. It doesn't matter if you vote third party or not. Besides, the vast majority of people live in states where the outcome is decided anyway.

Tetragrammaton
10-17-2012, 07:38 PM
Also, Wayne Allen Root is lying in the Washington Times article TrojanFin posted. He says every poll showed Kerry in the lead; this is wrong. Almost none showed him in the lead. The rest of his "predictions" were what everyone was saying.

trojanma
10-17-2012, 08:07 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/12/mitt-romney-heading-for-a-landslide-win/


This article is complete nonsense. Delusional thinking.
This race is going to be exceedingly close. Closer than the last election.

There is still time to go so unexpected events can still shift opinon, but if the election were to happen tomorrow Obama would likely win in a narrow victory on the strength of Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada.

Romney has made gains since the first debate when he debunked some of the perceptions against him by pivoted hard to the middle on his answers.

CedarPhin
10-18-2012, 12:07 AM
Whats the point in that? Seriously, no offense but you guys smoke too much weed. You know I like you Cedar, but you guys need to explain how writing in whoever accomplishes anything. What is the point?

I live in the People's Republic. Therefore, my vote doesn't count, since it'll be a blue landslide. There's more blue in this state than at a Crips convention.

There are a bunch of propositions here that I'm interested in, though, so most of my focus is going on them. I like Gary Johnson, I like Ron Paul, so I'll probably put one of their names in for that. I don't care much either for Obama or Romney, and since my vote doesn't count, I don't care about who I vote for.

CedarPhin
10-18-2012, 12:12 AM
I can understand what youre saying, and I would agree that generally we are left choosing between 2 options that dont look so great. I get that.

But, you have to be realistic. More people arent going to think like Cedar. Its just not going to happen. We live in a country where the large majority of people are clueless. Youre not going to change that. It would take a LONG time to change the culture to where most people have a clue and we could have a system of multiple parties and a government that could work with rapid changes like that.

And what are you guys doing to get this change started? Writing in people that nobody cares about? How does that help? Sitting on your couch smoking bongs? How does that help? Posting on FH? How does that help? If you truly believe this **** needs to happen, then make it your life cause and get out there and stir the ****. Create the change. Be the change.

Fact is we have 2 candidates to choose from who can win. Thats the situation we are in. So you need to get real and deal with the situation we are in instead of trying to escape that reality. Choose the best option of the two. When this is over, start your campaign to make **** different. As for now, we have a circumstance where the incumbant President has done possibly the worst job of any president for 4 years now. He needs to be removed. You dont like Romney? Fine. But, could he really do worse than Obama?

You need to decide that and choose one of those 2 men. Reality is that one of them will be our leader for the next 4 years. Writing in RuPaul will have ZERO effect on anything.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFDND9SRJbs

I totally get where you're coming from, and I usually share this type of thinking, a realistic approach. But, being that I live where I live, it doesn't matter who I vote for, since we already know what the results here are going to be. If I lived in say, Oregon or Colorado, I may vote for one of the two, but here? It doesn't matter. Maybe I'll write WVDolphan in, since you're the only one who keeps it real.

You're absolutely right too about people not voting like me. I don't really expect them too. I have a low view of most people. The people around this forum are exceptions to the rule. I have a hard enough time talking to people about politics without them giving me a blank stare and trying to change the subject to professional wrestling. If more people voted/thought like me, the world would be a better place for it.

Haha. Happy Wednesday WV.

Tetragrammaton
10-18-2012, 12:24 AM
At the end of the day, the only people whose vote really matters is people in Ohio, if it gets that close. Take away the non-voters and the base partisans, and a few thousand people pick the President.

Flip Tanneflop
10-18-2012, 01:29 AM
I totally get where you're coming from, and I usually share this type of thinking, a realistic approach. But, being that I live where I live, it doesn't matter who I vote for, since we already know what the results here are going to be. If I lived in say, Oregon or Colorado, I may vote for one of the two, but here? It doesn't matter. Maybe I'll write WVDolphan in, since you're the only one who keeps it real.

You're absolutely right too about people not voting like me. I don't really expect them too. I have a low view of most people. The people around this forum are exceptions to the rule. I have a hard enough time talking to people about politics without them giving me a blank stare and trying to change the subject to professional wrestling. If more people voted/thought like me, the world would be a better place for it.

Haha. Happy Wednesday WV.

LOL how true. It usually dosent take long. You get into a conversation with someone and they may make a senseable statement or two, whether you agree or not is irrelevant to the point, but usually after that you quickly find out they really are lost. Then they try to change the subject after they realize you can continue speaking about important issues with a decent amount of knowledge for a while. They want no part of it. :lol:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs

Also agree with you on voting in states that are a lock. I forgot you live in California. It dosent matter who you vote for, Obama will be taking that one down. Im in the same boat. Im not even going to the polls for the purpose of the presidential election. Hell, Obama didnt even win the primary here. :lol: Im going to vote for the local elections. Of course sadly, the local elections can be a bit of a joke here. These people vote the SAME people in everytime for congress and senate. You remember how many years in a row Robert Byrd served as US senator from WV? The guy shouldve been in a nursing home the last year he won. I hate to say it, because there are a lot of good people here, and there are some well informed too, but a lot of folks around here are beyond clueless.

Flip Tanneflop
10-18-2012, 01:35 AM
At the end of the day, the only people whose vote really matters is people in Ohio, if it gets that close. Take away the non-voters and the base partisans, and a few thousand people pick the President.

Yep. If I lived in one of the key swing states I would be kinda stoked. Id be going to the polls with a serious purpose. Getting to go to the poll knowing that your vote for the presidential election actually matters would be pretty cool IMHO. Here its so rare that its close, plus its not worth many electoral votes.


How do you guys feel about the electoral system? Would you rather go to a popular vote count? Would that make it easier to fix the election? What do you guys think about this. For a POFO full of socialists :lol: you guys are alright ya know. At least you guys have educated opinions on things. I can respect that whether we agree on tree hugging or not.

COphinphan89
10-18-2012, 01:36 AM
I live in a very contentious swing state. My inner circle, family and friends, are on a warpath to get me to vote for Mitt Romney. They act like a second Obama term would be more destructive than the Civil War. I come from an extremely conservative background from where I grew up in Florida to where I live now. But by the time I've gone to early voting next week and cast my vote for Gary Johnson, they'll be to late. If only the GOP could drop the rabid, psychopathic warmongering, they would pretty much have me. At that point I think I could get over my disdain for the American Hezbollah wing of the GOP.

Flip Tanneflop
10-18-2012, 01:56 AM
:lol: I just thought of the perfect switch for that last Carlin bit I posted.....

It dosent take ya very long to spot one of em either. Take ya about 8 seconds. You'll be listenin to Tyler's roomate...... you say....... This guy is ****in stupid!

Then there are some people, theyre not stupid. Theyre full of ****. It dosent take you long to spot that either does it. Take ya bout the same amount of time. You'll be reading NYJunc's posts...... ya say, well, he's fairly intelligent................ AAAAAH! He's full of ****!!!

Then there are some people, theyre not stupid. Theyre not full of ****. Theyre ****ING NUTS!!!! Cash In Fist is ALL THREE!! Stupid, full of ****, and ****ing nuts!

rob19
10-18-2012, 08:54 AM
I can understand what youre saying, and I would agree that generally we are left choosing between 2 options that dont look so great. I get that.

But, you have to be realistic. More people arent going to think like Cedar. Its just not going to happen. We live in a country where the large majority of people are clueless. Youre not going to change that. It would take a LONG time to change the culture to where most people have a clue and we could have a system of multiple parties and a government that could work with rapid changes like that.

And what are you guys doing to get this change started? Writing in people that nobody cares about? How does that help? Sitting on your couch smoking bongs? How does that help? Posting on FH? How does that help? If you truly believe this **** needs to happen, then make it your life cause and get out there and stir the ****. Create the change. Be the change.

Fact is we have 2 candidates to choose from who can win. Thats the situation we are in. So you need to get real and deal with the situation we are in instead of trying to escape that reality. Choose the best option of the two. When this is over, start your campaign to make **** different. As for now, we have a circumstance where the incumbant President has done possibly the worst job of any president for 4 years now. He needs to be removed. You dont like Romney? Fine. But, could he really do worse than Obama?

You need to decide that and choose one of those 2 men. Reality is that one of them will be our leader for the next 4 years. Writing in RuPaul will have ZERO effect on anything.


I am being the 'change', by not keeping with the status quo of voting for either of two ****ty candidates. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson who'll be on the ballot as the libertarian nominee. I have no illusions about him winning this election, it's hard to project 4 years into the future but I think he has a realistic shot in 2016. If he gets 5-10% of the popular vote, all the better. That, will be the real change.

"The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people . . . white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means . . . continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a **** about you. They don’t give a **** about you . . . they don’t give a **** about you. They don’t care about you at all . . . at all . . . at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their *******s everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It’s called the American Dream cause you have to be asleep to believe it". - George Carlin

JackFinfan
10-18-2012, 09:20 AM
Yep. If I lived in one of the key swing states I would be kinda stoked. Id be going to the polls with a serious purpose. Getting to go to the poll knowing that your vote for the presidential election actually matters would be pretty cool IMHO. Here its so rare that its close, plus its not worth many electoral votes.


How do you guys feel about the electoral system? Would you rather go to a popular vote count? Would that make it easier to fix the election? What do you guys think about this. For a POFO full of socialists :lol: you guys are alright ya know. At least you guys have educated opinions on things. I can respect that whether we agree on tree hugging or not.

I think the electoral system could be the # 1 reason for low voter turnout. If I'm a democrat in Alabama or a Republican in California, the only reason I bother to go to the polls is if there's an interesting amendment to vote on. It's kind of sad knowing from day 1 of the primaries that your vote won't matter in the presidential race. I live in Jacksonville, so my vote is pretty important, but if I lived an hour or so north, my vote would be worthless. I don't see how anyone can defend that.

Also, it allows candidates to basically ignore 85% or more of the country when campaigning.

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 10:11 AM
I get being dissatisfied with Obama or Romney. But what I don't get is believing that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein -- or any of the third party candidates -- care about you. It seems more like a protest vote than a vote for them, in other words.

I mean, everyone should vote for whomever they want and for whatever reason. But it seems to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that people don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the specific policies and beliefs of third party candidates than they do to one of the top guys. It's more like, "I don't like the top two candidates and this is the third party that's closest to my own beliefs so I'm voting for whoever they nominated this time."

Flip Tanneflop
10-18-2012, 11:47 AM
I get being dissatisfied with Obama or Romney. But what I don't get is believing that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein -- or any of the third party candidates -- care about you. It seems more like a protest vote than a vote for them, in other words.

I mean, everyone should vote for whomever they want and for whatever reason. But it seems to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that people don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the specific policies and beliefs of third party candidates than they do to one of the top guys. It's more like, "I don't like the top two candidates and this is the third party that's closest to my own beliefs so I'm voting for whoever they nominated this time."

Wow. I agree with the Walrus again. Thats it. Im going to get checked out. Gotta make sure Im not becoming a socialist.

Locke
10-18-2012, 11:54 AM
I get being dissatisfied with Obama or Romney. But what I don't get is believing that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein -- or any of the third party candidates -- care about you. It seems more like a protest vote than a vote for them, in other words.

I mean, everyone should vote for whomever they want and for whatever reason. But it seems to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that people don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the specific policies and beliefs of third party candidates than they do to one of the top guys. It's more like, "I don't like the top two candidates and this is the third party that's closest to my own beliefs so I'm voting for whoever they nominated this time."

This is especially true with Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and think that we're going to have to adopt a fair share of his ideas sooner rather than later, but he big on ideology and low on reality. He wants to end the fed, but offers no real plan for that. He wants to get rid of all government agencies, such as the department of education, and leave all of that up to the states. However, he completely ignores the myriad of issues that come with leaving absolutely everything up to the states. He wants to get rid of the IRS and reduce taxes to some level in line with 1975 or something like that, but offers no real way to cover the lost revenue. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. If Ron Paul were the Republican nominee, he'd be getting trashed harder than Romney and Obama combined. But since he isn't, no one even bothers to point out the numerous problems that come with his idea of government...

JamesBW43
10-18-2012, 12:25 PM
I get being dissatisfied with Obama or Romney. But what I don't get is believing that Gary Johnson or Jill Stein -- or any of the third party candidates -- care about you. It seems more like a protest vote than a vote for them, in other words.

I mean, everyone should vote for whomever they want and for whatever reason. But it seems to me, and perhaps I'm wrong, that people don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the specific policies and beliefs of third party candidates than they do to one of the top guys. It's more like, "I don't like the top two candidates and this is the third party that's closest to my own beliefs so I'm voting for whoever they nominated this time."

I don`t know about anyone else but I looked at Jill Stein`s policy positions before I decided to entertain the idea of voting for a third party candidate. I agree with her positions more than any of the other candidates. Now it`s just a question of pragmatism or principle imo.

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 01:58 PM
Wow. I agree with the Walrus again. Thats it. Im going to get checked out. Gotta make sure Im not becoming a socialist.

Eh, it just means you're probably on the right track about something, rather than your usual gibbering nonsense.

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 02:30 PM
I don`t know about anyone else but I looked at Jill Stein`s policy positions before I decided to entertain the idea of voting for a third party candidate. I agree with her positions more than any of the other candidates. Now it`s just a question of pragmatism or principle imo.

I agree with a lot of Stein's positions, though a lot of it is sort of pie in the sky, especially her energy policy. You can't simultaneously end nuclear power, end drilling, end coal, end fracking and end our dependence on foreign oil. Sorry, but hydroelectric, wind, solar and biofuels just doesn't cut it. Not close, not even kind of close.

That's something I've realized as I've gotten older, that there's a difference between caring about the "masses", as it were, in sort of an abstract way... and actually focusing on the issues that affect them, which are principally pocketbook issues. As great as renewables and organics and sustainable products are, if every grocery store in the US were mandated to be like Whole Foods, no one could afford to shop for food. It's just too damn expensive. You'd have to have government run grocery stores run on a voucher system to supplement the high end places, which would be a terrible situation. Similarly, as I mentioned above, her energy policy would lead to a massive increase in energy costs, which would primarily affect, you guessed it, the poor.

Tetragrammaton
10-18-2012, 02:33 PM
Anyone who was paying attention knew Ron Paul was a fraud five years ago. His run was entertaining, though.

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 03:01 PM
This is especially true with Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and think that we're going to have to adopt a fair share of his ideas sooner rather than later, but he big on ideology and low on reality. He wants to end the fed, but offers no real plan for that. He wants to get rid of all government agencies, such as the department of education, and leave all of that up to the states. However, he completely ignores the myriad of issues that come with leaving absolutely everything up to the states. He wants to get rid of the IRS and reduce taxes to some level in line with 1975 or something like that, but offers no real way to cover the lost revenue. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. If Ron Paul were the Republican nominee, he'd be getting trashed harder than Romney and Obama combined. But since he isn't, no one even bothers to point out the numerous problems that come with his idea of government...

My problem with Ron Paul and libertarians in general -- as I was telling 9954 in another thread -- is that their philosophy as a practical matter doesn't end up being to support something like gay rights. It's that the federal government shouldn't intervene. People just sort of assume this adds up to gay marriage for all or in another case for legalization or for civil liberties generally. But the reality is if you leave these things up to the states, you haven't guaranteed anything. You merely might be trading in a federal oppressor for a local one.

To me, the federal government should be in the business of guaranteeing individual freedoms against local governments and corporates interests alike. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not merely principles, in other words. They carry with them the right of the government to enforce what they say.

A good example of this is Gary Johnson's stated preference for Supreme Court justices who would rule based on original intent (which generally speaking limits the power of the Supreme Court to, as conservatives like to say, "legislate from the bench"). Well, the problem is that an originalist judicial philosophy don't include the right to privacy. It's not explicitly in the text, therefore you can't infer it, says that philosophy. Well, that's huge. Without an inferred right to privacy, abortion rights go out the window, since Roe v. Wade was built on the right to privacy (Johnson admits Roe would be overturned by originalists). So was Griswold v. Connecticut, which guaranteed the right of couples to buy contraception. It's no small issue, and Johnson himself might not like the results of decisions handed down by that kind of judiciary. But what is he going to do? His philosophy of limited government would in and of itself prevent his ability to affect change.

Locke
10-18-2012, 03:16 PM
My problem with Ron Paul and libertarians in general -- as I was telling 9954 in another thread -- is that their philosophy as a practical matter doesn't end up being to support gay rights, for example. It's that the federal government shouldn't intervene. People just sort of assume this adds up to gay marriage for all or in another case for legalization or for civil liberties generally. But the reality is if you leave these things up to the states, you haven't guaranteed anything. You merely might be trading in a federal oppressor for a local one.

To me, the federal government should be in the business of guaranteeing individual freedoms against local governments and corporates interests alike. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not merely principles, in other words. They carry with them the right of the government to enforce what they say.

A good example of this is Gary Johnson stated preference for Supreme Court justices who would rule based on original intent (which generally speaking limits the power of the Supreme Court to, as conservatives like to say, "legislate from the bench"). Well, the problem is that an originalist judicial philosophy don't include the right to privacy. It's not explicitly in the text, therefore you can't infer it, says that philosophy. Well, that's huge. Without the right to privacy, abortion rights goes out the window. Roe v. Wade was built on the right to privacy (Johnson admits Roe would be overturned by originalists). So was Griswold v. Connecticut, which guaranteed the right of couples to buy contraception. It's no small issue, and Johnson himself might not like the results of decisions handed down by that kind of judiciary. But what is he going to do? His philosophy of limited government would in and of itself prevent his ability to affect change.

Great points throughout.

I think it's also important to point out that giving the local governments all this power has several dangers in of itself. What would prevent a state like Kansas from deciding that Creationism is right and that it should be taught in place of Evolution? What would stop a state like Oregon from deciding that any kind of fossil fuel wouldn't be allowed to be used within it's state borders? If states had the ability to do that, we'd still see states like Virginia and North Carolina with legal slavery, which is universally agreed to be one of the most significant dark spots in U.S. history. it took the Federal government going in and enforcing that to end it. The Federal government has a role, despite what people would like to believe. Ron Paul's America is something that just isn't pragmatic. It sounds great on paper, but it's just not realistic...

rob19
10-18-2012, 03:20 PM
All good points, but I will admit I do admire a guy that will stand up and say the NDAA is unconstitutional when no one else will. I do like a guy that will say the fed is probably a bit corrupt and should be audited, or who'll say the drug war has been a failure, & that gambling & prostitution shouldn't be a criminal matter. That will say the Federal government shouldn’t overstep matters that the state’s people have voted in favor of. He is by far the most financially supported candidate in terms of active military personnel so you figure they probably agree with a lot of his foreign policy. Yes, states like Missouri might be a bit late on the gay marriage train, but isn't that part of being in a democracy? As it stands now though I don't exactly see the federal government itching to jump in on gay marriage.

tylerdolphin
10-18-2012, 03:21 PM
I don`t know about anyone else but I looked at Jill Stein`s policy positions before I decided to entertain the idea of voting for a third party candidate. I agree with her positions more than any of the other candidates. Now it`s just a question of pragmatism or principle imo.

I took a political test posted here and got Jill Stein as my #1 match. I dont know anything about her and didnt bother reading up because I dont have a vote, but I thought it was interesting that they aligned me with a green party candidate when Id never self-align myself with that.

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 03:27 PM
Great points throughout.

I think it's also important to point out that giving the local governments all this power has several dangers in of itself. What would prevent a state like Kansas from deciding that Creationism is right and that it should be taught in place of Evolution? What would stop a state like Oregon from deciding that any kind of fossil fuel wouldn't be allowed to be used within it's state borders? If states had the ability to do that, we'd still see states like Virginia and North Carolina with legal slavery, which is universally agreed to be one of the most significant dark spots in U.S. history. it took the Federal government going in and enforcing that to end it. The Federal government has a role, despite what people would like to believe. Ron Paul's America is something that just isn't pragmatic. It sounds great on paper, but it's just not realistic...

Exactly. Those kinds of things are precisely the danger. Now, some things like slavery are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, and unless I'm mistaken only the poster Buddy is an anti-federalist around here. But teaching Creationism is a great example. Outlawing soft drinks or other kinds of "unacceptable" foods would be another (your choice of food isn't "speech", it's not discrimination and it's not a civil right).

phins_4_ever
10-18-2012, 03:34 PM
I agree with a lot of Stein's positions, though a lot of it is sort of pie in the sky, especially her energy policy. You can't simultaneously end nuclear power, end drilling, end coal, end fracking and end our dependence on foreign oil. Sorry, but hydroelectric, wind, solar and biofuels just doesn't cut it. Not close, not even kind of close.

That's something I've realized as I've gotten older, that there's a difference between caring about the "masses", as it were, in sort of an abstract way... and actually focusing on the issues that affect them, which are principally pocketbook issues. As great as renewables and organics and sustainable products are, if every grocery store in the US were mandated to be like Whole Foods, no one could afford to shop for food. It's just too damn expensive. You'd have to have government run grocery stores run on a voucher system to supplement the high end places, which would be a terrible situation. Similarly, as I mentioned above, her energy policy would lead to a massive increase in energy costs, which would primarily affect, you guessed it, the poor.

You may want to look overseas and see how the EU changes their energy policies. It is greatly successful. I would say they will be largely energy independent in about 50 years at the rate they are going. It is really not a matter if you can or not but if you want to.

rob19
10-18-2012, 03:37 PM
I think slavery & creationism are pretty dramatic examples. I don't think 51% of North Carolina believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that we should reinstate slavery.

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 03:37 PM
All good points, but I will admit I do admire a guy that will stand up and say the NDAA is unconstitutional when no one else will. I do like a guy that will say the fed is probably a bit corrupt and should be audited, or who'll say the drug war has been a failure, & that gambling & prostitution shouldn't be a criminal matter. That will say the Federal government shouldn’t overstep matters that the state’s people have voted in favor of. He is by far the most financially supported candidate in terms of active military personnel so you figure they probably agree with a lot of his foreign policy. Yes, states like Missouri might be a bit late on the gay marriage train, but isn't that part of being in a democracy? As it stands now though I don't exactly see the federal government itching to jump in on gay marriage.

Actually, I admire a lot of that too. But the end of the federal drug war wouldn't mean Texas or New Mexico or Arizona couldn't take up their own drug wars. It wouldn't mean other states would necessarily change their laws on possession or distribution.

Marijuana should be legal (regulated, but legal), period. It shouldn't be up to this state or that.

rob19
10-18-2012, 03:40 PM
Actually, I admire a lot of that too. But the end of the federal drug war wouldn't mean Texas or New Mexico or Arizona couldn't take up their own drug wars. It wouldn't mean other states would necessarily change their laws on possession or distribution.

Marijuana should be legal (regulated, but legal), period. It shouldn't be up to this state or that.

& Yet it's federally illegal. So I'm not exactly sure the federal government always has our best interest in mind either.

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 03:41 PM
I think slavery & creationism are pretty dramatic examples. I don't think 51% of North Carolina believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that we should reinstate slavery.

Well, didn't the Texas school board pass a law or institute a standard where intelligent design had to be taught as a parallel theory to evolution in science class? With the result being -- since Texas buys so many books -- that students in many states would be issued books that contain passages to that effect? I remember reading that, though I didn't follow up.

That's not out and out creationism, but it's in the same ballpark, imo.

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 03:44 PM
& Yet it's federally illegal. So I'm not exactly sure the federal government always has our best interest in mind either.

I agree. But at least as a philosophy of government it can get you where you want to go.

rob19
10-18-2012, 03:55 PM
What I'm saying is some of you are portraying an image that if anything is left to the state's they'll **** it up beyond all belief when I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you're a Dispensary owner out in California that's breaking no state laws & yet keeps getting raided because it's federally prohibited you might have a case that central government is over regulating. Inversely if you're a gay dude in Mississippi you might have a case that the federal government is under-regulating in certain regards. I think it goes both ways.

Locke
10-18-2012, 04:14 PM
What I'm saying is some of you are portraying an image that if anything is left to the state's they'll **** it up beyond all belief when I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you're a Dispensary owner out in California that's breaking no state laws & yet keeps getting raided because it's federally prohibited you might have a case that central government is over regulating. Inversely if you're a gay dude in Mississippi you might have a case that the federal government is under-regulating in certain regards. I think it goes both ways.

Of course slavery is a dramatic example, but Creationism isn't. Even on the state level, it wouldn't necessarily need 51% to pass. It would just need to pass through the local legislature. That's the kind of thing you risk by giving the states too much power. It needs to be a balance of power between the state and federal level. Let the states govern themselves as much as possible, but have the federal government there when you get these insane people who try to teach that Dinosaurs and people lived at the same time...

rob19
10-18-2012, 04:37 PM
Of course slavery is a dramatic example, but Creationism isn't. Even on the state level, it wouldn't necessarily need 51% to pass. It would just need to pass through the local legislature. That's the kind of thing you risk by giving the states too much power. It needs to be a balance of power between the state and federal level. Let the states govern themselves as much as possible, but have the federal government there when you get these insane people who try to teach that Dinosaurs and people lived at the same time...

I agree absolutely, but who's keeping the federal government in check? The Texas standard that Walrus mentioned, did the federal government stop it? Gay marriage should be legal, but the federal government hasn't stepped in and done anything. The drug war is a failure, but it hasn't stopped. So I don't know that the federal government is currently doing the job you say it should be.

Locke
10-18-2012, 04:45 PM
I agree absolutely, but who's keeping the federal government in check? The Texas standard that Walrus mentioned, did the federal government stop it? Gay marriage should be legal, but the federal government hasn't stepped in and done anything. The drug war is a failure, but it hasn't stopped. So I don't know that the federal government is currently doing the job you say it should be.

Ideally, the 3 separate branches keep each other in check. That doesn't seem to work very well when the sides refuse to work with each other, though...

rob19
10-18-2012, 05:09 PM
I can certainly understand why people would want almost everything that isn't expressly written in the constitution to be governed by the states because I get the feeling the federal government isn't really being checked by anything at this point. Unfortunately I can also understand that the population as a whole might not have the collective intelligence to make that work without the occasional state wanting to teach about the magical doings of Jesus in school. Walrus mentions the right to privacy but I don't find it likely that any state is going to implement any measures to invade privacy any more-so than the federal government has already done with things like the patriot act; could be wrong I suppose, don't know who'd vote for it though.

I would be surprised if there'd be any republicans who disagree with the premise of a more state-centric government. Though I suppose a lot of them just use that "small government" mantra because it sounds good. It does annoy me that Romney's a "small government" republican who wants to overstep states rights in regards to medical cannabis... doesn't sound like small government to me.

TrojanFin
10-18-2012, 05:33 PM
Ideally, the 3 separate branches keep each other in check. That doesn't seem to work very well when the sides refuse to work with each other, though...

It also doesn't work very well when the Executive branch manages everything though czars and the POTUS ignores his Congress and issues executive orders as a means to get around those decisions he doesn't agree with.

phins_4_ever
10-18-2012, 05:42 PM
It also doesn't work very well when the Executive branch manages everything though czars and the POTUS ignores his Congress and issues executive orders as a means to get around those decisions he doesn't agree with.

But the Bush years are over ...... :lol:

Buddy
10-18-2012, 05:43 PM
Exactly. Those kinds of things are precisely the danger. Now, some things like slavery are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, and unless I'm mistaken only the poster Buddy is an anti-federalist around here. But teaching Creationism is a great example. Outlawing soft drinks or other kinds of "unacceptable" foods would be another (your choice of food isn't "speech", it's not discrimination and it's not a civil right).

Wow, I guess that I made an impression. I wouldn't say that i am an anti-federalist as much as a constitutionalist and believer in the tenth amendment. You are right though, I would say that use of fuels, soft drinks, or setting forth a curriculum for schools (outside of setting very basic standards that constitute acceptable minimum levels of achievement) is none of the federal government's business. The federal government has a critical role in this Republic but state's rights and their unique but limited sovereignty is also critical. Read the "Federalist Papers" and you will see that this balance has been argued for the entire history of our country and resolving these arguments was crucial to getting ratification for the constitution. It is still critical for maintaining our Republic.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Locke
10-18-2012, 06:32 PM
It also doesn't work very well when the Executive branch manages everything though czars and the POTUS ignores his Congress and issues executive orders as a means to get around those decisions he doesn't agree with.

Thanks for highlighting my point precisely...

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 08:04 PM
Wow, I guess that I made an impression. I wouldn't say that i am an anti-federalist as much as a constitutionalist and believer in the tenth amendment.

Believing as strongly as you do in the tenth amendment qualifies you as an anti-federalist, at least in my book. You think it is/was wrong for the federal government to overrule the state of Virginia on miscegenation. That's a fairly clear red line case to me. I mean, I don't consider it name calling or anything (after all, Jefferson was an anti-federalist). I just think that's the proper term for interpreting the Constitution and the powers of the federal government so narrowly.

I mean, the first amendment, for example, says there should be no law abridging the right to free speech. Does that mean it should not be illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater, or to engage in libel or slander? Taking the constitution completely at it's word and not interpreting it's meaning is bizarre, at least to me. Even originalists interpret.


You are right though, I would say that use of fuels, soft drinks, or setting forth a curriculum for schools (outside of setting very basic standards that constitute acceptable minimum levels of achievement) is none of the federal government's business. The federal government has a critical role in this Republic but state's rights and their unique but limited sovereignty is also critical. Read the "Federalist Papers" and you will see that this balance has been argued for the entire history of our country and resolving these arguments was crucial to getting ratification for the constitution. It is still critical for maintaining our Republic.

I have read the Federal Papers, actually. And the anti-Federalist papers. This was in high school, mind you, but I still have the books and every time I look at them I think "why the **** did I keep these?" Then right after I think, "I should probably read these again." But then I don't.

TheWalrus
10-18-2012, 08:06 PM
I agree absolutely, but who's keeping the federal government in check? The Texas standard that Walrus mentioned, did the federal government stop it? Gay marriage should be legal, but the federal government hasn't stepped in and done anything. The drug war is a failure, but it hasn't stopped. So I don't know that the federal government is currently doing the job you say it should be.

But it has in other cases. The Civil Rights Act, for example.