GOP Electoral College Power Play

[HeyYou]

The thing I was trying to point out is the Democratic party is quite aware of what the republican party is trying to do and are not very worried about it.

 

Yes in theory Mitt Romney would have won the election if the elector map was split "late" in the election cycle yet the supreme courts would never allow any major changes if the Republican party tried to do this months before election day. But "if" electoral map was split earlier on in the game then political strategist on either side would be able to plan ahead where to campaign and spend money.

 

"If" the electoral maps were split in PA early enough Democrates in control of RED states would also push for the same kind of legislation in the beltway leading to the Republican party in political disarray ultimately loosing National Elections each year.

 

This is why the republican party isn't pushing very hard for this. Because If Democrates start doing this in the Beltway the GOP would probably never stand a chance.

 

Oh yeah, the dems can see right thru the repubbies, and aren't overly concerned at this point, simply BECAUSE the repubbies are in such trouble with the general public. (I don't think the dems approval rating is much higher.... and I think congress as a whole is still in the single digits...... big surprise there huh?)

 

I should think that the dems would be more likely to push for abolishing the electoral college altogether, rather than using the same republican tactics in other states... Not like it hasn't been tried before in the past though... Then it would just be a matter of getting out the vote, and EVERY vote would have equal weight.... of course, then the more populous states would see the lions share of campaigning.....

 

Personally, I don't see that as such a bad thing......

[colourwheel]

I should think that the dems would be more likely to push for abolishing the electoral college altogether, rather than using the same republican tactics in other states... Not like it hasn't been tried before in the past though... Then it would just be a matter of getting out the vote, and EVERY vote would have equal weight.... of course, then the more populous states would see the lions share of campaigning.....

 

Personally, I don't see that as such a bad thing......

 

I would love to see the Electoral college dissolved too and let the popular vote count instead. It's just the GOP would loose every national election without the party changing their policies. The problem with the GOP and why they keep alienating lgbt, asians, blacks, latino, women, etc...is because of their policies are doing this...

 

The GOP keeps thinking they just need a few token Minorities to represent them and change their rhetoric. Which wouldn't hurt but as an example.... no matter how tone down you say "We are going to get rid of pay equity" or "we are going to make women get Mandatory Transvaginal Ultrasounds" or "we are going to deport all immigrants" etc... This is not a good way to expand your base by trying to find better ways of getting this type of message out thinking it can some how sway votes they didn't get last cycle by some how saying them differently.... :laugh:

[HeyYou]

The trouble with the repubbies is, they are too stuck on their platform, and outright refuse anything that even remotely resembles compromise. They are alienating the voter base with their religion-based views on a variety of issues.... and I really don't see that changing any time soon.....

 

I really don't want to see the republican party fade from political significance though.... having the dems running the show would not be what I consider a good thing. We need balance in washington.... although, what I think we REALLY need in washington, is a good dose of common sense.. something that seems to be in extremely short supply there....

[colourwheel]

I agree The country needs atleast a two party system yet The Republican party has basically become just a fringe party and would be hard for the Republican party to ever go back with a majority of their base unwilling to accept anything other than their current ideological policy thinking. I have no problem with the Democratic party in control currently. Yet Looking at history any party in total political control is never a good thing. I wouldn't care if the republican party fades from political significance to be replaced with something less extreme. Because Honestly the Democratic party isn't even very Left-winged and Obama is more of a traditional conservative when comes to policy making when you look at the history of other Modern Democratic and Republican presidents...

 

What would be interesting to see is what becomes of the Democratic party next National election cycle. They have a choice to stay the moderate party they currently are or try to move more to the left.

 

With The majority of america currently on the side of the Democratic party any new political party would have to be anything other than being labeled "right-wing" on the political spectrum. It's kind of inevitable "Right-wing" ideology is slowly becoming a relic in american politics with the changing demographics...

Edited January 19, 2013 by colourwheel

[sukeban]

I agree The country needs atleast a two party system yet The Republican party has basically become just a fringe party and would be hard for the Republican party to ever go back with a majority of their base unwilling to accept anything other than their current ideological policy thinking. I have no problem with the Democratic party in control currently. Yet Looking at history any party in total political control is never a good thing. I wouldn't care if the republican party fades from political significance to be replaced with something less extreme. Because Honestly the Democratic party isn't even very Left-winged and Obama is more of a traditional conservative when comes to policy making when you look at the history of other Modern Democratic and Republican presidents...

 

What would be interesting to see is what becomes of the Democratic party next National election cycle. They have a choice to stay the moderate party they currently are or try to move more to the left.

 

With The majority of america currently on the side of the Democratic party any new political party would have to be anything other than being labeled "right-wing" on the political spectrum. It's kind of inevitable "Right-wing" ideology is slowly becoming a relic in american politics with the changing demographics...

 

There's a fair bit of academic literature out there predicting a "fracture" of the Democratic coalition in the next ~20 or so years. I don't know that I really buy it, but it does raise some important issues potentially facing them in the years to come.

 

Number One issue in these is usually the tension between Democratic union workers (specifically PUBLIC-sector union workers) and workers in general. Private-sector workers have been, as we all know, cast to the dogs in terms of wages, benefits, actually having a job, etc. Their lot hasn't improved substantially in like twenty years. Meanwhile, not a day seems to go by between stories about public officials "spiking" their pensions into the 6-digit range, all the while state/county/city budgets bleed red ink. Even though it's only a small minority of corrupted officials that do this, it is extremely bad "optics" and paints all public-sector workers with a broad brush. Certain public-sector occupations, however, truly have crazy and unsustainable incomes/pensions (prison guards in California, police retiring at 45, etc.), and again--that makes everyone else in the public-sector look pretty bad. There is also a pretty good correlation between Democratic politicians and these crazy public-sector union salaries and pensions.

 

So it is pretty easy to get into an envious "race to the bottom" pitting savaged private-sector workers against the "fat cat" public-sector workers, even though both groups might be Democrats. In order to avoid party infighting, Democrats need to get serious about reforming outdated pension schemes and curbing abuses, but also in attempting to better the lot of the private-sector workers. So I would argue that the Democratic party better avoid at all costs the Neoliberal "Democratic Leadership Committee" policies that, by and large, paved the way for outsourcing and globalization in the 1990s, and move back toward being an American worker-oriented labor movement. In response to their losses at the hands of Reagan, too many Democrats began thinking like free-marketers, as if being able to buy cheap goods from China and Mexico would somehow paper over the fact that loads of Americans don't even have a job. Clinton might be a smooth-talker now, and I'll admit that I like him when he speaks, but I'll never forget that he was the one who sold us out via NAFTA and laid the foundation to eviscerate the working class.

 

Happily for Democrats, people pretty much identify Republicans with being the party of outsourcing-loving corporate honchos and have forgotten that Clinton was exactly that when he was in the Oval Office. Best for Democrats not to remind them of that period of time, and to instead focus on retooling the American economy to do more for itself. That'll take enormous investments in infrastructure and, more importantly, education and human capital. Those jobs that Clinton and Bush destroyed aren't coming back, but with the proper investments in our own people, there's no reason why we can't create entirely new ones. And right now, the Democrats are the only party n a position to actually start to have this conversation.

[HeyYou]

Bush the 1st was the main driving force behind NAFTA, and he tried to get it implemented before the end of his second term. Didn't manage that, but, slick Willy signed it into law anyway. I have no idea what made him think that was a good idea.

 

Bush the 2nd came up with the brilliant idea of giving companies tax breaks for 'creating jobs in developing nations'..... I am not sure if he knew that was going to translate quite literally to "moving jobs to developing nations"..... He wasn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier..... so, I will give him some benefit of the doubt there.

 

Trouble is, politicians KNOW this policy is BAD for american workers, yet it is still in place, some ten years later. You only hear about it around election season..... but that doesn't surprise me either.....

 

Obama also signed into law (treaties...) free-trade agreements with Panama, Columbia, and S. Korea. Three more places where american jobs can go..... There was little if any fanfare, he signed it at night, behind closed doors, and never bothered to announce that he was doing so. There was a minor spot about it in the media, and then it kinda got lost in the shuffle. On purpose? Probably.

 

Making a 'prediction' of some breakdown in any political party in 20 years is pretty safe....... odds are he will end up being correct. :) And if not, no one will remember that he said anything, or, they simply won't care. (and he may be dead by then anyway, so HE certainly won't care.)

 

Expecting anyone in government to 'reform' anything is a pipe-dream. They have already more than adequately demonstrated that they have no intentions of reforming a thing. "Health Care Reform" is a shining example of that, it has nothing to do with health CARE, it just deals with forcing americans to buy a product from private companies..... I was real curious how that was at all constitutional......

[colourwheel]

What I find interesting...

 

If you historically look at legislation passed through any presidency you will find many things that were unconstitutional. Example: Bush did sign many legislative purposals that abuses civil liberties.

 

Only seem when Obama does something "unconstitutional" like trying to providing health care for the entire nation does anyone ever seem to really care.

Edited January 21, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

What I find interesting...

 

If you historically look at legislation passed through any presidency you will find many things that were unconstitutional. Example: Bush did sign many legislative purposals that abuses civil liberties.

 

Only seem when Obama does something "unconstitutional" like trying to providing health care for the entire nation does anyone ever seem to really care.

 

If he wanted to provide universal health care, then he should have stuck to his guns, and took that route, not REQUIRING citizens to purchase a product from a private corporation. (but, that's an entirely separate debate.)

 

The republicans passed the line-item veto when George the first was in office, (toward the end of his second term) but, as soon as a democrat was elected to the whitehouse, it was immediately decided that it was unconstitutional. :) It goes both ways.

[sukeban]

@colourwheel, HeyYou

 

I think that for a certain segment of the right-wing there is a sense of "illegitimacy" on the part of any Democratic president, not just Obama--though obviously he has received the craziest attacks of any president in memory. To those folks, when a Republican is in the White House, all rules and regulations are off the table: government is free to wildly spend and decline to pay for it, presidential authority may trump the other branches of government, and executive privilege means that the president can do whatever he wants in terms of impinging upon the civil rights of American citizens. However, when a Democrat "somehow finds himself" in the White House, he is suddenly a tyrannical usurper for using signing statements and line-item vetoes and drones and black helicopters are coming to arrest American citizens. Not to mention starting ill-advised wars in foreign nations based on obviously trumped up and cooked intelligence reports. Heck, I still remember 2009 when Fox News kept running that "His hand wasn't REALLY on the Bible (it was hovering over it, you see)--he isn't really the president!" story-line for like a month after the Inauguration.

Edited January 21, 2013 by sukeban

[juderodney]

@ sukeban

 

Before you put another word about "certain segment of the right-wing", here is a sample of the shoe being placed on the other foot:

 

Remember how President Bush was decried by so many as "not my president"? Think they thought him as legit?

 

Remember all the protests against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where'd they go after Obama got inagurated? We're still in Afghanistan, you know.

 

Remember all the names the Tea Party was called, "Teabagger" being chief among them? How they were "violent" and "hateful"? Now when Occupy Wall Street came along and camped on someone's private property with crimes such as rape and murder in said camps, where were the tea party's nay sayers then?

 

And as for Obamacare, forcing people to buy AYNTHING as a Constitutional right under the "Commerce Clause" is a far greater rights impingement than any Bush was perceived to have been doing.

 

So remember, using the "a certain segment" argument is just as easily turned back on you.