If folks thought that all the wailing and gnashing in the aftermath of Democratic losses in 2000 and 2004 were bad, wait until Sen. Obama somehow manages not to be acclaimed as The One on November 4th.
The groundwork for whining about the Electoral College is already being laid, and I've noticed that The One with the obscene amount of campaign cash (hey, most of it is probably legal, so no complaining) is spending plenty of money in the Los Angeles TV market, a market that he most certainly will win, within a state that won't even be close.
So why spend the money (other than he has more money than he can possibly spend before the end of the election, no matter how profligate his campaign gets)? I believe the Democrats not only want to win in the Electoral College (obviously), but they also want a decisive popular vote victory, or if they lose in the Electoral College, they still want to garner a 1-2% advantage in the popular vote.
Why is this important? The Democrats are addicted to whine, they are whine-os, and they're still pissed off by Gore's slim popular vote win that didn't translate to victory in the Electoral College (though the opposite would have been true if 60,000 Ohioans had switched from Bush to Kerry in 2004, and I bet they wouldn't have complained about Kerry losing the popular by a couple million votes while winning the White House).
They need either a landslide, or at least a talking point for the next four years about the unfairness and inherent racism of the Electoral College (racist, because it favors rural votes over urban votes, also racist because everything that doesn't go Obama's way is a result of racism).
So even if you live in one of the many non-battleground states, your vote for President will count in how McCain or Obama's presidency is perceived and spoken about. It matters more for McCain than Obama, though. McCain has to both win the Electoral College and popular vote, if he wins a narrow victory in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, I hate to imagine what the NYT, MSNBCs and Politicos of the world will be like. They'll be vicious cesspools of McCain and GOP hatred regardless of the popular vote differential, but I think the public will accord their rantings a little more legitimacy if McCain wins the EC but not the popular vote.
So, while I am loathe to do so, I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain/Palin, not because I like him, his maverick ways, or his government first reflex towards solving problems. I'm voting for him, even in solidly blue California, cause in every scenario, the popular vote is going to matter.
It may not matter in terms of who governs, but it will matter as far as the 'mandate' they have, and how they'll be treated by the media and on the internet. I don't want a victorious McCain hamstringed by constant sniping that he's didn't win a 'legitimate' result, and I don't want a victorious Obama to think he has a broad mandate to sweep in a new and wonderful more socially democratic United States. If Obama wins, hopefully the margin won't be huge, and the Dems won't pick up too many seats, otherwise it'll be a rocky few years.
Showing posts with label Electoral College. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Electoral College. Show all posts
21 October 2008
02 July 2008
Barack's Denver Problem . . .
(an interesting post about the above video can be found at Undercover Black Man)
Presumptive Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Barack Obama may have a slight Denver problem. The above incident is just an indication of things to come. Those that believe The Obama Will Wash Away All Our Sins are going to descend on Denver and list their grievances (think Festivus on steroids), elucidate their dreams for a New and Improved Even MORE United States (so long as you bitter bible and gun clingers toe the line).
These folks are not just going to have an impact on the Democratic National Convention, they'll have an impact on the election, too. Local media in Denver is going to be covering the madness, from the aging hippies trying to ressurect 1968, to the Code Pinkers, to the Extreme Greens, lots of nuts are going to be attracted to this event, and seeing all that tumult up close may change the minds of Independent voters in Colorado in general.
I think the convention may contribute to McCain winning in Colorado, and if Obama doesn't pick up a few Western States, he'll have trouble Electorally.
One more video for your perusal (in lieu of further comment). . .
02 February 2008
Electoral Nightmare, or Comedy Gold?
When I think ahead to the real election this November, one thing comes to mind, which states that Sen. Kerry lost, will either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama win?
Most states weren't close, one way or the other, and aren't likely to switch columns, regardless of which combination of candidates end up representing each party. There were 12 states (CO, FL, IA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, WI) where the results wer closer than 5% between Bush and Kerry, those also happen to be the 12 states where both campaigns spent the most time and money.
The potential for "fun" comes in when you consider that two states that went for Bush by less than 1% (New Mexico and Iowa) , plus Nevada which went for Bush by 2.59% but has had a continuing influx of refugees from Democratic states, and likely the electorate there leans more Democratic than before, that gives you exactly half of the difference between Bush and Kerry.
Assuming there won't be any faithless electors (which actually did happen in Minnesota last go round), and assuming that all the other states stay the same, while New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada flip to the Democratic column, you get the interesting situation of a 269 to 269 tie.
Wouldn't that be fun?
I don't think things will break this way, but it's definitely a possibility. Here's the wiki blurb on the contingency in case no candidate receives a majority of electors:
Looking at this map above (found here) of the current House of Representatives, 3 delegations are evenly split, 26 have more Democratic representatives than Republicans, which leaves only 21 states that are majority GOP in the House. A tie would be as good as a win for the Democrats it would appear, but appearances can be deceiving. In this tie scenario, only 21 states (+DC, which lacking a Representative doesn't get a say in this contingency) would have picked the Democratic candidate, which is basically the reverse of the House delegations. All three evenly split states (Arizona, Kansas, and Mississippi) are likely to be easily in the GOP column as far as the popular vote, so the Democratic representatives there would have a lot of pressure on them to vote the same way their state's voters did, rather than with their party. If all three of those states broke for the GOP, then you'd have a 24-26 split in favor of the Democrats. But there are some western and southern states that have "blue dog" Democratic representatives, and those states are likely to vote overwhelmingly Republican in November. These states are North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
Any two of those state's delegations flip (and in the case of the Dakotas, delegation=1 person), and you'd have a majority Democratic House of Representatives still picking a Republican for President in a process that hadn't been trotted out in 184 years. The possibility for mischief is heightened even more when you consider that it will be the 110th US Congress picking the president in this scenario, and not the incoming 111th, you'll have quite a few people in the delegations who are on their way out of public life (or are bitter after getting voted out of public life), and wouldn't have to worry about facing voters again. In weakly GOP or Dem states, or states with only one or two representatives, these representatives would have an amazing amount of leverage, and might play coy to extract promises from either the GOP or Dem candidate.
If you thought the country was polarized now, imagine the aftermath in the wake of that process playing out in front of CSPAN cameras.
Luckily, the most likely event will be that someone clearly wins, or someone clearly loses, but this particular election has more potential for a tie than any in recent memory. On the one hand, it'd be entertaining as hell, on the other hand, it would probably be hell, regardless of who is selected, so vote early, and vote often so that this doesn't end up happening.
Most states weren't close, one way or the other, and aren't likely to switch columns, regardless of which combination of candidates end up representing each party. There were 12 states (CO, FL, IA, MI, MN, NV, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, WI) where the results wer closer than 5% between Bush and Kerry, those also happen to be the 12 states where both campaigns spent the most time and money.
The potential for "fun" comes in when you consider that two states that went for Bush by less than 1% (New Mexico and Iowa) , plus Nevada which went for Bush by 2.59% but has had a continuing influx of refugees from Democratic states, and likely the electorate there leans more Democratic than before, that gives you exactly half of the difference between Bush and Kerry.
Assuming there won't be any faithless electors (which actually did happen in Minnesota last go round), and assuming that all the other states stay the same, while New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada flip to the Democratic column, you get the interesting situation of a 269 to 269 tie.
Wouldn't that be fun?
I don't think things will break this way, but it's definitely a possibility. Here's the wiki blurb on the contingency in case no candidate receives a majority of electors:
If no candidate for President receives a majority (270 votes) of the 538 possible electoral votes, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President (pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment). In this case, the House of Representatives chooses from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation has a single vote, decided by majority decision (an evenly divided state delegation is considered to have abstained). A candidate receiving the majority of votes of all states (currently 26) is declared the President-elect. If no candidate receives a majority, the House proceeds to a second ballot and continues balloting until a candidate receives a majority of the state unit votes. This situation would most likely occur only when more than two candidates receive electoral votes, but could theoretically happen in a two-person contest if each received 269 electoral votes.
To date, the House of Representatives has chosen the President on only two occasions: in 1801 and in 1825.
Looking at this map above (found here) of the current House of Representatives, 3 delegations are evenly split, 26 have more Democratic representatives than Republicans, which leaves only 21 states that are majority GOP in the House. A tie would be as good as a win for the Democrats it would appear, but appearances can be deceiving. In this tie scenario, only 21 states (+DC, which lacking a Representative doesn't get a say in this contingency) would have picked the Democratic candidate, which is basically the reverse of the House delegations. All three evenly split states (Arizona, Kansas, and Mississippi) are likely to be easily in the GOP column as far as the popular vote, so the Democratic representatives there would have a lot of pressure on them to vote the same way their state's voters did, rather than with their party. If all three of those states broke for the GOP, then you'd have a 24-26 split in favor of the Democrats. But there are some western and southern states that have "blue dog" Democratic representatives, and those states are likely to vote overwhelmingly Republican in November. These states are North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
Any two of those state's delegations flip (and in the case of the Dakotas, delegation=1 person), and you'd have a majority Democratic House of Representatives still picking a Republican for President in a process that hadn't been trotted out in 184 years. The possibility for mischief is heightened even more when you consider that it will be the 110th US Congress picking the president in this scenario, and not the incoming 111th, you'll have quite a few people in the delegations who are on their way out of public life (or are bitter after getting voted out of public life), and wouldn't have to worry about facing voters again. In weakly GOP or Dem states, or states with only one or two representatives, these representatives would have an amazing amount of leverage, and might play coy to extract promises from either the GOP or Dem candidate.
If you thought the country was polarized now, imagine the aftermath in the wake of that process playing out in front of CSPAN cameras.
Luckily, the most likely event will be that someone clearly wins, or someone clearly loses, but this particular election has more potential for a tie than any in recent memory. On the one hand, it'd be entertaining as hell, on the other hand, it would probably be hell, regardless of who is selected, so vote early, and vote often so that this doesn't end up happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)