(November 7, 2012 at 12:07 pm)Manowar Wrote: Obama won the popular vote but just barely. The country is divided.

Excuse you, WHAT!?!

The election results are now, two months after the fact, official. Okay, you couldn't know that the richest country in the world (ha ha, ha) would take two months to certify the election results, and it's not all on Sandy. Not your fault, whatsoever.

Obama won with almost 4 percent difference, which is a SHELLACKING.

He won for the SECOND TIME with more than 51 percent, something that hasn't happened since Eisenhower, no not even Reagan could do that.

Furthermore, Dems won the Popular Vote in ALL three National Elections:
Presidential 51-47
Senate 60-40, and even
Congress 49-48

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?...vS3c#gid=0

That Dems STILL lose the house is because of relentless redistricting. We have in fact become a fully plutocratic country, where a severe minority controls the majority, the Repub congressleechers are blocking every vote, even those that will help their constituents.

Dems have to start to win the states back, so as to get Democratic House, because otherwise, this whole thing will go sideways.

Ok. .

The popular vote in America is utterly meaningless.

meaningless? Well, if Obama had lost it, you wouldn't have heard the end of it, it would've been all over Fokkks news,

This gives Obama huge bragging rights, but more importantly, it's a mandate to keep his foot down on the debt ceiling.
Here's to hoping he does.

What he means is that you don't need to win the popular vote to win the presidency. It's one of the major failings of the electoral college system and one of the reasons it should be done away with.

(January 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The popular vote in America is utterly meaningless.

Big time. Notice how both candidates spent months of time and millions of dollars just to win the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan? They didn't care bout the popular vote outside of whether or not they win the popular vote in the battleground states.

I honestly think we should just agree to re-do our entire government from head to toe. The weaknesses of our system have been emphasized by opportunists to turn us into a mockery of democracy. Sadly, though, the broad changes I want probably won't be happening. I'm asking the people who make the rules to change the system that put them in power in the first place and I'm asking them to change it in such a way that they may lose power. Both parties are far too concerned with party loyalty to go for that.

(January 4, 2013 at 10:00 pm)TheSteelGeneral Wrote: meaningless? Well, if Obama had lost it, you wouldn't have heard the end of it, it would've been all over Fokkks news,

This gives Obama huge bragging rights, but more importantly, it's a mandate to keep his foot down on the debt ceiling.
Here's to hoping he does.

Obama is going to raise the debt ceiling. I don't think there is any indication that he's concerned with it at all. In fact with a compromise on the fiscal cliff it's pretty much impossible we aren't going to have heaps of more debt.

(January 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The popular vote in America is utterly meaningless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_uM8bUnlGQ

I think that if we had a properly fabulous nominee with a brooding streak: we'd have our next president off of popular vote. The woman vote is too strong. Especially if they talk about being unable to control themselves and don't listen to the word 'no'.

Popular books should demonstrate why popularity is a terrible voting condition to use in important matters.

(January 4, 2013 at 11:17 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Obama is going to raise the debt ceiling. I don't think there is any indication that he's concerned with it at all. In fact with a compromise on the fiscal cliff it's pretty much impossible we aren't going to have heaps of more debt.

This is generally blown out of proportion by the media anyway. It's not -that- big of a deal.

(January 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The popular vote in America is utterly meaningless.

Not in the aggregate but state by state. Granted, even that is an anachronism in the 21st century.