Re: Time for The Electoral College to go BYE-BYE.
- From: Eminence <grey.eminence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:25:31 -0400
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:25:54 -0400, BillV2320@xxxxxxxxx (Rossington
'VARFA' Kooymans) wrote:
Could Obama win vote but lose election?
With Barack Obama ahead of John McCain in recent national polls, some
observers wonder if he could meet the same fate as Al Gore in 2000, when
he won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush.
Gore lost because Bush won a majority of the electoral votes, which are
allocated to the winner of the popular vote in each state. Gore took the
national vote because he received an excess of support in California,
New York and other large, heavily Democratic states.
This "story" is retarded beyond all major forms of belief. Why?
Because *the NATIONAL popular vote signifies NOTHING*. And why is
that? Because we don't have a national election for president -- we
have 50 simultaneous (more or less) state elections. Popular vote
matters on a state-by-state basis, but the cumulative total is really
nothing more than a statistic.
NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd said this type of "split result"
is unlikely this year, but he observed that the McCain camp may be
banking on it anyway.
"The McCain folks realize their only path now is an Electoral College
path," Todd said.
Which is (and has been) the only path to the presidency for ANY
candidate. Duh. A candidate who focuses on winning the popular vote
*exclusively* deserves to lose just for being a dumbass.
"It's very hard for him to win the popular vote."
And it wouldn't matter, anyway, because the presidency doesn't go the
the winner of the popular vote. You can thank Gore (or probably
Carville) for attempting to mislead the American public into thinking
otherwise.
Obama's lead in recent polls is 7.2 percentage points, according to
Pollster.com's running average. And RealClearPolitics gives the
Democratic candidate a 7.3 point lead in its recent average of national
polls.
According to Todd, McCain may not be able to overcome this gap because
Obama is saturating the airwaves with ads. These television spots should
help Obama run up decent vote numbers - even in states he is likely to
lose.
The key to winning a state is to secure the simplest majority of
votes, right? 50.1%? Even with the non-standard elector rules of
Nebraska and Maine, that's all the you need, isn't it? It doesn't
matter how high voter turnout is, so long as one candidate maintains a
lead.
The Democratic candidate is also is likely to win big in populous states
like California and Illinois, padding his vote total even further.
Which is great for stories about record voter turnout, but doesn't
mean jack in terms of securing electors.
At the same time, Todd said, McCain could still win the presidency by
squeaking by in just enough states to get the 270 votes needed to snag
an Electoral College victory.
It's unlikely that McCain will win, but it's not impossible.
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Time for The Electoral College to go BYE-BYE.
- From: EvWill
- Re: Time for The Electoral College to go BYE-BYE.
- From: Patient Zero 2.0.....Naked is dirty, nude is art
- Re: Time for The Electoral College to go BYE-BYE.
- References:
- Time for The Electoral College to go BYE-BYE.
- From: Rossington 'VARFA' Kooymans
- Time for The Electoral College to go BYE-BYE.
- Prev by Date: Re: unifarva = nathan bedford forrest.
- Next by Date: Re: No mention of the Obama assassination plot on Drudge?
- Previous by thread: Time for The Electoral College to go BYE-BYE.
- Next by thread: Re: Time for The Electoral College to go BYE-BYE.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
