Talk Elections

()
()

And the former image is your wet dream, no less.

Well put. :)

lol

Um...what?

something about conceding both sides of Congress in 2010 and Obama winning reelection 2012

For those confused, the first map is the 1994 Senate results. The second is the 1996 Presidential results.

Good thing the GOP won't be regaining the Senate this year. :P LOL

Well, Clinton only won because he sold out on all his principles (not that I'm complaining).

What he said. Also, I don't see Obama doing the same thing. He will push his plans even if they aren't popular with the people.

He has no plans.

Just for the record my wet dream consists of the following

()

()

Don't see either happening anytime soon in any situation.

A sad truth. His Presidency to date has been nothing more than a PR campaign.

Sorry, but you're both dumb. His agenda is more ambitious than any president since LBJ.

What is it?

Well my wet dream is...

..uh, nothing I should post on the Atlas forum.

Here's my wet dream:

()

::)

I was using his terminology. I just forget to use quotation marks. I mistake I make, regulary.

My response:

()
()

the reality of the situation:
()

what people think:
()

^^^ What the hell does that even mean?

()

()

What I am saying is imagine the insanity of trying to cast electoral votes based on county instead of state. On that same note, re: image 1, it shows both the great thing about democratic process and also the horror... See the grey area? I suspect its larger, it represents the people who vote, but might not have a clue about what, who, or even why they are voting. I was once counted among them and let me tell ya, we really do have no clue...

The reality of the situation is that of course, we as a diverse nation will never 'ALL' agree on one candidate, but we do agree on at least one thing, they should represent the majority. I am not saying the ECS is broken, but I do think it could be reformed, after all, we are quite a different nation from when it was formed...

Quote: "The ECS's main and very important advantage is that it acts as a way to moderate the possible tyranny of an empassioned majority, by preventing the people in larger states to completely dictate their will onto the people who live in the smaller ones. As in many other countries, this will lead to further concentration of political and economic power in certain regions of the country, at the expense of other less populated regions. In turn, that will lead to the uneven development of the country, in all tangible spheres, with its familiar consequences."

on this note,  do we really still need a group to choose the President indirectly from the "Electoral College."?

What if the President could be elected with a system closer to 'popular vote', but not in such a way that the will of the majority becomes potentially tyrannical?

RE: image 2, this is how I feel the media trys to portray the system, its not that simple, we do not all fit into nice neat little boxes or voteing blocks. Obama proved that there is a huge block of voters who can and will come out of left field, too bad he was not a Libertarian or an Independant.

He has passed Health Reform and Financial Reform during his first two years, he's gotten a fair amount done.

There's a difference between getting things done and getting things accomplished.

???

There's also a difference between being subtle and being incomprehensible. ;)

Then here's my wet dream:

()

I agree with Lief here. Obama passed healthcare reform, financial reform, Lilly Ledbetter, the jobs bill, and might pass a global warming bill sometime soon as well. That is the most extensive legislative record out of any President since LBJ. And Vepres, Clinton won reelection in 1996 in large part due to the good economy and due to the fact that he presented himself as a bulwark against Republican extremism (and not to mention that he had a lousy opponent as well). Where exactly did Clinton sell out his principles after 1994? He promised to reduce the deficit and reform welfare back in 1992, before the GOP took over Congress.

     He ultimately did them exactly because the Republicans wanted him to do so & the public wanted him to do so. The idea that Clinton actually had principles to begin with is a lark.

Well, I guess you may be wrong.

You guys have boring wet dreams.:P

Check my latest Predictions, its 50-48 GOP to Dem. Which is a Democratic Senate.

Back in January, I saw pickups in CT, PA, DE, ILL, CO, NV and ND max with Simmons, Toomey, Castle, Kirk, Norton, Lowden and Hoeven. Thats eight seats or 49 max. CA was supposed to be "competative" with Tom Campbell, and off limits with the other two (Basically ended up that way). Feingold was save without Tommy Thompson, Bayh was still running, Byrd still had a pulse and Rossi hadn't decided that the third time was the charm.