Forum Post: electoral college poll counts from RCP & 538
Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 10, 2012, 9:22 a.m. EST by bensdad
(8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Although only one general national election poll
( except R tilted fox & rasmussen ) put Romney ahead
of Obama since mid-July, the key is only in the 9 swing states.
Obama has a close to solid core of 24 states with
237 of the 270 electoral votes needed.
He will win if he can add 33 ECV
from these 9 swing states
FL(24) or OH(18) or NC(15) or VA(13) or
WI(10) or CO(9) or NV(6) or IA(6) or NH(4)
These are the states with the current
cumulate margin of less than 4% as of 9/9/2012
As of most of these are slightly in ( D )
; TABLE POSTED BELOW ]
What does this have to do with Occupy? We are fighting the corruption within the political system, not trying to prolong it's stranglehold.
I came to Occupy when I heard someone talk about wealth inequality in America, they were given the usual "class warfare" rebuttal then something magical happened, they kept talking instead of shutting up, sure they have silenced that part of OWS since the beginning of the year, but I still hope that OWS can be that force acting on the "other" side we have not had for about thirty years. I support OWS because bringing power to the message that the rich are too damn rich is the only hope the world has right now.
And that Occupy message needs to continue to be spread. Now more than ever.
the Obama hating will chase some away...
The anti Obama comments need to be presented as long as they have merit. No person should be immune to criticism here.
We must protest against all pols. criticism in that regard is necessary. Pres Obama has been profoundly disappointing.
If the criticism (against anyone) is untrue, exaggerated, misleading it should be challenged.
Misinformation serves no one. And believe it or not there are partisans here who would lie about a given politician, so to let a lie go unchallenged only encourages the liars.
So I think we agree except I would extend the concept to any criticism of anyone.
A meritorious presentation will always include both Mr. Obama's position as well as Mr. Romney's view, when the decision looms so near.
Occupy's goal is to gain back our political and economic power. Only those views held or actions taken by Obama and Romney that either enhance our power or take away our power should be included in the discussion. Promoting a candidate should not.
Now who is starting to edit what should or should not be here?
But to your point to say attack Obama for the Afghan War without mention of the fact that Romney has said he would never end it, is in fact politicking, but to tell you both that Obama has said he will end it in 2014 and Romney said he would not and that it is a bad thing is informing.
Romney is not the President. Obama is, prolonging the war in Afghanistan. He just sent 200 more marines to Guatemala.
If a potential presidential or other candidate has conflicts or agreements with Occupy's goals they should also be presented. But promoting a candidate just because a poster favors him does not belong here. It's nothing but a political commercial.
an example of a "political commercial" is to come here and bashing Obama for something that Romney would double down on without mentioning that fact
You're reply is illogical. What Obama does wrong is not a political commercial, it needs to be addressed on it's own merits.
What Romney might do worse does not minimize the argument against Obama. If Obama rates a -4 on his action, what does it matter if Romney who is not President rates a -10 on an action he can't even take ?
Why write here at all if you don't think or wish it to cause something to occur, to acknowledge that something might occur, you have acknowledged that such a thing as a future exits and even that perhaps actions matter.
Have you ever seen a negative political commercial? Saying bad about one guy and ignoring the other is a common form.
So criticizing Obama's actions should always include his opponent's possible actions in order to be considered fair and balanced?
I don't always like to use words like always, so this time I won't.
I think I have been pretty clear but yes where there is ample ability to do so, not to do so is an omission of purpose in my opinion.
7-11 has I vote choice cup
unfortunately, they only include demos and repubs
damn constitution...
There is Obama hating - which seems to get ignored or removed.
And then there is legitimate Obama protests which should get exposure and circulation.
It is our right and our duty as citizens - to confront our government when it is wrong - and Currently(?) - it couldn't get much more wrong - without transforming completely into a puppet government of the corpoRATions and the elitists.
I'm not making a recommendation just an observation
I make an observation - as well. No conflict.
OWS is a protest against the government. It's not a girl scout cookie sale. Of course people here are going to dish Obama, he's the president OWS started under and he's still the current president! If Obama lovers are offended by attacks against the president, then they can go to Move On where they belong.
What's next, you're going to tell us we should not protest because it might offend potential recruits? You can't please everybody. I would be offended if there wasn't any Obama hating here.
I think OWS wants to see this corrupt system remade. This post does highlight one of the elements of our systemic corruption (electoral college).
There may not be a criticism of the college but it does show the problem.
Besides that, I believe OWS needs to be concerned with ALL elections because although there is widespread corruption across both parties, one party is much better on the issues that affect the 99%.
While OWS is working to create a new system from the ground up, horizontally, with real direct democracy, we should engage the existing corrupt system because we MUST force change (w/ massive protests) that can lay the ground work for a new system, & help the 99%.
We cannot ignore the elections and surrender power to the anti OWS party.
This post highlights one persons obsession on this forum to elect Obama.
no - this proves American voters want to elect Obama
and Americans want to keep the House R
do you have any evidence to dis-prove these statements?
Again. What does this have to do with Occupy? One of the core principles that occupy stands for is fair elections. Nearly every contender is financed by the corporations and special interests that subvert democracy. How can we support a any candidate that accepts contributions from these enemies of free and fair elections, the very people we are protesting against?
SPECIFICALLY which national candidates that take NO corporate money will actually DO anything as PRESIDENT ?
In stead of pipe dreams and theories and wishes -
most Americans want to vote D or R
why not try to do what most American PEOPLE want to do -
overturn Citizens United
It will have the effect you want and you start with 80% support
in stead of gambling on a dwindling OWS movement
Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein are the only ones I'm aware of. There might be a few more. 40% of the voters are registered independent, they don't vote for the label. Most vote against a candidate instead of for one because our election system is set up that way.
I'm all for overturning CU. It will take getting the people off of four legs and standing up on two to make it happen. Who else besides Occupy is really trying to overturn CU?
Thank you for asking
there ARE a dozen amendments in congress today -
including one by Bernie -
mostly blocked by the Rs - see them all with complete analysis
& 60+ videos from Lessig, Chomsky, Maher, Sanders etc
and data on HUNDREDS of passed resolutions
and 1,900,000 names on petitions
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
Have you read them? Most of those amendments give congress the power to set limits on campaign finance. Letting the foxes guard the henhouse.
We need those limits set by an impartial electorate, not a partial congress.
I have read all of them. And written some.
Your point is not illegitimate, but if the congress sets the limits to ANY number, we would all be subject to the laws.
McCain-Feingold was a start - killed by the court.
Do you have any research or polls that show Americans want national laws set by national referenda?
The constitution was purposely set up to prevent an uninformed and gullible public from having a direct say in national government. Instead, the representatives were to be a well informed buffer, tempering the wild swings in opinion that the general population might take.
The problem we now face is that our representatives have become so disconnected from the people, they are not a buffer, but a roadblock, subservient to the corporate and special interests. The guaranteed threat they pose to democracy is greater than the possible threat of a misinformed public.
The people need to have a method to override congress. An initiative process similar to ones used by some states that generates laws that are born from the desires of the people instead of the desires of corporations.
But the same predicament is encountered. In order to establish a national initiative process, an amendment would be necessary. And again congress stands in the way, the same as trying to overturn CU.
I don't know what percentage of Americans favor an initiative or referendum process, but would guess it's fairly limited, since most can't even name their congressman. Again and again the underlying problem that raises it's head is the simple fact we have an incredibly uninformed electorate. I was once also. Occupy's most important function was, and still is education. The people are completely powerless without it.
Agreed. I favor an amendment, but it has to be the right amendment. Some of them could leave us worse off.
Jon Stewart Reports on Citizens United Decision
I think people are allowed to have there opinions, preferences, and we should NOT seek to silence or chase people away because we disagree with them.
There is an election in 7 weeks. We may recognize the profound corruption of our existing system. But the people elcted WILL have the power we want to take back.
I do not support ignoring the election.
You of course are not alone in seeking to eliminate pro dem/Obama opinions. I can't agree.
Sorry.
I support free healthcare and eduction (do democrats?)
I do not support war or the military
I support public option and low cost affordable health care & education.
I can't speak for dems but I think enough of them support it, so that we can protest and pressure them to pass it, while the other party is mostly against it, and cannot be persuaded.
I am anti war, but not a pacifist. I am for drastic cuts to the defense budget and elimination of all nuclear weapons, but not the elimination of the military.
nothing is affordable to those with no money
Yes Matt. for them it would be free. Would that be affordable for them?
I would support free for all but I don't think that is necessary or easily passable.
free healthcare and education is simpler
than checking/requiring ones financial status
when they step up for medicine and knowledge
That would be nice. Many can afford to pay something. Means testing can be effective at minimizing tax burdens on middle class/corps.
The wealthy should not get free anything! thank you very much!
the wealthy will have money regardless
free healthcare isn't going to make or break them
tax the pools of excess wealth and fund healthcare and education
I support taking back the money of the 1% that they took from the 99% in any way possible.
The taxes you elude to here, as well as means testing, health care, education, Social security, and everything else.
means testing?
I don't see it as discrimination. The svc is still available to the wealthy.
I see it as implementing a progressive solution. If middle class taxpayers pay any portion (however small) of the wealthiest svcs that would be regressive. And unfair to the middle class.
That is why I do not prefer free for the 1%.
I see a bunch of people being denied over paper work
Yes the wealthy would pay more in taxes but if they get free healthcare/edu some small % of their costs would be spread out to the middle class taxpayers.
I do not prefer that.
these discrimination unnecessarily complicates service that should be offered to everyone
I rather the wealthiest pay for their health/edu costs fully and not have the costs spread out amongst middleclass taxpayers.
I can compromise if it is the only way to get the law passed, but it's clearly unfair for the 99% to pay for any of the 1%'s benefits.
proper taxes would have the wealthy paying more because they already have most of the money
Maybe. It's a detail I could support however it is done. As long as the poor don't pay, and the middle class pay very little. I prefer the rich to pay rather than spreading their health/educ costs amongst the middle class taxpayers but I suppose I could compromise if I had to.
health and education should not be a financial decision for anyone
If you got no money, you pay nothing, If you are a 1%'r you pay full price.
If you are poor you get full Social security payment. If you are a 1%'r you get none.
Means testing is determining costs & benefits based on your MEANS (ability) to pay.
that shouldn't be necessary
every needs healthcare and education regardless of wealth
those with means will have to pay the taxes to fund the programs as it stands
Well. I guess we have to agree to disagree. As I said I could support your approach, i just do not prefer the regressive element in it.
I will not agree to disagree
what regressive element ?
if free healthcare/edu is paid with all income taxes and wealthy get free healthcare/edu then some of the wealthy free healthcare/edu WILL be paid by middle class taxes.
That is what makes it regressive. That is what I do not prefer, because I think it is unfair to the middle class.
no.
As I stated previously.
If middle class taxpayers pay any portion (however small) of the wealthiest svcs that would be regressive. And unfair to the middle class.
You will not agree that we disagree? Do you think we agree?
in a progressive tax system ,
the more money one makes the greater percentage they should pay
.
so no, the middle class will not be paying to fund those that have more money
Ignorance is bliss ????
It does raise the issue of not having one vote = one vote. Getting rid of this system is a must for true democracy.
Getting rid of t he EC is a good goal
getting rid of Citizens United decision is a better one money is not speech corporations are not people
those with money determine what jobs will be done
Those with money determine EVERYTHING
severing the money link to Washington is the cornerstone of
everything we want
and 80% of Americans agree with us
HOW DO WE ACCOMPLISH THIS ?
In unity of purpose and action. Move to Amend is doing very well in it's state by state campaign.
By not purchasing products from corporations who unfairly influence our government with our money.
By voting for candidates who do not accept contributions from those same corporations.
the world bank determines the value of currency
pools of collected numbers indicating wealth should be tapped/taxed
to return money to the general populous
so entrepreneurs will work for the people to collect that money again
Then you must be in total bliss.
ALL general elections for president are rigged because of the electoral collage. This democratic vehicle was formed in the 1800s when our US states had very small populations. This electoral collage is no longer necessary in our current democratic environment. The electoral collage needs to be eliminated from our democratic process forever. No other democratic country uses such a rigged system.
We have the capability to record the popular vote, so let's use the tools that make sense for our current population. The popular vote is what should count, not the votes of some group of delegates who can be corrupted by money and power. If there are any leaders in the OWS group, then please, please start a petition to congress to eliminate the electoral college from our voting system, now!
On the one hand, I completely agree with you - get rid of it. It gives extra power to the small states.
However, since this is IN the constitution, it requires an amendment to change it.
If you had a choice of two amendments -
1 = get rid of the electoral college
2 = get rid of corporate and "big" money in politics
which would you pick?
If you pick #2 - see our OWS WG web site
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
▬►▬► 9/11/2012 9:00AM updated ◄▬◄▬
538's probability estimate of Obama win 79.8%
If the election was held TODAY Obama would win 332 ECV
RCP predicts the house will stay R but the senate is 47D - 46R with 7 toss ups