election.

Quote: rxwine

What you're saying is, my message and your message is getting out under the current system. I'm like a Koch brother, unto myself. Sure. Whatever, delude yourself with that idea.

What I am saying is you have a right to get your message out. You do not have a right to make evreybody else listen, nor do you have a right to "equal resources" to get your message out. The Koch Brothers have built a fine business and employ many people. They have chosen to use some of their resources to further their views. That is their right. If you want to be able to spend millions on ads, then either start a business that generates enough wealth to do so, or convince 10MM people to give you $100 each to spend. Anyone can do it, though execution is admiditly difficult.

You do not have the right to equal resources or equal outcome.

Quote: AZDuffman

What I am saying is you have a right to get your message out. You do not have a right to make evreybody else listen, nor do you have a right to "equal resources" to get your message out. The Koch Brothers have built a fine business and employ many people. They have chosen to use some of their resources to further their views. That is their right. If you want to be able to spend millions on ads, then either start a business that generates enough wealth to do so, or convince 10MM people to give you $100 each to spend. Anyone can do it, though execution is admiditly difficult.

You do not have the right to equal resources or equal outcome.

People complain a lot about the Koch brothers...what about Soros?

There is money on BOTH sides trying to influence the outcome of the election. They have the right to do that!!

It seems to be more of an issue when one side does it than when the other side does it.

Interesting.

Quote: RonC

People complain a lot about the Koch brothers...what about Soros?

There is money on BOTH sides trying to influence the outcome of the election. They have the right to do that!!

It seems to be more of an issue when one side does it than when the other side does it.

You're making that assumption not me.

You and Duffman are agreeing that the wealthy and powerful regardless of how few they number can equal the voice of millions. Or not?

Fine with me. I think it's idiotic.

Quote: RonC

People complain a lot about the Koch brothers...what about Soros?

There is money on BOTH sides trying to influence the outcome of the election. They have the right to do that!!

It seems to be more of an issue when one side does it than when the other side does it.

Interesting.

My issue is with magnitude, not direction. Maybe others feel differently.

Update: Predictwise presidential odds are now at the highest levels so far this election 66.7% for Obama win, 33.3% for Romey win. Predictwise is an average of several others, belfair, intrade, smarkets, several of which have posted even higher odds. The one market that has lagged behind the others all election, intrade, while still below 66.7% is at a new high for Obama of 64.7%.

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2012presidentindividual


Electoral vote update: Real clear politics, which uses averages of many different polls, including both democratic leaning sources as well as republican leaning sources such as rasmussen and fox polls, has now moved Michigan from a toss up state to an Obama state. Their current totals of Obama 237, Romney 191, with 110 toss up is now identical to CNN electoral map. In a race to 270, you can clearly see the math becoming difficult for Mr Romney.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Again, things could change, but there has been an undeniable trend in recent days towards president Obama.

Quote: kewlj

Again, things could change, but there has been an undeniable trend in recent days towards president Obama.

Undeniable to who? 5 days ago Rasmussen had Obama
at 50% and Romeny at 45% and today Romney is ahead
by 1 point. Rasmussen was the most accurate poll in 2008
at predicting Obama's win percentage, they were right on
the money.

Quote: EvenBob

Undeniable to who? 5 days ago Rasmussen had Obama
at 50% and Romeny at 45% and today Romney is ahead
by 1 point. Rasmussen was the most accurate poll in 2008
at predicting Obama's win percentage, they were right on
the money.

Okay, Romney has won the electon, now we can all stop talking about it.

Or, can we keep it all in one thread instead of having 4-5 Obama bashing threads going at one time?

OR, how about the Obama supporters just stop commenting, and let the Romney supporters just talk to each other.

"Obama is awful" "He sure is" "People who vote for him are crazy" "Yeah, how could anyone vote for him" "I know" "We're so great" "Yeah, we really are"

They just want Obama supporters to comment so they can attack him.

Quote: FinsRule

Okay, Romney has won the electon, now we can all stop talking about it.

Or, can we keep it all in one thread instead of having 4-5 Obama bashing threads going at one time?
.

This only happens once every 4 years, and its
almost over. Hope you get thru it OK..

Quote: rxwine

You're making that assumption not me.

You and Duffman are agreeing that the wealthy and powerful regardless of how few they number can equal the voice of millions. Or not?

Fine with me. I think it's idiotic.

It's not really an assumption; it is an observation. The Koch brothers are routinely protrayed as "evil" and Soros is not normally treated the same way by the "mainstream press"...

I'm not convinced it is the best way to do things but it is the best way we have. Shold we limit the contributions of individuals? How about groups (unions)? Corporations? Should the government dole out money to the candidates? Could anyone get the money?

I'm not sure anyone has proposed a better idea...

Quote: EvenBob

This only happens once every 4 years, and its
almost over. Hope you get thru it OK..

Ok, so this will stop after the election regardless of who wins?

Quote: RonC

It's not really an assumption; it is an observation. The Koch brothers are routinely protrayed as "evil" and Soros is not normally treated the same way by the "mainstream press"...

I'm not convinced it is the best way to do things but it is the best way we have. Shold we limit the contributions of individuals? How about groups (unions)? Corporations? Should the government dole out money to the candidates? Could anyone get the money?

I'm not sure anyone has proposed a better idea...

The money factor is only part of the problem. A big part of the problem is that the election cycle starts earlier and gets longer each cycle. The current finance rules will only encourage more of this. People in office at all levels spend more time and energy fundraising and getting re-elected than doing the job they were elected for. This is particularly problematic at the presidential level. An incumbent president needs to fund raise much of his first term and spends the better part of a year out on the road campaigning. It is even worse for those challenging him. Mitt Romney has been doing nothing but running for president (fundraising etc) for the last 4 years. He didn't have anything else going at the time, but what about those that did? Despite, dropping out of the race, fairly early this year, Michele Bachmann spent nearly all of 2011 running for president. Fundraising, campaigning, straw poll events. If you were in her district, do you really feel like her focus was on you and the job she was elected to do? Same for Ron Paul. Rick Perry was governor of Texas, but spent every day for 4 months outside of Texas, campaigning and running for president. He is supposed to be focused on running one of the largest states in the country. I am not picking on the republicans, it was just there turn to be challengers. I guess we can't do anything about the challengers, but I would love to see re-election for a president taken out of the equation. Maybe something along the lines of a single 6 year term. This would give him time for his policies to set in and either work or not work and he his sole focus could be on doing the job he was elected to do.

There should also be term limits for senators and congressman. It makes no sense for these guys from both parties to go to Washington for 30, 40, 50 years and get fat and rich, while losing touch with the constituents that they represent.

Congressmen running for re-election every 2 year? Same deal as the presidential election cycle. These guys have to start fundraising and planning for re-election the day after they take office. Their sole focus is never on the job they were elected to do.

I say give everyone, congressmen, senators, president a 6 year term and have them all be elected on the same day. None of this one-third senate every 2 years. Elect a full slate of government officials every 6 years and that will give them ample time to govern, change policy and let it take effect. No constant running for re-election.

Quote: kewlj

I say give everyone, congressmen, senators, president a 6 year term and have them all be elected on the same day. None of this one-third senate every 2 years. Elect a full slate of government officials every 6 years and that will give them ample time to govern, change policy and let it take effect. No constant running for re-election.

While I have no problem with Congerssional term limits (just have an ammendment, grandfather currene members to ensure passage) what you describe has a major flaw. The reason for the staggered terms it to ensure things happen slowly. Electing everyone at once is more of a parlimentary system and is why foreign governments "fall" so often.

People say it is "hard to pass a law." That is by design.

Quote: RonC

It's not really an assumption; it is an observation. The Koch brothers are routinely protrayed as "evil" and Soros is not normally treated the same way by the "mainstream press"...

I'm not convinced it is the best way to do things but it is the best way we have. Shold we limit the contributions of individuals? How about groups (unions)? Corporations? Should the government dole out money to the candidates? Could anyone get the money?

I'm not sure anyone has proposed a better idea...

The best idea I ever heard was anybody can give any amount to any candidate, only stip is that candidate has to disclose all donations online or otherwise is a 24-72 hour timeframe. I like it because say you want to take Koch or Soros money---fine. But everybody knows.

We would need anti-laundering laws to keep people from having others write checks in smaller amounts then giving an envelope full of cash to compensate, but other than that it would be a simple system. Better than what we have now, IMHO.

Quote: kewlj

Elect a full slate of government officials every 6 years

And the reason we don't do that is because
there has to be enough people in place at
all times who have experience, or we'd be
in deep trouble. Having everybody elected
at once is a disaster waiting to happen.
Imagine a year when 80% of the incumbents
get tossed out. Thats what they do in banana
republics and why they have military coups.