Obama and Romney hit the final stretch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tampa_Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
qui_est_ce said:
I cannot believe people here just won’t vote. I grew up thinking voting is our sacred duty!
Click to expand...
It is, if not a sacred duty, a civil duty, but one does not have to vote in every contest during a particular election. I certainly intend to vote, if not in every race. 👍
 
estesbob said:
Its not really a nail biter. The MM would like us to believe that and Romney’s people wont admit it for fear it will surpress turnout but this election isnt even going to be close. Romney is going to win big.
Click to expand...
I saved your post.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
The Shadow President? I thought that was Above Top Secret Codeword information. How did you figure out who she was? 😃
Click to expand...
All you have to do is pay a little attention. If it were not for Jerrett the Obamas would still be in Chicago trying to kiss up to Rod Blagojevich.
 
SamH said:
All you have to do is pay a little attention. If it were not for Jerrett the Obamas would still be in Chicago trying to kiss up to Rod Blagojevich.
Click to expand...
And she is officially credited with ordering the strike against OBL? Wow! 😃
 
Considering that many of the pollsters have said they are using the 2008 model which doesn’t apply this election the numbers from those are over estimating the Dem vote.
 
Cider said:
Considering that many of the pollsters have said they are using the 2008 model which doesn’t apply this election the numbers from those are over estimating the Dem vote.
Click to expand...
Yup. Rasmussen is closer…he uses 2004 + 2008. I continue to argue that it should be a blend of 2004 + 2010 (although I believe that people are just itching to vote the President out, and the turnout will be closer to 2010 than 2004 ).
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Yup. Rasmussen is closer…he uses 2004 + 2008. I continue to argue that it should be a blend of 2004 + 2010 (although I believe that people are just itching to vote the President out, and the turnout will be closer to 2010 than 2004 ).
Click to expand...
A ramussen platinum member who said they have seen the samples said Ramussen uses (D 39 R 36 I 31) sample. 2004 Rasmussen used democrat plus 1 sample, George Bush won by 3. 2010 Rasmussen used democrat plus 2 and republicans won many seats in the house
 
qui_est_ce said:
I cannot believe people here just won’t vote. I grew up thinking voting is our sacred duty! I guess it’s because my parents lived through WWII and they experienced tyranny.

Even if your guy doesn’t win, your vote counts.
Click to expand...
Forget the polls and the popular vote, the Electoral College elects the President.

It may actually come as a shock to some of your here but Russia, today, has a more direct presidential election process than the United States. In the United States, the antiquated Electoral College periodically allows a candidate who receives fewer popular votes to win an election. In Russia, where no such system exists, the candidate who receives the majority of popular votes wins the election. Crazy, isn’t it?

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College because they didn’t quite trust a population who (at that time) was largely illiterate, so they tried to find a middle ground between letting Congress and qualified voters elect the president. It is sort of crazy to think that we still use this system and like to think of ourselves as “democratic.” LOL!

Now, as to the duty of Catholics to vote it is true that we are encouraged to exercise this duty but in the situation we find ourselves this election where we have two candidates who support an intrinsic evil (albeit one to a “lesser” extent that the other) numerous Bishops have stated that we have two equally legitimate options: 1. We don’t have to vote or 2. We vote for the candidate that we think will “lessen” the intrinsic evil. Of course, the second option is exercised on a purely subjective basis and the Church does not tell us which of the two candidates “lessens” the intrinsic evil. It is up to us to decide. But I believe the Bishops should have made this explicit. They wouldn’t have to endorse a candidate but they could make an objective judgement as to who “lessens” the intrinsic evil. Why leave it up to the subjective judgement of the individual, especially when an intrinsic evil is at stake?
 
HansTrappist said:
{snip}

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College because they didn’t quite trust a population who (at that time) was largely illiterate, so they tried to find a middle ground between letting Congress and qualified voters elect the president. It is sort of crazy to think that we still use this system and like to think of ourselves as “democratic.” LOL!
Click to expand...
And many still are.

People are not taking their civil responsibility to inform themselves of the candidates and the issues.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
It is, if not a sacred duty, a civil duty, but one does not have to vote in every contest during a particular election.** I certainly intend to vote, if not in every race**. 👍
Click to expand...
Now, that is 👍 worthy. Totally different than not voting at all…my sincerest apologies for putting your non-vote in the same bucket as someone who doesn’t vote at all.

That said, in that particular contest, it does have the same value as other non-voters.
 
HansTrappist said:
Forget the polls and the popular vote, the Electoral College elects the President.

It may actually come as a shock to some of your here but Russia, today, has a more direct presidential election process than the United States. In the United States, the antiquated Electoral College periodically allows a candidate who receives fewer popular votes to win an election. In Russia, where no such system exists, the candidate who receives the majority of popular votes wins the election. Crazy, isn’t it?..
Click to expand...
The electoral college is part of the Federalist view that protects the rights of smaller states. A Republic is vastly superior to a democracy. Democracy is mob rule.
 
scipio337 said:
The electoral college is part of the Federalist view that protects the rights of smaller states. A Republic is vastly superior to a democracy. Democracy is mob rule.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point.

Abolishing the Electoral College and going to a direct vote does not mean we turn into a Democracy of mob rule. There will still be a Representative Government and a Supreme Court (although it would be smart to put some sane term limits on both those bodies) but it just means that the people will directly vote into office the President rather than having an “Elector” think they know better than We the People.
 
scipio337 said:
The electoral college is part of the Federalist view that protects the rights of smaller states. A Republic is vastly superior to a democracy. Democracy is mob rule.
Click to expand...
Just look at the mob rule in Great Britain and France and Germany and Italy and Scandinavia. Mobs roaming the streets showing how inferior democracy is to republicanism. 🤷
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
So figure 52-53 Romney. Sounds about right.🙂
Click to expand...
I think that’s about right. The key is obama has never been able to get over 50% no matter how highly biased the polls were and undecideds break almost entirely towards the challenger in most elections.
 
estesbob said:
I think that’s about right. The key is obama has never been able to get over 50% no matter how highly biased the polls were and undecideds break almost entirely towards the challenger in most elections.
Click to expand...
Best of luck to both men! I can live with a President Obama; I can live with a President Romney!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top