• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Two Election Predictions

Fisher said:
As far as I know, all the southern states still have to have court approval by a federal court before they cab change their election laws. Other states are not under such a burden.

I cannot predict what issues may or may not arise because there are 50 different sets of law. The issue with Bush v. Gore was whether FL was applying FL law properly.
Click to expand...

That is part of my point in showing that states don't need to even allow popular election of electors. Isn't up to the states whether they are applying their own law properly? A state's rights person should certainly think so. That was the irony of the 00 election decision: State's Rights folks were praising a decision that interfered with State's Rights.

I wanted to hear what people thought about that kind of thinking right now. Before this next go 'round. Should the United States Supreme Court be involved in how states select their Electors?
 
helix2048 said:
I found the info for you, but some of it is vague:


Voting rights in the United States
Click to expand...

Please see my prior post on this matter. None of what you posted in any way guarantees anyone's ability to vote on the choosing of the President, it only guarantees that when people are allowed to, that everyone be treated the same (within a state).
 
I think Obama will win by approximately 70 electoral votes: too big a margin to give the SC another opportunity to pick our president.
 
TurtleDude said:
cool, My family spent all day training in tactical firearm defensive tactics. we can thin out the rabble a bit:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

This is why I always say to my liberal gun-control friends "Do you really want conservatives to be the only ones with guns?"
 
Dezaad said:
This is why I always say to my liberal gun-control friends "Do you really want conservatives to be the only ones with guns?"
Click to expand...

Lots of rich liberals have guns-they just have problems with poor people owning them-especially blacks, latinos or others "not like them".

On the other hand, one of the most pro gun people I ever met was radical civil rights/criminal defense attorney Ron Kuby. He had a "when guns are outlawed I will be an outlaw" on his car many years ago and he noted that gun control was nothing more than a plot by the rich to control the poor. (which is very very true)
 
Dezaad said:
That is part of my point in showing that states don't need to even allow popular election of electors. Isn't up to the states whether they are applying their own law properly? A state's rights person should certainly think so. That was the irony of the 00 election decision: State's Rights folks were praising a decision that interfered with State's Rights.

I wanted to hear what people thought about that kind of thinking right now. Before this next go 'round. Should the United States Supreme Court be involved in how states select their Electors?
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS doesn't make purely political decisions. If they think a State Supreme Court follows the state's election laws, then they really have no reason to intervene unless there is a gap or the state court misapplied their own law.
 
Dezaad said:
Please see my prior post on this matter. None of what you posted in any way guarantees anyone's ability to vote on the choosing of the President, it only guarantees that when people are allowed to, that everyone be treated the same (within a state).
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with what you said, I was just providing the info to back it up. You are right, the states decide if you get to vote or not.
 
MaggieD said:
I think voting rules and regulations should be a Federal matter, actually. The hours. When the military ballots must be mailed with penalty of hefty fines if not done on schedule. Early voting hours/rules. Registration regulations. Everything.

I don't care about state elections, the off years. But the presidential election rules should be Federal.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. Federal office elections should be a federal matter. Standardize the voting means and matters so that we don't have secretary of states and governors and all that jazz throwing about all sorts of different standards that are never static but always changing. Even though elections are for electing politicians, we really need to do what we can to take the politicaztion out of the electoral process.

Then make a constitutional amendment declaring that voting is an absolute right which would make any ****ing with it whatsoever a felony. Have the FEC mandate X amount of polling stations and booths available per population concentration that way people like governor Rick Scott can't try to discourage people from voting with 9 hour voting lines.
 
roflpublican said:
if the supreme court decides another election, there will be violent riots. it doesnt matter who they decide it for. people were relatively calm after the 00 election decision. but that's too recent of a memory to roll over and let an unelected body decide the fate of the nation again, i'd expect to see major cities in flames.
Click to expand...

Especially if they decide against Obama.
 
apdst said:
Especially if they decide against Obama.
Click to expand...

i think it's very possible. detroit_race_riot_1967.jpg

i voted for him but i wont riot for him, can i be so sure about my fellows? perhaps not, i think.
 
Your Star said:
I also don't think it's going to be that close, the popular vote might be close, but I think Obama will have a hefty EC lead, I suspect he will get close to 300, if not go over it.
Click to expand...


I pray to God you are correct. This country can not afford to have the likes of the R-R ticket which is essentially putting the old GW Bush wines into new bottles. We need to move forward, not back to the 1950's or even the 1880's.
 
Fisher said:
The SCOTUS doesn't make purely political decisions. If they think a State Supreme Court follows the state's election laws, then they really have no reason to intervene unless there is a gap or the state court misapplied their own law.
Click to expand...

It's not the Supreme Court's job to police how a state Supreme Court interprets state laws.
 
Fisher said:
The SCOTUS doesn't make purely political decisions. If they think a State Supreme Court follows the state's election laws, then they really have no reason to intervene unless there is a gap or the state court misapplied their own law.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me. Many of the members of the SCOTUS apply their supposed 'principles' so selectively, it is laughable that anyone still believes the SCOTUS is not a political battleground. I wish it weren't. I wish they would indeed apply the law with consistency. At least then we could decide how to handle it if we disagree with the law. But, with things as they are now, it is leading to a SCOTUS with no legitimacy at all. And I don't think it is one side of the political divide or the other which is doing this... they both are.
 
Dezaad said:
The second one is that it will be so close that whoever 'loses' will contest the results somewhere.
Click to expand...

You are on the money with this prediction. In my opinion, the litigation and individual cases involving this election will be so numerous and go on so long, that we will be discussing it here into 2014. I say “get ready for round 2” involving this presidential election. And, I also hope this litigation is resolved at the state level. Otherwise, the Supreme Court may need a Supreme Court to deal with all the cases that come their way.
 
Last edited:
Only the media says it will be close and some super cons. 538 says it will not be that close except maybe in the popular vote.

Obama 290
Romney 248

What I mean by popular vote close is not less than 1 million but less than 5% of the total. Which COULD be viewed as statistically close, but in this cases stats don't count.
 
Dezaad said:
The first prediction I can make is that the election will be exceedingly close.

The second one is that it will be so close that whoever 'loses' will contest the results somewhere.

Where do you all think the biggest post-election battles will be fought, and why?

Do you think that the U.S. Supreme Court should be involved in settling matters within states about how they direct their electors to vote, and when should that be? For example, should the ruling for Bush II be considered precedent, or not, in deciding some potential matters that will come up after this election.

I think it would be interesting to get people's take on the USSC matters before they know whether it is their ox being gored or not.
Click to expand...

There seems to be quite a difference in those so called fair and balanced polls. In today's CNN poll the race is tied but going into the internals on page 29 you see this. If the sample is +11 for Democrats and the results show a tie then it bodes well for Romney and he will have a great day.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/11/04/top16.pdf

Among those likely voters, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans
Click to expand...
 
Conservative said:
There seems to be quite a difference in those so called fair and balanced polls. In today's CNN poll the race is tied but going into the internals on page 29 you see this. If the sample is +11 for Democrats and the results show a tie then it bodes well for Romney and he will have a great day.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/11/04/top16.pdf
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming, Con. It's looking worse and worse for Romney. In recent days the national polls have moved towards the state polls in supporting Obama. At Pollster.com, six polls currently favor Obama, with only one (Rasmussen) giving Romney the lead, and three are tied.
 
AdamT said:
Keep dreaming, Con. It's looking worse and worse for Romney. In recent days the national polls have moved towards the state polls in supporting Obama. At Pollster.com, six polls currently favor Obama, with only one (Rasmussen) giving Romney the lead, and three are tied.
Click to expand...

If the polls are skewed that much to Democrats not surprising that you think it looks bad for Romney. I suggest you check the internals of those polls you think are credible.

Rather interesting that you would say things are looking worse for Romney when the CNN poll shows the race tied and there is a 11 point advantage to Democrats in the poll. Explain how that is looking bad for Romney?
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
If the SCOTUS does decide another election, cities won't be in flames, people just aren't going to riot over something like this, not in this country.
Click to expand...

Americans don't like to get into borderline revolution over election results, and it shows in our history. At the worst, we had backroom deals, which although caused controversy, were actually an extension of attempting to forge political legitimacy in the pursuit of compromise. If we ever got to the point where it was obvious a backroom deal was struck, I will probably side with it, and denounce those that stand against it. Alternatives to such courses of actions are usually completely undesirable and even worse, costly beyond comparison to a negotiated deal.
 
wolfman24 said:
Only the media says it will be close and some super cons. 538 says it will not be that close except maybe in the popular vote.

Obama 290
Romney 248

What I mean by popular vote close is not less than 1 million but less than 5% of the total. Which COULD be viewed as statistically close, but in this cases stats don't count.
Click to expand...

I have Obama losing bad...

I have Romney taking Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida and possibly New York and Pennsylvania...

I have the election called for Romney before 12 midnight CST...
 
Your Star said:
I also don't think it's going to be that close, the popular vote might be close, but I think Obama will have a hefty EC lead, I suspect he will get close to 300, if not go over it.
Click to expand...

I agree. And as we all discovered during the 2000 election, the total popular vote means exactly squat in a Presidential election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom