Electoral College, good or bad?

[MobBoss]

Really....

In the era of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Micheal Moore, you think this nation is having an intellegent debate? Well, let's hope your right on this one.

Debate? Yes. Intelligent? Sometimes.

I have already stated why America has been in conservative hands for the last 25 years...it is widely understood. It was a combination reaction to the 60s, the growth of suburbia, and Barry Goldwater's organization of conservative Republicans. Their coalition was of wealthy whites, and blue collar whites fed up by civil rights and other liberal programs like abortion and banning prayer from public schools.

Many of these issues still remain. However, the republicans are also increasing their support among all miniority groups. People are starting to realize that a hand up is certainly better than a hand out.

Essentially, the Republicans own the Industrial economy, made up almost entirely of these two groups. If America was going to remain in an Industrial economy, the Republicans would be the favroites for continued control.

One thing you forget is that in an industrial economy a large portion of voting power is held by the unions. Matter of fact, I would say the unions control more votes than the wealthy whites, and almost all unions are pro-democrat. Thus in an industrial society, the Democrats should be favored, not the republicans.

But America is changing into a postindustrial, information and idea based economy. Proffesionals such as engineers, scientists, writers and moviemakers will make up the workforce. Statistics show this group increasingly votes Democratic, holding a liberal social view and a moderate economic view. Combine these voters with immigrants and minorities and the Democrats have a solid majority coaltion.

Moviemakers have pretty much always been pro-democrat. However, I daresay that america is separating itself from the hollywood elite. Whoopi Goldberg certainly didnt help Kerry with her Bush jokes. As for your other demographs, certainly those have been in place for the last 20 years or so, but the republicans are still in power.

Bush's unpopularity is enough of a catalyst to remove the republican government, which othwise would have taken years to dislodge, much like how the Democrats held on to the house 14 years longer than they should have. Of course, it will probably take 2 or three more elction cycles.

Shrug. The mans popularity is back up to around 46% and he may very well break 50% soon. I dont think he is as unpopular as you make him out to be...maybe your view is just skewed by the company you keep.

2008 is the key. A capable Democratic Candidate (e.i., not Hillary/Kerry) will win election against any Republican Candidate except possibly moderates like McCain/Giuliani. If they have a succesful administration, the conservative era will be over, and a new majority will be built.

Well, see thats the rub. I dont think there is a capable Democratic Candidate to be found out there. And it is almost a gurantee that either McCain or Giuliani will run and that will seal the deal. If we get a social moderate, but fiscally conservative guy like Giuliani in, and his administration does well, the republicans will solidfy their majority for years to come.

However, I do see a few potentials for Republicans, but they are longshots.
If the democrats offer up a weak candidate in 2008, the republicans could win in yet another 51-48 split, then move to the center on social issues. The threat here is that the Religious right would probably revolt if the GOP moves away from them, and that would be crippling.

The religious right isnt as dumb as you think they are. Given a moderate republican choice vs a liberal democrat choice I know exactly who they would vote for. They may hold their nose, but they would still vote republican.

Or, they could tap into religion in Latino Americans, who will eventually make up 1/4 of the electorate. But again, I doubt the possibility of poor minorities voting for republicans. Or, possibly, they could use terrorism as they did the cold war. If the Democrats control the whitehouse and terrorists attack again, the democrats will probably be doomed for another decade or so.

Agree, and its almost a certainty that we will be hit again, but where and how bad are the unknowns.

Of course, I have said much of this before, but no one really challenged me. If you think the situation is otherwise, I would love to hear it. But please, be specific.

I hope that was specific enough.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Alright Mobboss, now we're getting somewhere.

1. On minorities- the idea that conservatives are increasing support amongst minorities has turned out not to be true. Bush earns support from only 2% of blacks, and around 1/4 to 1/3 of hispanics. Kerry's abysmal showing in 2004 amongst hispanics was due to the fact that he almost totally ignored them.
Also, the conservative immigration policies of most Republicans (Bush not included) alienates hispanics.

2. On the industrial society: You are right, but only up to the 1980s. Reagan stole the white working class right out from under the Democrats. Also, unionization has decreased, and nonunionized workers often do not share the economic liberalism that marks their unionized fellows, and blue collar workers as a whole are more conservative on social issues.

3. On Demographics: Again you are right, but only recently has it become signifigant. The 1990s saw a great increase in Proffessional workers, and thus electorate as a whole has become far more moderate than it was in the 1980s. Our current era is marked by close elections, due to the fact that we are in a transitionary period, much like the 1970s. The group I have spoken of is now large enough to create a majority. Proof of this is the fact that an old-style liberal from Massachussets garnered 48% of the vote against a war time President. If the elction of 2004 had taken place with the electorate of the 1980s, Bush would have won in a landslide.

4. On Bush's postion: He is at 42%, if you round the major polls together. But that's not the kicker. Polls show that in addition, voters prefer (the lame) congressional democrats to Bush on every issue except terrorism, which is tied. Also, Bush is no longer seen as trustworthy, and around 60% would prefer for their congressmembers to vote against Bush's agenda. Also, around 60% feel the country is going in the wrong direction, which is downright scary. Numbers on the economy, and approval of the congress are also at low leves. And on the generic congressional Ballot, Democrats lead by the largest margin ever recorded.

Of course, things could turn around for him...but it's very unlikely. Finally catching Osama might do the trick.

5. On capable Democrats: I've mentioned Warner and Feingold. Or possibly Wesley Clark (who has become a far better candidate than he was in 2004), amongst others. The polls I've seen lead me to believe Hillary will not win the Democratic Primary, so I'm less worried about her. But if she is nominated, she will almost definitly lose.

5. On the Religious right: Again you are right, they won't vote for a liberal democrat. They just won't vote, like in 2000. Or they'll try a third party attempt, just to show the GOP whose boss, and regain control. But more than likely, the GOP will not go moderate in '08. They haven't run one in decades.

Clarification: Proffesionals do not mean media elite. They are scientists, engineers, writers, editors, artists, teachers, etc. Basically anyone who works in a proffesion in which money is only part of the reward. They don't like the religious right, who try to restrict their proffesions (ei stem cells/creationism/censoraship), and the free market occasionally annoys them, limiting their freedom to create/think up what they wish because the market forces them to do what sells. In this, they are center left on economics, and left on social issues. They are contrasted with managers, who are economically conservative, and sociall liberal, and blue collar workers, who are economically liberal but socially conservative.

 

[Odin2006]

The rise of the Republicans in the last 30 years is a result of them gaining southern racist conservatives who used to vote Democrat, and by using "family values" and other BS to get out the vote of the religious right.

 

[MobBoss]

Alright Mobboss, now we're getting somewhere.

1. On minorities- the idea that conservatives are increasing support amongst minorities has turned out not to be true. Bush earns support from only 2% of blacks, and around 1/4 to 1/3 of hispanics. Kerry's abysmal showing in 2004 amongst hispanics was due to the fact that he almost totally ignored them.
Also, the conservative immigration policies of most Republicans (Bush not included) alienates hispanics.

I think it depends on the hispanic. There are certainly those that came to this country legitimately that do not care for illegal immigration and certainly not all hispanics are Mexican. Matter of fact, most hispanics in Florida support Bush since he is so anti-castro. By the way, there are other minority groups besides blacks and hispanics...any data on them?

2. On the industrial society: You are right, but only up to the 1980s. Reagan stole the white working class right out from under the Democrats. Also, unionization has decreased, and nonunionized workers often do not share the economic liberalism that marks their unionized fellows, and blue collar workers as a whole are more conservative on social issues.

True, true, however you have yet to see major unions endorse any republican candidate, nor will you probably ever. Personally, I think the day of the union has passed and globalization will be the nail in its coffin.

3. On Demographics: Again you are right, but only recently has it become signifigant. The 1990s saw a great increase in Proffessional workers, and thus electorate as a whole has become far more moderate than it was in the 1980s. Our current era is marked by close elections, due to the fact that we are in a transitionary period, much like the 1970s. The group I have spoken of is now large enough to create a majority. Proof of this is the fact that an old-style liberal from Massachussets garnered 48% of the vote against a war time President. If the elction of 2004 had taken place with the electorate of the 1980s, Bush would have won in a landslide.

Possibly. But "what if's" are moot. I think our era of close elections and higher voter turnout is that people are taking a more active role in the election process and paying more attention. They are viewing the morals and issues taken by both parties and weighing them accordingly and making a more informed decision on who to support. I dont think it necessarily a left wing phenomena.

4. On Bush's postion: He is at 42%, if you round the major polls together. But that's not the kicker. Polls show that in addition, voters prefer (the lame) congressional democrats to Bush on every issue except terrorism, which is tied. Also, Bush is no longer seen as trustworthy, and around 60% would prefer for their congressmembers to vote against Bush's agenda. Also, around 60% feel the country is going in the wrong direction, which is downright scary. Numbers on the economy, and approval of the congress are also at low leves. And on the generic congressional Ballot, Democrats lead by the largest margin ever recorded.

Of course, things could turn around for him...but it's very unlikely. Finally catching Osama might do the trick.

All I can say is the guy gets more than his fair share of bad press. When you get people on TV saying GWB hates black people, or people at Coretta Scott Kings funeral turning it into a political bully pulpit its kind of hard to wade upstream.

5. On capable Democrats: I've mentioned Warner and Feingold. Or possibly Wesley Clark (who has become a far better candidate than he was in 2004), amongst others. The polls I've seen lead me to believe Hillary will not win the Democratic Primary, so I'm less worried about her. But if she is nominated, she will almost definitly lose.

I have read up on Warner and he does show promise. Wesley Clark destroyed himself by trying to legitimize Michael Moore. And I agree about Hillery btw...as a republican I am rooting for her in the primaries.

5. On the Religious right: Again you are right, they won't vote for a liberal democrat. They just won't vote, like in 2000. Or they'll try a third party attempt, just to show the GOP whose boss, and regain control. But more than likely, the GOP will not go moderate in '08. They haven't run one in decades.

I disagree that they just wont vote. The third party attempt thing is possible, however, there are great strides being made among conservatives to identify that as the lunacy it truly is. Voting a third party only gives the victory to the side you dont want. As for being moderate, GWB is far more moderate than people think. His spending and stance on immigration certainly are not conservative in any way. In contrast I am very comfortable in stating that Kerry was far more liberal than GWB is conservative.

 

[MobBoss]

The rise of the Republicans in the last 30 years is a result of them gaining southern racist conservatives who used to vote Democrat, and by using "family values" and other BS to get out the vote of the religious right.

Sigh. Once the Dems learn they create two conservatives for every one they call "racist" then they will start winning elections.

Family values are not BS, and anyone running a campaign knows it.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

@#$%&%*@#$@#$!!!