Experts see double-digit Dem losses

[45 4 life]

We need to set an example on the current federal and state levels with high turn outs at the poles, and better educated voters. Then we need to maintain the pressure on those that we vote to represent "We the People" to stay on course with what the majority voted for.

I still talk to far to many people who will not get out and vote.

As mentioned earlier we can limit terms, everyone just needs to get their heads out of the sand and pay attention.

[45 4 life]

Something of interest I just looked up:

There are 75 million to 90 million gun owners in the United states.

There were 136.6 million voters in the 2008 Presidential elections.

I realize there is a numbers issue with the electoral college (which we could do away with in this age af technology), and I understand that there are many staunch Dems out there that own firearms (which really is confusing in my little mind how they could be so willing to give up the right), but it does seem that some of us are not doing our job come election day.

[chamberc]

It is important to note that the GOP turnout was LOWER in 2008 than in 2004. This is strong evidence that the core of American voters who are conservative by nature are not going to vote for liberals like the Romney and McCain RINO's. The GOP then turns around and elects an ultra Liberal, Steele to lead the party and makes another huge mistake.

The first step for the GOP is to get rid of Steel and get Romney off the stage. Newt is probably the smartest guy standing, but likely not electable.

Carter gave rise to Reagan, but there doesn't appear to be a "Reagan" in the wings.

[Purplehood]

Something of interest I just looked up:

There are 75 million to 90 million gun owners in the United states.

There were 136.6 million voters in the 2008 Presidential elections.

I realize there is a numbers issue with the electoral college (which we could do away with in this age af technology), and I understand that there are many staunch Dems out there that own firearms (which really is confusing in my little mind how they could be so willing to give up the right), but it does seem that some of us are not doing our job come election day.

You are assuming that they are willing to give up the right.

[LaUser]

It was bound to happen. We saw it coming....

After an August recess marked by raucous town halls, troubling polling data and widespread anecdotal evidence of a volatile electorate, the small universe of political analysts who closely follow House races is predicting moderate to heavy Democratic losses in 2010.

I hope not.

[DrBillC]

I have to agree: Republicans aren't much different these days. So, I find myself attracted to the Constitution Party after being a life-long Republican.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

[mr surveyor]

my sympathies to all of you that aren't represented by Louie Gohmert. If we had about 300 like minded folks properly distributed between the House and Senate, America would have a chance to recover!

surv

[Rex B]

This is encouraging:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Rei ... 84022.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Harry Reid has picked a fight with the largest newspaper in Nevada.
Poor strategic choice, if ever there was one.

[mr.72]

I realize there is a numbers issue with the electoral college (which we could do away with in this age af technology)

Why not do away with states too, then?

And the senate.

In fact, why even let people in small-population states vote at all? I mean, they cannot possibly represent the majority, so why should they even get a chance to vote?

Maybe this should be a straight-up Democracy and we should give up on the ideal of a Republic.

[yes, this is sarcastic... the electoral college is not some outdated relic any more than the Constitution is an outdated relic... it's part of the "baby", not "bathwater"]

[Purplehood]

I realize there is a numbers issue with the electoral college (which we could do away with in this age af technology)

Why not do away with states too, then?

And the senate.

In fact, why even let people in small-population states vote at all? I mean, they cannot possibly represent the majority, so why should they even get a chance to vote?

Maybe this should be a straight-up Democracy and we should give up on the ideal of a Republic.

[yes, this is sarcastic... the electoral college is not some outdated relic any more than the Constitution is an outdated relic... it's part of the "baby", not "bathwater"]

Okay, I will bite. How do you characterize the Electoral College as having any relevance? I certainly don't see it, but I could be ignorant of some facts to support this assertion.
Is it simply the numbers-game that you might refer to?

[mr.72]

Okay, I will bite. How do you characterize the Electoral College as having any relevance? I certainly don't see it, but I could be ignorant of some facts to support this assertion.
Is it simply the numbers-game that you might refer to?

The Electoral College provides the states a voice, and allows that states with large populations like CA and NY do not necessarily control the entire country. Not to mention the fact that it is a part of the Constitution, which we need not begin cherry-picking (although there are a pair of amendments I personally support repealing).

Remember the 9 most populous states represent over 50% of the US population. The other 41 states are the minority. The top 20 most populous states represent about 75% of the US population. The electoral college distribution is not so biased towards these top-population states.

The current makeup of the electoral college, that is the number of electoral votes given each state, gives a little extra authority to small states (little), since every state has two electors (representing their senators) as well as one elector for each representative in the House (accordingly to population). So lightly-populated states basically get a bit of an edge by virtue of the electoral college, and this also supports the states-rights ideal of the Senate as a whole (which had its teeth removed by the 17th Amendment... We might as well abolish the Senate by virtue of the 17th Amendment but I digress).

So the point is for states to have a voice in the election of the President, thereby allowing for two extra electoral votes simply for being a state. So a state with only one person living in it (their US Rep) would still have at least three electoral votes.

If we were to do away with the electoral college then we would wind up with a purely-democratically elected President, which I think many people believe would be "better" because they were taught that Democracy is the King of All Systems of Government by their public school curricula. But the fact is that this is not a Democracy. If we elected the President with a strict popular vote, then there would be little purpose in counting votes from over half of the states because, even if they ALL voted exactly the same, they would not have enough votes to overcome anything but a slim opposing majority in the bigger states. We might as well rename this country "The Partially-United States of Califlorinewyorkexas".

Consider this: if California decides to allow illegal immigrants to vote, then they still cannot have any more voice in electing the President because they still only will almost always vote majority-Democrat in the Presidential election, and therefore there is no additional electoral vote tally resulting from this type of voting fraud. Or if they count votes from all of the dead people in Chicago, then still Illinois only has the same number of electoral votes. The Electoral College also stands as a barrier, or at least a limit, to fraud or corruption at the state level, and also allows states to choose their own destiny. If they want to fraudulently elect congressmen then they will only be shooting themselves in the foot, but at least they can't wind up fraudulently electing a President that affects the entire country.

However if we allow strict popular vote then these illegal-immigrant or questionable votes will definitely be counted against the real legitimate votes of people, say, in Idaho. I promise there are enough illegals in California alone to cancel every single vote in Idaho.

There are a number of important purposes of the Electoral College but most people don't understand them because, quite simply, we are all generally educated by the government, and we all know that government schools are traditionally pro-Democrat. Then we go to college and are further educated by liberals. Is it any wonder we wind up with this skewed view of the value of "Democracy" over a Republic?

[dewayneward]

I just want to know when Texas is going to secede again!!!

[Purplehood]

I am not convinced that it is a "skewed" view.

[45 4 life]

My problem with the electoral college is that those heavy populated areas of the country can in fact determine who wins our federal elections, and I feel did in the last Presidential race. Obama spent hours upon hours and dollars upon dollars campaigning for the inner city votes. He got all of those electoral votes from california based on winning the popular vote in 2 or 3 counties.

I have spoken to many people in the northern parts of cal. that did not vote having the old excuse that their vote would not matter. Popular vote would also get these individuals to the poles.

Should we have a system where the Presidential Election could be determined by 2 counties in a single state, and those 2 counties having the highest unemployment rates, and goverment assistance in the state. Or am I being to hypothetical?

[Excaliber]

This is encouraging:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Rei ... 84022.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Harry Reid has picked a fight with the largest newspaper in Nevada.
Poor strategic choice, if ever there was one.

I was amused to see Mr. Reid's unbridled arrogance drive him to make such a strategic blunder.

Many years ago a wise mentor of mine told me never to pick a fight with people who have ink delivered by the tank car load. Mr. Reid has violated that simple precept in spades, and I fully expect that the newspaper's coverage of him as we approach the 2010 elections will prove that the principle is as good today as it was when I first heard it.