July 7, 201511 yr He has a powerful resume. He's as inspiring as a door stop. I agree with both sentiments. He is the Joe B Hall of this race. :thumb:
July 7, 201511 yr Author Jefferson County, Fayette County, and maybe a couple counties in the Cincy area will vote blue. All others will be red. Just like every election. Actually NKY was Red last time...Interesting County by County map of the last Presidential Election
July 7, 201511 yr Actually NKY was Red last time...Interesting County by County map of the last Presidential Election [ATTACH]51315[/ATTACH] Boone, Kenton, & Campbell Counties are all pretty strong GOP areas of the Bluegrass.
July 7, 201511 yr Analysts already say that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election. Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable. Only ten states were considered competitive in the 2012 election. From 1992- 2012 13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time 19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time If this pattern continues, Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states. If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose. Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position. • 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012 • 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012 • 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012 • 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012 • 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988 • 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988
July 7, 201511 yr You're flattering yourself. Your vote in '16 won't mean much. Neither will mine. Kentucky isn't on either party's radar. It's not flattery, it's incentive.
July 7, 201511 yr The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter equally in every presidential election, while preserving the Electoral College and state control of elections. Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 states. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. see National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
July 7, 201511 yr The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter equally in every presidential election, while preserving the Electoral College and state control of elections. Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 states. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. see National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President Other than 2000 would it even matter?
July 8, 201511 yr One good thing about living in Ohio is that I feel like my vote actually matters every election. If I lived in California or Massachusetts, why even bother going to the polls when electing the president??
July 8, 201511 yr Other than 2000 would it even matter? The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter equally in every presidential election. Because of state winner-take-all statutes, in the 2012 general election, 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only 10 competitive states 2/3rds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (OH, FL, VA, IA). 38 small, medium, and large states were politically irrelevant. Presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016. State winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions. Also, state winner-take-all statutes have allowed candidates to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in four of our 57 presidential elections—1 in 14 times. A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected Kerry despite Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes. A shift of 214,393 votes in 2012 would have elected Romney despite Obama’s nationwide lead of almost 5,000,000 votes. Most American voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
July 8, 201511 yr One good thing about living in Ohio is that I feel like my vote actually matters every election. If I lived in California or Massachusetts, why even bother going to the polls when electing the president?? Or Kentucky
July 8, 201511 yr One good thing about living in Ohio is that I feel like my vote actually matters every election. If I lived in California or Massachusetts, why even bother going to the polls when electing the president?? Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate). And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states. In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country. With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
July 8, 201511 yr The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter equally in every presidential election. Because of state winner-take-all statutes, in the 2012 general election, 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending time and visits) was invested on voters in just the only 10 competitive states 2/3rds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (OH, FL, VA, IA). 38 small, medium, and large states were politically irrelevant. Presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016. State winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions. Also, state winner-take-all statutes have allowed candidates to win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide in four of our 57 presidential elections—1 in 14 times. A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected Kerry despite Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes. A shift of 214,393 votes in 2012 would have elected Romney despite Obama’s nationwide lead of almost 5,000,000 votes. Most American voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. Good points. I do feel like we get no attention in KY.
July 8, 201511 yr Good points. I do feel like we get no attention in KY. 80% of the states are ignored. During the 2012 general election campaign Kentucky had no events, and only $400 (not a typo) spent on TV ads. California had no events, and only $320 (not a typo) spent on TV ads. Ohio (18) had 73 and $148,000,000 in TV ads. Florida (29) had 40 and $175,776,780. Virginia (13) had 36 and $127,000,000 Iowa (6) had 27 and $52,194,330
July 8, 201511 yr Also makes me wonder what would the effect be if the primary season wasn't 5 months long.
July 8, 201511 yr The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter equally in every presidential election, while preserving the Electoral College and state control of elections. Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 states. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. see National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President The electoral college was created for a reason. We are a democratic republic made up of 50 states. We are not a pure democracy where mob rule wins.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.