Comments on: 2008 Election ‘Regular Season’ Kickoff

By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » McCain’s Good Summer Continues To Get Better

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:18:28 +0000

[...] thing to keep in mind when looking at these numbers, and James Joyner puts it thusly: [T]he real campaign starts Monday with the kickoff of the convention season. Barring a major crisis, Obama will get a significant, [...]

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:34:13 +0000

The battleground states are more diverse than the cities. Look at the top ten cities. Three in Texas, three in California, NY, Chicago, Phoenix and Philly. Only Philly is in a state that is a 'second tier' battleground state (aka one that isn't likely to change from 2000/2004 but has a small enough margin you can't rule it out). Maybe the 3D map will help you see what I am talking about. Outside of a few blue towers, Gore did poorly across the country. The democrats have such a monoculture in this respect that they have trouble relating to the rest of the country (e.g. Obama's bitter clinging comments).

By: McCain Takes the Lead?

McCain Takes the Lead? — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:18:43 +0000

[...] any event, as I wrote in some detail yesterday, the real campaign starts Monday with the kickoff of the convention season. Barring a major crisis, Obama will get a significant, [...]

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:23:05 +0000

I don't see how saturating the top ten cities is worse than our current situation where they instead saturate 6 or so 'battleground states.'

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:39:07 +0000

Grewgillis, The urban masses get their full voice in the house. The EC system is set up so that the candidates don't saturate the top ten cities and forget the rest of the country. p.s. RCP now has McCain taking the EV lead (at least as of 10:30pm on Tuesday).

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:11:27 +0000

YAJ,
That does not change the fact that voters in predominantly rural states get a larger voice in our government than do voters in the states with the large urban centers.
While rural counties in NY, CA, etc do not have as large a voice in state politics or presidential voting each voter in those counties has the same weight to their vote as their urban counterparts.
The current method of selecting our president is far less democratic than a nationwide popular vote. Assigning presidential votes on acreage or number of counties won would be even less democratic. It is after all people not land that define a democracy.
I do understand your concern that rural issues would be given shorter shrift if a national popular vote were in place, but they are given greater prominence than they merit in our current system. I say this knowing that my chosen home (HI) would lose even more of its already tiny voice in national politics.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:50:54 +0000

Grewgillis,

Check the link. Even bluer than blue states like NY have a majority of their counties voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but the state went solidly for the democrat. The one exception is in New England.

In 2000, Bush won 30 states to 20 with 271 vs 266 EV. But the county count was 2439 counties for Bush vs 674 counties or 80% of the counties. Why was the popular vote so close when one side wins 80% of the counties, because of the urban vs rural split.

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:20:13 +0000

In reality, the popular vote is trying to set up an urban vs rural dichotomy.

Or reverse the current urban vs rural dichotomy where voters in more rural states get a larger voice in our government than do voters in the states with the large urban centers.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:11:47 +0000

Anderson, I agree that the founder's desires are only of interest for as long as it takes to amend the constitution. The problem for Susan and the popular vote advocates is that they don't have a good enough argument to put this forward by constitutional amendment (or at least their trying to do the extra-constitutional pact among states indicates that they don't think they have good arguments on their side). The EC has it's place, even if it gives smaller states an incrementally larger voice. The founders put that in (along with the senate equality between states) precisely to balance the states so that the large states don't dominate the small. In reality, the popular vote is trying to set up an urban vs rural dichotomy.

By: just me

just me — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:27:09 +0000

Well I am not in favor at all of a popular vote election. I very much like the electoral college system.

By: sam

sam — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:10:07 +0000

Nate Silver actually runs fivethirtyeight.com, which is a tremendous site.

Agree. Nate's site links to this site, USA Election Polls, which is the most comprehensive polling site I've seen. In addition to the presidential race, it tracks the polling on all the Senate races; the polls in the battleground states; and the polling in the Obama states and the McCain states. Pretty rich environment for polling junkies.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:46:36 +0000

One of which is, it goes against the original desire of our founders.

Strangely, the Founders thought so little of their own desires that they provided a mechanism to amend the very Constitution they wrote.

Which of course leads us to the real problem with Susan's mainly admirable proposal:

The small states get hugely overrepresented in the EC for their populations, and the Senate would have to approve abolition of the EC.

N.b. that the only provision of the Constitution which cannot be amended, is the equal representation of all states in the Senate. (Paging Douglas Hofstadter ....)

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:19:12 +0000

Susan
There is many problems with your” popular vote” should win the election system. One of which is, it goes against the original desire of our founders.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:46:54 +0000

p.s. Is it to early to start talking about 2012 where McCain's VP takes on Hillary?

Is it too early to start talking about The Patriots perfect season and how Brady is better then Montana?

Oops...

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:36:23 +0000

The fact that McCain has kept this as a reasonably close race at this point is amazing. Obama has home team advantage with the press, the political winds have been strongly against McCain. With the left repeatedly bringing up McCain's POW history and floating conspiracy theories that the reason McCain looked so much better than Obama in the Saddleback forum was that McCain and his staff were able to hear Obama's questions (a fact not proven), but also brief McCain on Obama's answers, develop taking points and have McCain memorize them so he could appear to be speaking off the cuff while Obama continued to answer questions. Or to put it another way, Obama showed he wasn't ready for prime time and either McCain was directly or he and his staff are super humanly efficient that they show McCain is ready to exercise the duties associated with the presidential 'pay grade'. I suspect that Obama is much more vulnerable to an October surprise (e.g. Ayers) than McCain. So McCain keeping the contest in play here shows he has a good shot for November. p.s. Is it to early to start talking about 2012 where McCain's VP takes on Hillary?