web analytics
Currently viewing the tag: "2012 Election"

This is a pretty able explanation of the current state of affairs:

The apparent split between the national vote and the electoral college has some analysts, like Nate Silver, groping for an explanation, but the answer seems fairly obvious to me: Swing states have been soaked in political information for months, with round-the-clock advertising, campaigning, and local news coverage of candidate love-bombing. The non-swing majority of America hasn’t. New information from the debates is more likely to change your mind if you just tuned in to the Denver debate than if you had been hiding under your sofa while Obama and Romney pounded down your front door.

The one (possibly only) argument in favor of retaining the electoral college at this point is that it keeps the megabuck spending confined to a few states, some of which are pretty small (New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada, for example). In a popular vote system, it would be like that everywhere, which would mean a hell of a lot more corporate money in the system in order to blitz the L.A. suburbs and such. Republicans would advertise in California because getting 5% more of the vote here (a plausible goal, IMO) could swing the national election. This is, I think, the only real argument that the EC ought to stay, though I’m not sure I fully buy it.

This is a pretty able explanation of the current state of affairs:

The apparent split between the national vote and the electoral college has some analysts, like Nate Silver, groping for an explanation, but the answer seems fairly obvious to me: Swing states have been soaked in political information for months, with round-the-clock advertising, campaigning, and local news coverage of candidate love-bombing. The non-swing majority of America hasn’t. New information from the debates is more likely to change your mind if you just tuned in to the Denver debate than if you had been hiding under your sofa while Obama and Romney pounded down your front door.

The one (possibly only) argument in favor of retaining the electoral college at this point is that it keeps the megabuck spending confined to a few states, some of which are pretty small (New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada, for example). In a popular vote system, it would be like that everywhere, which would mean a hell of a lot more corporate money in the system in order to blitz the L.A. suburbs and such. Republicans would advertise in California because getting 5% more of the vote here (a plausible goal, IMO) could swing the national election. This is, I think, the only real argument that the EC ought to stay, though I’m not sure I fully buy it.

This is a pretty able explanation of the current state of affairs:

The apparent split between the national vote and the electoral college has some analysts, like Nate Silver, groping for an explanation, but the answer seems fairly obvious to me: Swing states have been soaked in political information for months, with round-the-clock advertising, campaigning, and local news coverage of candidate love-bombing. The non-swing majority of America hasn’t. New information from the debates is more likely to change your mind if you just tuned in to the Denver debate than if you had been hiding under your sofa while Obama and Romney pounded down your front door.

The one (possibly only) argument in favor of retaining the electoral college at this point is that it keeps the megabuck spending confined to a few states, some of which are pretty small (New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada, for example). In a popular vote system, it would be like that everywhere, which would mean a hell of a lot more corporate money in the system in order to blitz the L.A. suburbs and such. Republicans would advertise in California because getting 5% more of the vote here (a plausible goal, IMO) could swing the national election. This is, I think, the only real argument that the EC ought to stay, though I’m not sure I fully buy it.

This is a pretty able explanation of the current state of affairs:

The apparent split between the national vote and the electoral college has some analysts, like Nate Silver, groping for an explanation, but the answer seems fairly obvious to me: Swing states have been soaked in political information for months, with round-the-clock advertising, campaigning, and local news coverage of candidate love-bombing. The non-swing majority of America hasn’t. New information from the debates is more likely to change your mind if you just tuned in to the Denver debate than if you had been hiding under your sofa while Obama and Romney pounded down your front door.

The one (possibly only) argument in favor of retaining the electoral college at this point is that it keeps the megabuck spending confined to a few states, some of which are pretty small (New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada, for example). In a popular vote system, it would be like that everywhere, which would mean a hell of a lot more corporate money in the system in order to blitz the L.A. suburbs and such. Republicans would advertise in California because getting 5% more of the vote here (a plausible goal, IMO) could swing the national election. This is, I think, the only real argument that the EC ought to stay, though I’m not sure I fully buy it.

This is a pretty able explanation of the current state of affairs:

The apparent split between the national vote and the electoral college has some analysts, like Nate Silver, groping for an explanation, but the answer seems fairly obvious to me: Swing states have been soaked in political information for months, with round-the-clock advertising, campaigning, and local news coverage of candidate love-bombing. The non-swing majority of America hasn’t. New information from the debates is more likely to change your mind if you just tuned in to the Denver debate than if you had been hiding under your sofa while Obama and Romney pounded down your front door.

The one (possibly only) argument in favor of retaining the electoral college at this point is that it keeps the megabuck spending confined to a few states, some of which are pretty small (New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada, for example). In a popular vote system, it would be like that everywhere, which would mean a hell of a lot more corporate money in the system in order to blitz the L.A. suburbs and such. Republicans would advertise in California because getting 5% more of the vote here (a plausible goal, IMO) could swing the national election. This is, I think, the only real argument that the EC ought to stay, though I’m not sure I fully buy it.

This is a pretty able explanation of the current state of affairs:
The apparent split between the national vote and the electoral college has some analysts, like Nate Silver, groping for an explanation, but the answer seems fairly obvious to me: Swing states have been soaked in political information for months, with round-the-clock advertising, campaigning, and local news coverage of candidate love-bombing. The non-swing majority of America hasn’t. New information from the debates is more likely to change your mind if you just tuned in to the Denver debate than if you had been hiding under your sofa while Obama and Romney pounded down your front door.
The one (possibly only) argument in favor of retaining the electoral college at this point is that it keeps the megabuck spending confined to a few states, some of which are pretty small (New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada, for example). In a popular vote system, it would be like that everywhere, which would mean a hell of a lot more corporate money in the system in order to blitz the L.A. suburbs and such. Republicans would advertise in California because getting 5% more of the vote here (a plausible goal, IMO) could swing the national election. This is, I think, the only real argument that the EC ought to stay, though I’m not sure I fully buy it.

Less likable Wallace Shawn has got some highly original thoughts to share on the debate. Here’s a tease, do stay with me if it makes you giggle:

Understanding why Mitt Romney so decisively won the first presidential debate is as important as the fact that he did. Why? Because once we know the reasons, almost everything about President Barack Obama and this election becomes clear.

First, Obama lost because he, like virtually the entire left, lives in a left-wing bubble.

Come come now, Dennis. You know what they say about people living in glass bubbles, right?

Continue reading »

 

Your Vintners