Why Nobama

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

That is perhaps an unfair question based on current perceptions vs perceptions of 4 years ago, but go ahead and take your shot.

Bush was riding a decent popularity wave at the time and had broad based support across the political spectrum except for the extreme kook left wing. Kerry was viewed as an east coast european style ( French, worst of all at the time) elitest who had very little broad based support and was supported by most liberals only because he was their candidate.

It is not surprising he lost, the Dems picked a lousy choice at the time. Kind of how the Reps could have picked a much better candidate this time.

Bush - 50.7% of the popular vote, Kerry - 48.3% of the popular vote
Bush - 286 Electoral votes, Kerry - 251 Electoral votes

Now exactly where is this "broad based support across the political spectrum" you speak of? Rovian tactics worked in 2004. Fear won.

[DesertDom]

Bush - 50.7% of the popular vote, Kerry - 48.3% of the popular vote
Bush - 286 Electoral votes, Kerry - 251 Electoral votes

Now exactly where is this "broad based support across the political spectrum" you speak of? Rovian tactics worked in 2004. Fear won.

Hmm, the actual numbers speak for themselves.

Bush won a majority of the votes in 31 states vs 19 states for Kerry. Of those 31 states, Bush had a greater than 10% margin of victory in 17 of them. Sounds pretty broad based to me.

Viewed in that fashion, you could call it a landslide, couldn't you?

Given that CA and NY account for 86 electoral votes, take those 2 states out of the count and Kerry would have had less than 170 electoral votes and +- 11 million fewer votes.

I stand by my earlier statements, Bush's popularity was much higher in 2004 and Kerry was a weak candidate.

I am not looking forward to the red / blue map next week, though.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Hmm, the actual numbers speak for themselves.

Bush won a majority of the votes in 31 states vs 19 states for Kerry. Of those 31 states, Bush had a greater than 10% margin of victory in 17 of them. Sounds pretty broad based to me.

Viewed in that fashion, you could call it a landslide, couldn't you?

Given that CA and NY account for 86 electoral votes, take those 2 states out of the count and Kerry would have had less than 170 electoral votes and +- 11 million fewer votes.

I stand by my earlier statements, Bush's popularity was much higher in 2004 and Kerry was a weak candidate.

I am not looking forward to the red / blue map next week, though.

Counting states is just acreage, area, square miles. That has absolutely no bearing on the subject. So, if you subtract electoral college votes from Kerry he would have less. Wow...that's insightful. Support of the people is the measure. Bush received a whopping .7% plurality against a weak candidate that ran a weak race. Ah heck, I'm just disagreeing for fun and entertainment.

I will agree on one point though, Bush was much more popular in 2004.....compared to Bush in 2008, that is...22% approval rating. He's tied Harry Truman's rating after he fired Gen. McArthur.

[DesertDom]

Counting states is just acreage, area, square miles. That has absolutely no bearing on the subject. So, if you subtract electoral college votes from Kerry he would have less. Wow...that's insightful. Support of the people is the measure. Bush received a whopping .7% plurality against a weak candidate that ran a weak race. Ah heck, I'm just disagreeing for fun and entertainment.

I will agree on one point though, Bush was much more popular in 2004.....compared to Bush in 2008, that is...22% approval rating. He's tied Harry Truman's rating after he fired Gen. McArthur.

Hmm, I had assumed that you were aware of the Electoral College process. Since the US uses that quaint system, winning a state ( acreage, area, square miles, etc) is the most important thing that can be done in a presidential election. Win the state, get the electoral votes. First one to 270 wins.

**** I am sure that you are aware of the electoral process and were being deliberately obtuse in your response. *****

The point about CA and NY is that they are bastions of liberalism and are usually check marks in the Dem electoral count total. Take those totals away and the race was even more one sided.

I'm not a fan of the Electoral process, does not seem quite right for someone to win the popular vote, but lose the election. But, maybe the writers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they foresaw heavily populated states overshadowing rural states. The system we have now still gives too much power to large populations.

Popular voting totals is not the answer and giving 1 vote to each state is not the way to go either. I'm not sure what the best way would be, but given how things are bogged down, the chances of a constitutional amendment to revise this are slim and none.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Hmm, I had assumed that you were aware of the Electoral College process. Since the US uses that quaint system, winning a state ( acreage, area, square miles, etc) is the most important thing that can be done in a presidential election. Win the state, get the electoral votes. First one to 270 wins.

**** I am sure that you are aware of the electoral process and were being deliberately obtuse in your response. *****

The point about CA and NY is that they are bastions of liberalism and are usually check marks in the Dem electoral count total. Take those totals away and the race was even more one sided.

I'm not a fan of the Electoral process, does not seem quite right for someone to win the popular vote, but lose the election. But, maybe the writers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they foresaw heavily populated states overshadowing rural states. The system we have now still gives too much power to large populations.

Popular voting totals is not the answer and giving 1 vote to each state is not the way to go either. I'm not sure what the best way would be, but given how things are bogged down, the chances of a constitutional amendment to revise this are slim and none.

Damn, another of my seemingly wonderful(to me) sarcasm shots went off track. My point was you can't just "take away" votes to make your point seem better. So following your line of reasoning if I remove those bastions of conservatism that always vote Republican my point would be better made?

Couldn't agree more that the anachronistic electoral college system is woefully in need of repair. Maybe a parliamentary system of sorts? I'm unsure, really. In the end it kind of works more than it doesn't work, primarily to that free speech and free press thing we have going,