Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gavyeah, but theoretically, all those states could be won 2 votes vs 1 for Obama, making Obama having 22 votes and McCain having millions. Realistically, those states could be close and the others could be heavily leaned McCain, yet Obama would still win, like McCain have a clear majority in the popular vote, yet Obama still wins.
its about size of the population, not landmass...
Originally posted by Strangelove
well, that's one of the arguments against the Electoral College.But something like that has never happened and is not likely to happen.
Originally posted by RocasAtollWell I wasn't arguing for the system, just commenting on the likeliness of a candidate winning New York, California, Georgia and Texas all in one election.
Doesn't change the fact it's broken. If the threat is their for a misrepresentation based on a faulty system, the system should be purged.
In this current environment anyhow.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
is that map supposing that Obama will win texas and florida? traditionally conservative states?Obama is good and he may win the presidency but c'mon...he's not going to win overwhelming majority in those states. certainly not in texas.
His point wasn't to show a likely scenario, merely to show that a person can theoretically win the election by winning only 11 states.
Bill Clinton did zilch to stimulate the economy. Internet start-up companies like Google were all the rage in 92-98, Starbucks broke out big time, and all kinds of other businesses were doing well.
Clinton inherited the seed work of Reganomics, which started to pay off right around when he became president.
Bush Jr. walked into a recession caused by the "bursting of the bubble" of american prosperity in the 90's because the .com craze had faded, China was beginning to pull farther ahead in technology advances and....well he did approve 2 expensive wars so I'll give you that. But alot what happened on his terms were situational things outside of his control. Things in the climate/culture.
Hasn't there been more people to own their own home in the last 8 years than ever before? Isn't the unemployment rate down? Maybe not this year, but I'm sure that I read in 2006/2007 things were actually getting to be good for some people again.
Originally posted by Schecter
yes it was all just cooincidence. it was all clintons fault. there is no recession. everything is fine now. the deficit is an illusion.
I'm not saying that it's fine now or that Clinton "caused" it. Rather that things are sometimes in play in society that are outside of any given presidents control. These things can effect the economy more than policy, at times.
Take 9/11. Those guys were in Florida training at flight schools during the Clinton administration. Is it his personal fault that what they prepared for during his presidency is something Bush had to deal with in his? No.
Not taking Bin Laden out when recommended to by the CIA after an Al-queda attack on a U.S. navy ship, our embassy in Kenya, and the first WTC bombing....maybe. But even then, you can see where events that were started in one administration bleed over into the next.
Originally posted by inimalistSimple. Small independent businesses became large independent corporations and we prospered as the economy grew. Fairly simple, isn't it?
why don't you explain, in detail, how trickle down economics payed off?