U.S. More Conservative Than Obama's 2008 Win Suggests

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Yes, the left misunderstood what happened in the last election. It was more a reaction against what many saw as a Republican party that had gone against what they claimed to stand for (Bush's spending and policies were often not conservative by any stretch, nor were the actions of Republican congress) and put out another candidate that seemed no better with John "I love illegal invaders" McCain. The Republican party just generally deserved a kick in the teeth after allowing the ascent of the so-called "neocon" faction.
However, kicking out the Republicans for being incompetent fools did not mean the general population wanted us to morph into a hopped up version of France. Unfortunately for themselves the Democrats thought that disliking the other guys meant that everyone now loved the far left and this is not the case by a long shot.
The Republicans also need to understand that just because some of us strenuously oppose the big government philosophy of the left does not mean we are looking to hand power back to them either. I hope we get another viable party or two myself, as I see it the two party system is utterly corrupt and we are now at the point where our only choice when voting is "Which of these two lying crooks is going to screw me the least?"

Jeff of MD 11:00PM August 20, 2009

In the next presidential election the issue may not be how well candidates do state-by-state. Every vote in every state could be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote could be equal. We could have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
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 would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates have concentrated their attention on the handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of their visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers in 19 states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

mvymvy of PA 11:14AM August 19, 2009

Good article. The media would have us believe that everyone is turning gay and agnostic and you're way out in left field if you're not on board. Sorros and his many lap dogs can't be too happy with this article. I just now heard the wailing, whining, whippering sound coming from the extreme liberal left.
Up till now, Obama, Pelosi, Reid have acted like they have some kind of clear cut social mandate.
Obama better start walking Clinton's line if he wants to be re-elected. Clinton learned quickly to walk down the middle of the aisle.

David of ID 6:55PM August 18, 2009