Ouch, Obama barely won against a man in prison in WV Dem Primary

[FerrelGeek]

LOLWestVirginia

ALT troll is active troll

Quoting the news that you don't want to hear doesn't mean you're a troll.

 

[alzan]

Another point here that bears mentioning. It should go without saying, but this article is low propaganda even by Fox standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#cite_note-oklahoma-15

The Fox article first mentions this result in WV, making a big deal of the fact that the opponent was an inmate but failing to mention that this fact was not well publicized to voters there. It also goes on to say this:



To illustrate what they imply by use of the plural is a trend, it then goes on to mention just ONE other state, Oklahoma. In that state, Obama did only receive 57.1% to his opponents' 42.9%. The trouble is, that 42.9% was split among 4 opponents, with none getting more than 18%, meaning Obama got better than 3x his closest opponent. But that isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that apparently it isn't within Fox's vaunted journalistic standard to report on the results in any other state. Just look at the wiki I linked. The results in those states range from Obama getting 76% to 100%, 76% to 98% in the states were he had an opponent on ballot.

Apparently, the results in all these other states aren't worth reporting.

- wolf

This is Off Topic but if votes from all counties in a given state were shown accurately on a map we could do away with the whole Red State/Blue State; a significant portion of the states would show blue-ish to purple, with only a handful being mostly red of blue.

Back On Topic; I saw this earlier but just as a blurb running across the bottom screen feed and it really drove home the fact that for the most part we're fairly lazy as voters when it comes to researching the candidates in an election. Just imagine how much better we'd be as voters if we did just the research you did.

 

[Ausm]

Well, at least you recognize that Attila the Hun would be running as a Democrat.

I doubt he would be even be considered a moderate Republican.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're off topic here, but you're persistent, so I'll bite. How is it a sham? People can vote for third parties. People can donate to third parties. They do not. That is their democratic choice.

Moreover, what makes you think that countries with more than two viable political parties are better off than we are? Those systems are messed up in myriad ways, some similar and some different from the ways ours is messed up.

There are exactly two candidates which have a chance of winning. That person has an R or D following their name in this case it is a choice of the opposition or the current office holder. That last choice was cast in stone when elected the first time. That is not an offered choice. That is who you must pick if you do not want the one other person who can win. Now you ask what country is better off for not having more options. I don't care. I want real viable alternatives. That you are content with those picked for you doesn't matter in the context of real freedom of choice, not "you can pick anyone or save gas and stay home as it's all the same". Besides, it's not off topic. People want other options and while they may not be sophisticated enough to realize they should shut up and take what they are told to, they are sending that message.

 

[fskimospy]

There are exactly two candidates which have a chance of winning. That person has an R or D following their name in this case it is a choice of the opposition or the current office holder. That last choice was cast in stone when elected the first time. That is not an offered choice. That is who you must pick if you do not want the one other person who can win. Now you ask what country is better off for not having more options. I don't care. I want real viable alternatives. That you are content with those picked for you doesn't matter in the context of real freedom of choice, not "you can pick anyone or save gas and stay home as it's all the same". Besides, it's not off topic. People want other options and while they may not be sophisticated enough to realize they should shut up and take what they are told to, they are sending that message.

How would you suggest we change our system?

 

[hal2kilo]

Sounds like a perfect storm to me. We'll find out how much Obama cares when we see how much he bothers to campaign there later this year. Probably as much as Romney will campaign in California.

Well, you know old DINO/ coal boy Sen. Manchin isn't going to be any help. He'll probably leave the state when Obama campaigns there.

 

[cybrsage]

Attila the Hun would lose a primary in WV so what's your point?

Attila would be pro gun, love drinking, and hate the establishment while saying people should have the right to make their own liquor in the woods. He would win an election in WV.

 

[woolfe9999]

There are exactly two candidates which have a chance of winning. That person has an R or D following their name in this case it is a choice of the opposition or the current office holder. That last choice was cast in stone when elected the first time. That is not an offered choice. That is who you must pick if you do not want the one other person who can win. Now you ask what country is better off for not having more options. I don't care. I want real viable alternatives. That you are content with those picked for you doesn't matter in the context of real freedom of choice, not "you can pick anyone or save gas and stay home as it's all the same". Besides, it's not off topic. People want other options and while they may not be sophisticated enough to realize they should shut up and take what they are told to, they are sending that message.

I disagree because WE choose the two party system. We can vote for third parties, and we can donate to them to make them more viable. There's a collective action problem which makes us feel that we're throwing away our votes if we go third party, but then again, many people feel that they're throwing away their vote if it's for either D or R (not me, but many do) or that they're wasting their time by voting anyway. Collective action problem or not, no one is telling us that we have to vote D or R.

I also don't think this is quite as set in stone as you claim. It isn't likely to change in the near future, but I don't think it's impossible. Teddy Roosevelt was able to get more votes with the Bull Moose party than the republican candidate.

Ross Perot was in the ballpark. He actually led the polling at 39% at one point. He finished at 19% likely because of certain deficiencies particular to him and his campaign more than the fact that he was a third party candidate. His support declined at the last minute because his poll numbers were not at critical mass for him to be perceived as electable, but they had been earlier. Perot was a centrist of course. I don't think a fringy third party will ever have much chance. I do think that once a third party candidate gets elected, it will open the door for a 3+ party system.

Also, on the incumbent issue, Ted Kennedy probably would have beaten Carter in 1980 had it not been for the shadow of Chappaquiddick still haunting him. That's another thing which could happen in the future.

- wolf

 

[fskimospy]

wolfe, I have to say that our electoral system exerts such a strong structural bias towards a 2 party system that a long term viable 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party is nearly impossible. In any system where 50.1% of the votes takes home 100% of the winnings third parties don't make much sense.

 

[woolfe9999]

wolfe, I have to say that our electoral system exerts such a strong structural bias towards a 2 party system that a long term viable 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party is nearly impossible. In any system where 50.1% of the votes takes home 100% of the winnings third parties don't make much sense.

Perhaps. You think Perot could have won in '92 had he been a more attractive candidate? He wasn't bad, but not exactly very presidential.

 

[Fern]

I was a little surprised that Obama got only 79% of the vote here. He was unopposed too. I.e., about 21% of the Dems voted against him by choosing "No Preference".

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

I was a little surprised that Obama got only 79% of the vote here. He was unopposed too. I.e., about 21% of the Dems voted against him by choosing "No Preference".

Fern

Where is "here" for you? Tennessee?

 

[HumblePie]

So wait, after I turn 35 all I have to do is pay $2,500 bucks and send in some form to run for a major political party primary? hrmm, might just try it for the lulz.

 

[Fern]

Where is "here" for you? Tennessee?

North Carolina

(I don't believe TN held a primary yesterday)

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

North Carolina

(I don't believe TN held a primary yesterday)

Fern

Ah, I had a 50/50 and guessed wrong.

Anyway, is the NC primary an open one? Can anyone choose a dem ballot?

 

[Fern]

Ah, I had a 50/50 and guessed wrong.

Anyway, is the NC primary an open one? Can anyone choose a dem ballot?

No. We're closed.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

No. We're closed.

Fern

Then it means 20% of NC dems don't like Obama. I think at least that percentage in CA don't like him either. I don't know what it means for how they vote in the general, however, because this wasn't Obama v. Romney but Obama v. uncommitted. Nonetheless, I don't see Obama winning NC this time around. He only won it narrowly in 2008, and he just came out for gay marriage at the same time as your state voted overwhelmingly to ban it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How would you suggest we change our system?

I'd like to have substantial election reform. Perhaps a system where a party qualifies for funding once they reach a certain number of signatures in support. There could be a ratio between the highest and lowest level of funding. Certainly it would be more complex that this and might require a Constitutional amendment, but I'd support that. I believe that freedom and democracy are best served by a well stocked market of ideas. We really don't have that. Choices are too filtered. I would like others to have a chance to take a place at the seat of government, even those i'd never choose. Some might say this is the system we choose. If it is it's like choosing to be a billionaire. Sure in theory, but in practice know thats not true. We need a way of governing governence, to allow other options. If we then choose as we have then we'll still have had a real choice, not the illusion of one.

 

[hal2kilo]

Then it means 20% of NC dems don't like Obama. I think at least that percentage in CA don't like him either. I don't know what it means for how they vote in the general, however, because this wasn't Obama v. Romney but Obama v. uncommitted. Nonetheless, I don't see Obama winning NC this time around. He only won it narrowly in 2008, and he just came out for gay marriage at the same time as your state voted overwhelmingly to ban it.

Yea, would probably be a waste of time and money to campaign in NC, except maybe the tri-cities part of the state. But, with the electoral college it's winner take of all for most states, so even campaigning in the tri-cities area would be a waste.

 

[Fern]

I don't think Obama will win NC in the general elec, at least not based on the info I've seen.

That 20% of Dems may well vote for him in the general, or at least many of them. I suppose some will still vote "No Preference".

But Obama is running behind in polls of him v. Romney among independent/unaffiliated voters here. That's a bad sign for his chances.

I was surprised Obama came out publicly supporting gay marriage. I think everyone knows he did, but publicly supporting it is an additional step that carries some political risk, I believe.

I think many Dems in the South, life long Dems, Dems whose family has never voted anything other than Dem, are very much social conservatives. A lot of Baptists, who are socially conservative, are Dems. I don't think people elsewhere in the USA realize how socially conservative many Dams down here are. I couldn't give a % breakdown, but I think the recent referendum shows that there are a substantial portion.

Fern

 

[alzan]

More than just the two-party system has been picking up steam over the last two decades. The Libertarian Party is getting a better showing in local and state elections in more areas of the country, even at the national level with Ron Paul. I think the best chance at changing the two-party system at the national level is with Independent candidates; perhaps with the platform being financially conservative but socially liberal. That would better match the overall make-up of the voting public. More Independents in Congress could break the gridlock that happens so often; as well as bringing more ideas to the table that would have a better chance of solving the country's problems without creating new ones.

It'll take a few more election cycles to get there but could happen within 15 - 25 years.

 

[dmcowen674]

West Virginia

This

Hell there are still exits along the Interstate with Outhouses.

 

[Ausm]

Attila would be pro gun, love drinking, and hate the establishment while saying people should have the right to make their own liquor in the woods. He would win an election in WV.

He would have to be even more Right then that because he was a Godless heathen.....

 

[woolfe9999]

I'd like to have substantial election reform. Perhaps a system where a party qualifies for funding once they reach a certain number of signatures in support. There could be a ratio between the highest and lowest level of funding. Certainly it would be more complex that this and might require a Constitutional amendment, but I'd support that. I believe that freedom and democracy are best served by a well stocked market of ideas. We really don't have that. Choices are too filtered. I would like others to have a chance to take a place at the seat of government, even those i'd never choose. Some might say this is the system we choose. If it is it's like choosing to be a billionaire. Sure in theory, but in practice know thats not true. We need a way of governing governence, to allow other options. If we then choose as we have then we'll still have had a real choice, not the illusion of one.

I support public financing for campaigns as well BTW, and that includes for qualifying third parties. Not only might it make third parties more viable, but more importantly, it would take some of the special interest money out of the system. Look around, however, and see who does and does not support public financing for campaigns.

 

[senseamp]

If there was a dumb@ss response of the week award, you just won. Congrats. Go upstairs and have your mom bake you a cake.

That sounds like West Virginian foreplay.