Last Election For Electoral College?

[ Posted Wednesday, October 24th, 2012 – 16:43 UTC ]

That headline is a bit misleading, I should admit, right from the start. No matter what happens, the Electoral College is going to officially elect our president in 2016. But, perhaps as early as 2020, even this vestige will disappear, if America decides to instead move towards the simpler system of having the national popular vote decide our presidential elections.

As is usual in this year's pre-election period, political pundits are getting a little desperate for things to write about. You can almost hear them saying to themselves: "The race is close, yadda yadda yadda, nothing new to say about it." Speculation runs wild in all sorts of directions, including bizarre election outcomes which statistically could happen (gasp!). The prospect of a 269-269 Electoral College tie is dusted off for another waltz around the block, and the spectre of 2000's Bush v. Gore is usually not far behind. Since it seems to be that season right about now, I thought I'd jump in and take this speculation to even wilder heights. Why not? After all, it's better than writing "The race is really close, hey, folks, pay attention!" one more time.

I'm going to paint a picture of how America could scrap the Electoral College system in the next decade, but I make no predictions whatsoever about the chances this could become reality. You'll have to judge that sort of thing for yourselves.

The Constitution dictates how we elect our presidents. To permanently change this system, America would have to amend the Constitution. This is a tough task, because the bar for amendments is so extraordinarily high. But there is a growing movement to perform what can only be called an "end run" around this constitutional requirement: the "National Popular Vote" (or "NPV") effort. Their scheme is a clever one: since the states set the rules for how their electors vote in the Electoral College, just pass laws at the state level which dictate that all the state's electors must vote for whichever candidate wins the national popular vote for president.

This would be partisan suicide, if it were not for one trigger built into the law -- this scheme wouldn't go into effect until a majority's-worth of states in the Electoral College passed it. To put it another way, nothing would change until states which added up to 270 or more electors had all passed identical laws. Then their votes would override all of the other states, no matter which candidate "won" each state, and the only possible outcome would be electing a president who had won the national vote. For further nuts-and-bolts details, refer to the National Popular Vote group's webpage.

So far, the movement has gotten the same law passed in nine states, with an impressive 132 Electoral College votes -- almost halfway to 270. But when you take a look at the list of states which have passed the law, a certain tilt becomes immediately obvious: California, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, and Washington DC. Those are all pretty "blue" states, aren't they?

This is where the speculation begins. What would happen if Barack Obama wins a second term as president in the Electoral College but loses the popular vote? My humble guess is that a whole lot of red states would immediately begin serious consideration of the NPV scheme. "Never again!" they would cry, much as Democrats cried in 2000. If a large Republican state (say, Texas) took the lead, I could easily see the law passing in enough states by 2016 to trigger the new NPV system.

Of course, because this is admittedly an end run around the Constitution, there will likely be a court case. In it, I could see some real bipartisanship as the Democratic Party and the Republican Party join together in an effort to stop the new movement from working in 2016. If the Supreme Court ruled that it was a perfectly acceptable law, though, then our next presidential election would go to whichever candidate wins nationwide.

The Electoral College voting would still take place. The only difference would be seeing (depending on the outcome) all the electors from a state like California voting for a Republican, or a state like Mississippi voting for a Democrat. But the outcome would be clear: the new president would be guaranteed to be the one winning the national popular vote.

Now, this could be an even more gigantic legal mess than Bush v. Gore. Even if the Supreme Court ruled on the overall acceptability of the plan, court cases wrangling over ballot-counting could go nationwide in the aftermath of Election Day. Anything is possible.

But supposed it didn't go awry. Suppose the election of 2016 was fairly normal and the results obvious to all, no matter what the final electoral count was. In this case, it is even conceivable to speculate that in the following four years, national politicians and state politicians would see how meaningless the Electoral College vote was under the new system. Which could lead to the more permanent fix of passing a National Popular Vote amendment. As mentioned, this is an extremely high hurdle, but if the Electoral College was no longer necessary, perhaps it wouldn't be all that contentious to just go ahead and write the plan into our founding document.

Will this be the last election for the Electoral College? Well, no, it won't, even if NPV passes everywhere. Will it be the last election where the Electoral College vote can be different from the national popular vote? Maybe... just maybe. It would almost require Barack Obama to be re-elected without winning the popular vote, but this could indeed come to pass. Ratifying a constitutional amendment to jettison the Electoral College would probably take longer than the four years between 2016 and 2020, but it could conceivably happen in our lifetimes. It's all just speculation, for now, but there is at least one path where I could see it happening in the near future.

-- Chris Weigant


Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant


31 Comments on “Last Election For Electoral College?”

  1. [1] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    At least we can be glad for the Twelfth Amendment, passed after the electoral college tie of 1800. (Spoiler alert: the loser shot and killed the man who engineered his defeat in Congress).

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would almost require Barack Obama to be re-elected without winning the popular vote, but this could indeed come to pass.

    Oh, the irony of that would be just TOOO schweet for a political agnostic such as myself... :D

    To see the Left arguing the Right's 2000 position would be a schweet treat indeed... :D


  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    At least we can be glad for the Twelfth Amendment, passed after the electoral college tie of 1800. (Spoiler alert: the loser shot and killed the man who engineered his defeat in Congress).

    i don't know, that sort of problem solving in Congress might result in some of the People's work actually getting done. Those folks need to be afraid of something other than lobbyist money.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Three home runs for three at bats for the Panda bear!?

    That's just ridiculous!

    Very nice that he acknowledged the crowd - not many players would bother to do that.

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [2] -

    But would the sweet moment last? After all, Obama'd be president for four more years. Heh. Couldn't resist.

    nypoet22 -

    Look up "Duff Green" and "Colonel James Watson Webb" circa spring of 1830. Granted, they were newspaper editors, but still...

    LizM -

    And then a single to finish up with... did I miss something or did Sandoval just bat 1.000?


    Only three others have ever hit 3 homers in a World Series -- Pujols, Jackson, and Babe Ruth. Granted, Ruth did it twice. Who says guys with beer guts can't smack it out of the park?!? Heh...

    Go Giants! Go Panda Bear!


  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That was a great game to follow a great NCLS.

    If I heard correctly, Sandoval becomes the first player in a world series to hit three home runs in his first three at bats!

    I'm kinda rooting for the Tigers, though. I want to see them jump up and down on the top of their dugout in Detroit spraying their fans with champagne like they did when they won their last world series. I've never seen anything like it before or since - I love it when the players acknowledge their fans like that.

    It should be a great series, whoever wins.

    Truth be told, as a Blue Jay fan, it doesn't get much better than seeing the Yankees swept out of post-season play. Heh.

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Speaking as (at heart) an Orioles fan, I could not agree more with your last statement. Even Red Sox fans can agree on that one (as I found to be true, in both Rhode Island and North Carolina this year...).



  8. [8] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Out of interest what do you guys think about (effectively) getting rid of the electoral college and going with the national vote?

    Makes sense as far as I'm concerned...

  9. [9] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Off topic, but 80 CEOs today urged Congress to reduce the deficit with tax increases + spending cuts. They didn't endorse a candidate (lol) but let me think: which candidate is advocating tax increases + spending cuts? Hmmmmm

    "There is no possible way; you can do the arithmetic a million different ways" to avoid raising taxes, said Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna. "You can't tax your way to fix this problem, and you can't cut entitlements enough to fix this problem."

    My favourite part:

    Mr. Stephenson, a Romney backer, regards tax increases as unavoidable. "When you talk about a $16 trillion debt, I don't see how you can avoid addressing both sides," namely spending cuts and tax increases. Asked about the difference between his position and Mr. Romney's, Mr. Stephenson said: "This is bigger than any one political candidate."

    Lol at the statement at the end, way to chicken out of saying how awful (and different to your own views) the candidate you support is...

  10. [10] 
    michty6 wrote:
  11. [11] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Another question: since the national vote doesn't really mean much, and is much harder to measure, why do pollsters even bother conducting polls of this? Even more silly, why do most polls of the Presidential election come from the national vote on a daily basis when it is effectively meaningless? Seems kinda inefficient to me...

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wasn't the electoral college, much like the US Senate, designed as a way to ease the concerns of smaller states that they would be overshadowed?

    Trying to remember what the original purpose was and if this is still relevant.

    I'd be for getting rid of it. I don't really see it adding any value these days.

    Besides, if we got rid of it, politicians wouldn't focus on certain states and Ohio could be rid of many of these (_&@&# campaign ads!!!


  13. [13] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I believe that is indeed the purpose of the electoral college. Getting rid of it would mean that the larger States, with most of the population, would see all the debating, all the speeches and (you might be happy about this one!) all the adverts. The price would be that the policies of the parties would be tailored to the bigger States...

    But I'd counter this by saying: that's democracy though! Of course policies should be tailored to the MAJORITY!

  14. [14] 
    mvymvy wrote:

    With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!

    But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

    Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
    * Texas (62% Republican),
    * New York (59% Democratic),
    * Georgia (58% Republican),
    * North Carolina (56% Republican),
    * Illinois (55% Democratic),
    * California (55% Democratic), and
    * New Jersey (53% Democratic).

    In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
    * Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
    * New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
    * Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
    * North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
    * Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
    * California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
    * New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

    To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

  15. [15] 
    mvymvy wrote:

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the 80% of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    80% of the states and people have been just spectators to the election. That's more 200 million Americans.

    The precariousness of the current system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

    Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states aren't as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

  16. [16] 
    mvymvy wrote:

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

    In the six years since being introduced, more than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large population states, including one house in Arkansas(6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), New York (29), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island (4), Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), Vermont (3), and Washington (13). These nine jurisdictions have 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  17. [17] 
    mvymvy wrote:

    The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

    The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.

    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

  18. [18] 
    mvymvy wrote:

    The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

    The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

    Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

    The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

    The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

    We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

    The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.

    Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

    The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

    No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

    The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:


    But would the sweet moment last? After all, Obama'd be president for four more years. Heh. Couldn't resist.

    Probably not... But to see the Left act EXACTLY as the Right acted would be a small sliver of silver lining.... :D

    On the other hand, in the here and now, with the Benghazi debacle, everyone here is acting EXACTLY like the Neo-Cons acted in their defense of Bush during the Iraq war years.....


  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone wanna set up a blog-party for election night???


  21. [21] 
    dsws wrote:

    The problem in 2000 wasn't that Gore lost the electoral vote despite winning the popular vote. It was that Gore lost Florida's electoral vote despite more people who had the right to vote in Florida trying to vote for him. And not by errors and luck alone, but by successful partisan efforts to shut down the vote counting while it was still possible under Florida law to get a more accurate count.

    The MSM decided to paint all discontent with the election as being about the putative discrepancy between the electoral and popular vote, rather than about the handling of Florida votes.

    Maybe luck and error would have been enough to keep Florida in the Bush column, despite the will of a slight plurality of the voters. We'll never know.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    but by successful partisan efforts to shut down the vote counting while it was still possible under Florida law to get a more accurate count.

    There were many MANY counts done in the Florida 2000 vote. Before the ruling AND after the ruling. Each count put FL in the BUSH column...

    The problem was that Democrats wanted to keep counting until they achieved the desired result, even if it took months or years..

    The SCOTUS rightly ruled that enough counts had been done and that getting on with the business of government was more important to the country then endless counts...


  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why I am voting for Mitt Romney

    This opinion piece is amazing..

    It could have easily been written by me.. It explains EXACTLY what lead me to vote for Obama and outlines exactly why I am voting AGAINST Obama....

    A good read...


  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    10,000 Quatloos say that Democrats will scream that Hurricane Sandy is disenfranchising voters!!! :D


  25. [25] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Why I am voting for Mitt Romney

    This opinion piece is amazing.

    I read this. It is a sad state of affairs when someone is so easily fooled. Comments like "He keenly recognizes the danger of the growing debt" make me laugh. Anyone whose main policy is massive cuts to revenue does not recognise the danger of the debt; anyone whose policies are the EXACT SAME ones that created the massive debt does not recognise the danger of the debt. Republicans since Reagan have been debt maniacs with these policies. Including Reagan and Obama, 4 Presidents have had massive tax cuts - all 4 added to the debt; 1 President in this period did not cut taxes on the wealthy - he balanced the budget. But na, lets try them one more time. Maybe they will work 5th time round...

    The rest of the piece is like anything I have read on Romney: no mention of this policies at all. Because his policies are awful and hard to defend. So lets just stick our figures in our ears 'lalalalala Obama is bad vote Romney'.

    I used to think people voted based on logic and reason, picking the candidate with the policies they believe in and like. But the fact Romney, whose policies are incredibly unpopular (so much so he has to hide them), is actually anywhere close to Obama completely destroys this idea.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:


    I understand your opinion, but everyone else is ALSO entitled to their opinion...

    Maybe it's the Obama voters who are easily fooled..

    Considering how much worse off Americans are today then they were 4 years ago, THAT is a lot more likely of a possibility..

    Obama and the Democrats were given a chance to turn the country in the right direction..

    They failed.. EPIC-ly failed...

    The ONLY reason to vote Democrat this election is because of the '-D' after the name..

    NO OTHER logical reason is possible...


  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that the opinion piece posted is the opinion of a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT...

    MANY Democrats feel the same way....

    Maybe all of them are right and ya'all are wrong..

    You have to at least acknowledge the possibility..


  28. [28] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Considering how much worse off Americans are today then they were 4 years ago, THAT is a lot more likely of a possibility

    Again this is just generic opinion not backed up in fact. America wasn't created 4 years ago out of a magic big bang. And again it completely misses the point. If America is so bad just now what should it do differently to fix this problem? What has Obama done that is so bad? I.e. give me POLICY.

    How about you ask yourself this: is America better than it was in 1980 when 'trickle down' started as a policy? Or has the only period of balanced budget and strong growth in the last 30 years been during the 1990s when taxes went up? Because you know what the answer is. You just don't like that the answer means Obama is right.

    Here is a clue: 1980 = America is no.1 in education. 2012 = America is number 14. Same applies (except even worse) to healthcare.

    When you look at Romney's policy to 'fix' America you see nothing except adding MORE to the deficit in order to give people tax cuts (LOL). Insane. So basically the same failed policy that created the massive deficit repeated over and over and over again. What's that definition of insanity that talks about what to expect when you do the same thing over and over again?? ;)

    How you and the guy who wrote the opinion piece view the world is something like 'unemployment is high, we blame Obama (even though we can't name 1 policy or thing he did that led to this), 2 years to fix the worst recession since the Great Depression (which took 16 years to fix) is more than enough time, let's ignore that we totally blocked everything we tried to do (including ending Trickle Down economics) let's go back to the same failed Trickle Down policies that built this crazy high deficit and vote for Romney.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again this is just generic opinion not backed up in fact.

    Median Family Income is down...

    Gas prices have more than doubled..

    Which FACTS are YOU referring to???

    How about you ask yourself this: is America better than it was in 1980 when 'trickle down' started as a policy?

    That's like asking if Americans are better off now than they were during the civil war..

    One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other...

    Americans gave Democrats a chance..

    Americans are worse off...

    It's time for a change...

    It's really THAT simple...

    THAT's how it's going to go down in a week..

    You heard it here first.. :D


  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    We don;t KNOW how Romney is going to govern...

    So any claims that Romney is going to do this or Romney is going to do that is nothing more than conjecture and supposition...

    We *KNOW* how Obama governs...

    It sucks....

    So, in this case, the devil we DON'T know HAS to be infinitely better than the devil we DO know..

    That's my reasoning...

    And that's likely the reasoning of every non-koolaid-drinking American...


  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama urges safety during Sandy, says top concern is lives, not election

    While I commend Obama for his integrity in this, it's too bad he didn't have this attitude about Benghazi....

    Our Ambassador might still be alive today... :^/


Comments for this article are closed.