|
Post by aztecmusician on Jun 24, 2018 23:22:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 26, 2018 9:20:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jun 29, 2018 11:53:40 GMT -8
Of course it is, especially for Demorcrats. Why give up the virtual guaranteed California Electoral College votes in the next few Presidential elections. It on the ballot by the way, who knows how the morons are going to vote.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 30, 2018 8:24:33 GMT -8
Of course it is, especially for Demorcrats. Why give up the virtual guaranteed California Electoral College votes in the next few Presidential elections. It on the ballot by the way, who knows how the morons are going to vote. California electoral college votes haven’t had an impact on a presidential election one way or another since the 1800s.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jul 2, 2018 13:41:31 GMT -8
Of course it is, especially for Demorcrats. Why give up the virtual guaranteed California Electoral College votes in the next few Presidential elections. It on the ballot by the way, who knows how the morons are going to vote. California electoral college votes haven’t had an impact on a presidential election one way or another since the 1800s. If California’s 54 votes are no longer a forgone conclusion for the Democratic Party, that will impact how the campaigns are run and make for a narrower path to victory.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 2, 2018 14:27:17 GMT -8
California electoral college votes haven’t had an impact on a presidential election one way or another since the 1800s. If California’s 54 votes are no longer a forgone conclusion for the Democratic Party, that will impact how the campaigns are run and make for a narrower path to victory. Flip CA's vote in literally every election over the past 100+ years and the outcome would never have been different. Nixon in '68 is the closest you'll find. Repubs love to crap on California electorally, but they really have no idea what they're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jul 2, 2018 17:44:52 GMT -8
If California’s 54 votes are no longer a forgone conclusion for the Democratic Party, that will impact how the campaigns are run and make for a narrower path to victory. Flip CA's vote in literally every election over the past 100+ years and the outcome would never have been different. Nixon in '68 is the closest you'll find. Repubs love to crap on California electorally, but they really have no idea what they're talking about. It certainly would have made a difference in 2000. Also, both parties will need to budget valuable campaign time to try to capture So Cal’s 15 EC votes, that’s time away from Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia. So Cal would be a toss up/slightly leaning Red while the other two would still be solid blue.
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 2, 2018 18:18:05 GMT -8
The real pot of gold at the end of the 3 California rainbow is the 6 Senators where there are only 2 now. Even if So. Cal. is a Redish state, the social policy would likely be center left regardless. For the same reason, the Dems want Puerto Rico to be a state and DC to have Senators too.
I think no matter what happens in the land of fruits and nuts, the other states are not going to go for it.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 2, 2018 19:04:31 GMT -8
Flip CA's vote in literally every election over the past 100+ years and the outcome would never have been different. Nixon in '68 is the closest you'll find. Repubs love to crap on California electorally, but they really have no idea what they're talking about. It certainly would have made a difference in 2000. Incorrect. Again, just stating facts. California's electoral votes have not mattered in over 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 2, 2018 19:08:31 GMT -8
The real pot of gold at the end of the 3 California rainbow is the 6 Senators where there are only 2 now. Even if So. Cal. is a Redish state, the social policy would likely be center left regardless. Correct on analysis, which makes the people pushing for this seem like an odd bunch. Well, no, not really. That's why Republicans don't want American citizens in those places to have suffrage and representation to accompany their taxation. It's hard to make an argument as to why living in D.C. should mean you have no representation, when the District is larger than multiple states (unless you're worried about how they would choose to be represented). Correct.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jul 3, 2018 7:35:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 3, 2018 8:30:17 GMT -8
I’m not sure you’re understanding.
|
|
|
Post by aztecjake on Jul 12, 2018 14:40:28 GMT -8
Depends on what part of the state that you reside. The reason that something like this will not pass comes down to one word: 'water'.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 31, 2018 7:36:23 GMT -8
I’m not sure you’re understanding. Amazingly California's 54 electoral votes has never mattered. Every close election California was on The losing side. Every time California voted with The Winning Side the Electoral win was more than a hundred and ten.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 31, 2018 14:24:21 GMT -8
I’m not sure you’re understanding. Amazingly California's 54 electoral votes has never mattered. Every close election California was on The losing side. Every time California voted with The Winning Side the Electoral win was more than a hundred and ten. Close. Well, correct, I suppose, if only looking back as far as elections when CA had a large population. In 1876, Republican Rutherford Hayes carried California’s 6 electoral votes and beat Democrat Samuel Tilden by a 185-184 margin. Had California gone the other way, Tilden would have won. Actually, the election of 1876 was pretty wild all around. Just another one of those times where democracy loses - Tilden, the Democrat, received 51% of the vote to Hayes’ 48%.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 31, 2018 21:37:22 GMT -8
Amazingly California's 54 electoral votes has never mattered. Every close election California was on The losing side. Every time California voted with The Winning Side the Electoral win was more than a hundred and ten. Close. Well, correct, I suppose, if only looking back as far as elections when CA had a large population. In 1876, Republican Rutherford Hayes carried California’s 6 electoral votes and beat Democrat Samuel Tilden by a 185-184 margin. Had California gone the other way, Tilden would have won. Actually, the election of 1876 was pretty wild all around. Just another one of those times where democracy loses - Tilden, the Democrat, received 51% of the vote to Hayes’ 48%. California's 54 electoral votes never mattered as I stated. The following sentences were limited by that introductory sentence. Thanks for the extra information.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 1, 2018 7:14:57 GMT -8
Close. Well, correct, I suppose, if only looking back as far as elections when CA had a large population. In 1876, Republican Rutherford Hayes carried California’s 6 electoral votes and beat Democrat Samuel Tilden by a 185-184 margin. Had California gone the other way, Tilden would have won. Actually, the election of 1876 was pretty wild all around. Just another one of those times where democracy loses - Tilden, the Democrat, received 51% of the vote to Hayes’ 48%. California's 54 electoral votes never mattered as I stated. The following sentences were limited by that introductory sentence. Thanks for the extra information. You are absolutely correct my friend, in the three elections from 1992-2000, the only years California had 54 electoral votes, they didn’t matter. Odd subset you chose though.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 1, 2018 8:51:20 GMT -8
California's 54 electoral votes never mattered as I stated. The following sentences were limited by that introductory sentence. Thanks for the extra information. You are absolutely correct my friend, in the three elections from 1992-2000, the only years California had 54 electoral votes, they didn’t matter. Odd subset you chose though. I thought that was a better save than the truth that I sloppy thought of "never" to mean for the elections that everyone was probably thinking about
|
|