tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16659850.post8640421241712652818..comments2024-03-17T03:42:21.277-05:00Comments on LEARNING CURVE ON THE ECLIPTIC: Track-back Tuesday - "hell of a way to run a railroad"Twilighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14138621610593773784noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16659850.post-91332418290803784252016-01-12T11:51:25.216-06:002016-01-12T11:51:25.216-06:00mike ~ This pledged delegate and super delegate e...mike ~ This pledged delegate and super delegate endorsement points thing in the primaries is what bothers me most at this stage - a lot! It stinks! I take some comfort from a comment I read earlier (sorry I've lost the link) it went like this:<br /><br /><i>Endorsements are not binding promises for votes, and many of those endorsements were obtained when Hillary Clinton was the overwhelming favorite to win. Bernie Sanders winning Iowa and New Hampshire could shift the establishment's (which is not a monolith's) view on him more favorably, because in the end what the establishment as a whole wants is an electable candidate, and the biggest mark against Sanders thusfar has been the perception that he is not electable.</i><br /><br />Just in the past couple of days I've sensed a definite shift in online pieces written by pundits who have had Bernie down as "good but unelectable" for months. They are having to admit, now, that there's the possibility he could overtake Hillary Clinton in the earliest states, which would, in turn change the minds of many who have liked Bernie's stances but have been put off by incessant cries of "unelectable".Twilighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14138621610593773784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16659850.post-44738037905073523932016-01-12T11:38:41.484-06:002016-01-12T11:38:41.484-06:00Sonny ~ I agree that there was/is an agenda. I&#...Sonny ~ I agree that there was/is an agenda. I'm hoping that this time that agenda can either be overturned, or if not, that it will be made so blindingly obvious that manipulation/rigging has taken place, and enough people will be made aware of it, that before next time (2020) demand for change will be so intense that something will have to be done. I'm concerned mainly about the primary system, which really is key to it all.Twilighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14138621610593773784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16659850.post-6269791556998327632016-01-12T10:27:08.637-06:002016-01-12T10:27:08.637-06:00Too many hands in the pie, and often with corrupt ...Too many hands in the pie, and often with corrupt fingers attached. It's time to abolish the electoral college. The popular vote's time has come, particularly in the digital age. However, there are many problems associated with the new, digital, voting machines: different manufacturers, unknown and-or not sufficiently validated source code, potential for tampering, etc, and these concerns can have an effect on our election process.<br /><br /><br />From Wiki:<br />"In a two-candidate race, with equal voter turnout in every district and no faithless electors, a candidate could win the electoral college while winning only about 22% of the nationwide popular vote. This would require the candidate in question to win each one of the following states by just one vote: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.<br /><br />A result of the present functionality of the Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the election. Since the national popular vote is irrelevant, both voters and candidates are assumed to base their campaign strategies around the existence of the Electoral College; any close race has candidates campaigning to maximize electoral votes by capturing coveted swing states, not to maximize national popular vote totals.<br /><br /> The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.<br /> — George C. Edwards, 2011"<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29<br />mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16659850.post-55019504419807118872016-01-12T07:33:23.225-06:002016-01-12T07:33:23.225-06:00I still think about the years Al Gore should have ...<br /> I still think about the years Al Gore should have " rightfully" been President and how things would have been different.<br /> as I've said before, that wasn't the plan of the HIGHER UPS who have their agenda already <br />set. <br /> almost every good idea Obama had got shut down by congress and the senate, so again, all the candidates and speak their pipe dreams but whats already set to happen, is exactly what will.<br /> I choose a candidate and I vote- but I always feel a bit silly when I do it due to the reasons stated above.<br /> In a country where a Palin or a Trump can be cheered on by millions, it isn't an election, its a crap shoot.Sonny Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06926830309207639536noreply@blogger.com