A Close Election? Just Hype

[jsr]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greener/a-close-election_b_2018261.html

A Close Election? Just Hype
By Richard Greener

Americans suffer under a fundamental misconception about their presidential elections. Put simply, we have no such thing as a "national election." What we have is 51 separate and distinct state and district elections, in which we award the winner various numbers of votes in the Electoral College. The candidate who becomes the next president is the one who accumulates 270 electoral votes. The so-called national popular vote decides nothing. It's irrelevant at best and dangerously misleading at worst. George W. Bush is not the only candidate to win the presidency after losing the national popular vote.

So, why do we even have national polls and why do we pay attention to them? They teach us nothing about the eventual distribution of the electoral vote -- the vote that actually determines who will be president. In 2008, Barack Obama received 69.5 million popular votes against John McCain's 59.9 million. Obama's popular vote margin was more than 9.5 million. But, Obama won the states of California, New York and Illinois with 15.123 million votes against McCain's 9.111 million. So, Obama's margin in only three states exceeded six million, accounting for 63 percent of his national advantage. Those three states awarded Obama 107 electoral votes. In this 2012 election, nobody would contend that Obama could lose California, New York or Illinois. Romney has no chance to win any of them. Due to reapportionment, these three states will award Obama 104 electoral votes in 2012. Again, it's important to remember that no one questions that these 104 electoral votes will go to Obama.

But, what if support for Obama's reelection -- even where he may be the most popular -- is diminished from his original 2008 numbers? What if Obama wins these three states by only one million votes -- each -- a margin of 1 million popular votes in each state? He still gets all 104 electoral votes, yet he's "lost" more than three million popular votes. That's almost 5 percent of his entire 2008 national total. How would that loss appear in national polls matched against Romney? Devastating, no doubt. But would it change anything?

Of course not. The winner of California, New York and Illinois gets 104 electoral votes even if their winning margin is only one vote in each state. Thus, Obama could drop four, five, even six million popular votes from his 2008 totals and not suffer the loss of a single vote in the Electoral College. Romney might gain millions of popular votes McCain failed to get without adding even one more electoral vote. ...

[PATRICK]

1. The permanent Democratic majority

that the Democratic party has done its worst to handicap toward the GOP. Hubert Humphrey, I thought, was going to be the last wistful victim of electoral math when big cities in big states seemed to be enough to cobble together a squeaky victory. Cheaper too. By that token you would have thought the party would wise up in a number of ways, while the Nixon era took cheating and propaganda to a whole new gameboard. They could have gone really populist, not just taking the one advantage of "change" when a miserable opponent and a sunken economy has automatic appeal you don't necessarily have to deliver on.

In any case getting rid of the the electoral college was an opportunity blown, not an advantage threatened.

The next thing was to get more money against the rich guys' machine, something they have been childishly diligent about, not really enthusiastic about ties to people money, but drooling and rewarding corporate crust donations. And corruption makes this an easy slide whereas really delivering for people was always reluctant hard work, best done piecemeal so no one upsets the elite applecart.

The other option was putting teeth in election protection, something the party is even more unwilling to do than when offered the chance to vote away the electoral college. The real mystery is not whether or how much Republican organized fraud there is but why it is vastly unimpeded when a natural advantage would accrue to democrats. The first mystery could be easily resolved by lawful teeth. Until then it seems a party distracted resting on a very few strategies, mostly honest and therefore vulnerable to a competent ruthless opponent with no fear of legal consequences.

Obama will win on one supposedly immutable fact. The economy has righted itself enough to provide him with victory as resounding as the recovery has been. There are many others real and factual reasons for victory. However, given the means motive and opportunity, this election by virtue of fraud and corporate propaganda is still nudged into the red zone of cheating potential, certainly enough to cost us a few seats we should win if honesty was presumed.

Next time not even a great economy will help the next Dem. Not taking strict measures to quash the cheat machine and the lie machine practically guarantees a GOP win in 2016, something we will not sweat about for a few days after this cycle.

This has drastically effected Dem policy making and verbal posture and choice of issues. They have a narrow view of election strategy. Make the economy numbers look good while looking Republican and tithing the big donors. Only the people are paying the price in lost votes and lost representation of their needs whoever "wins" this ginned up system.

There are a lot of fundamental misconceptions top to bottom. The formula of making the commonwealth work and the people prosper seems more under attack than courted.

[rtracey]

2. Hmmm

I am not completely sure I agree with your final analysis. Several factors are possible to avert a Democratic loss in 2016. First and foremost, would be the possibility of a completely Democratic Congress in 2014. This would make it possible to pass a constitutional amendment against the Citizens United clause. Second, a Supreme court reversal of the same clause, and third and what I feel would be the most significant, a well managed economy, an improving bottom line, and a more productive country will preserve a Democratic Whitehouse.

[PATRICK]

3. The bottom line is the last

even if it is done against progressive values, except that did Gore little good. The GOP will fight an Obama SCOTUS to the last mouth and it will be a "moderate" court at best. I am personally worried about the coming Obama Postal Board of governors since he will get to change the majority for years. The overriding philosophy is disastrously wrong even without destructive privatization(which is built into the accepted "wisdom" of the post office as a business not unique infrastructure).

Getting a Dem majority in 2014 under Clinton prosperity we can't come close too, probably. Some, ANY DOJ gumption(replace the Bush national Attorneys for the love of your significant Deity!) to even enforce current election law. Fair media. Too many ever increasing handicaps right at the focus of power need push back, way back. Unless some sort of real work is done, as you mention, actually getting rid of Citizen's United.

I am constantly surprised why gaining a solid lawful advantage by easy means is not being done and yes, all you say would come to pass. Still the usual media narrative favors a GOP rebound if they can rouse themselves off their decadent behinds to field something more than a weak,repulsive arrogant horror show.
That alone should doom them, but it doesn't.