Guard Dog

No, there has NEVER been an incident where a "faithless elector" has changed an election, and in all of US history only 150 some odd times has an elector not voted as pledged (the electors are pledged to vote for the state winner). More than half of those were the result of a VP candidate dying before taking office, the rest involved Martin Van Buren and Civil War politics and was addressed by the passage of the 14th Amendment (among other things). In most states (GA, WY, AK, come to mind) the electors are required by law to vote as pledged. In some (like Michigan) the state has to power to override the vote of a faithless elector. The Constitution orders the states to appoint a number of electors equal to the number of Congressional Reps in such a way as the state may direct. All 50 states and 4 voting territories select electors from the political party whose candidate won the election. These are not a group of political elites, the are all Republicans or Democrats depending on who won. Everyone stamps their feet and makes a stink about how undemocratic the EC is but that is hardly the case and it exists for a very good reason. Furthermore it is provided for by the Constitution so to get rid of it would require the amendment process. That means asking the smaller states to vote against the constitutional provision that protects them from the populous states. It simply will not happen.

Not much news happening around the Grapefruit League yet but the rest of the players are reporting to camp now and the first split squad games are next week. I'm definitely doing up to Vero Beach next Friday to watch the Rays split game against the Marlins, then to Orlando on Saturday to watch the Braves inter-squad scrimmage. Should be fun. Since there is no real news yet read this article if you can get through it without laughing: Ex Minor Leaguers may Sue MLB Over Steroids

Ok, here is how I see the dem primary finishing up. Obama will pick up 2/3 of the remaining pledged delegates which will send him into the convention without enough to win unless he gets at least 350 of the uncommitted super delegates at minimum. If he does not and Hillary gets the rest of the supers she will win the nomination without winning the vote. Katie bar the door if that happens. The legions of voters who turned out for Obama will feel disenfranchised and will not support Hillary (remember she has positioned herself as a moderate and has alienated the far left, they were the big Obama backers). Where will they go then? Not to McCain certainly. Nader now gives them a place to vote to show their displeasure at DNC perfidy. Nader only needs to peel off enough votes to make a different in 1-2 states to turn the election. In 2000 if 1801 Nader votes had gone to Gore, George W Bush would be no more than a historical footnote. The other scenario goes this way. Obama wins the nomination but the spread it less than 400 delegates. The total delegates disallowed from Florida and Michigan are 486. Hillary won both states big and both are winner-take-all. So if the spread is close enough (and it is really looking that way) Hillary will likely sue the DNC to seat those delegates. After all, the Republicans seated theirs and FL and MI were completely lawful in changing primary dates. If she wins the suit and the delegates are seated she wins the nomination and the Obama people will look at her as a sore loser that had to go to court to take what she could not win. You get the above scenario all over again. If she loses it will create a big problem for the Dems in MI and FL because their votes did not count. MI is solidly blue but Florida is a swing state that could go either way. That would likely swing Florida red because McCain is popular with the Dems here and Nader will be on the ballot too. Of course if Obama wins big in the next 5 primaries none of the above can happen and Nader will make no difference. Ditto is either candidate wins big in the general election. But I think this election will be a lot closer than many of you seem to want to believe. Yes Obama is charismatic and energetic all but he is a dyed in the wool liberal and there are a lot of people (like me) who simply do no want another liberal in the White House. The last one (Jimmy Carter) was a complete disaster . Thats my reasoning on why Nader MAY be significant.

Absolutely correct Arkan! You get a B+ (the + for the Lincoln comparison). Now, there is one more thing you are omitting about this election that will make a Nader entry significant. Care to take a shot at what that is? Your B+ could become an A+. There is one more piece to this puzzle.

Are you still here? You failed my class. But seriously, I'm not about to engage in a meaningless debate over the electoral college with you that will accomplish nothing, feed your rampant cynicsim, and derail this thread, taking away from an important point I'm trying to make that you are not seeing.

So your answer is that Naders 2000 candidacy had no impact on the outcome of the 2000 election? I'm sorry but if it is, you fail Guard Dogs Political Science class. Now where the heck is Pop? I bet HE can answer correctly.

Actually the Electorial College, at least in my state, can vote any way they feel like. The popular vote can go to the Republicans but the Electorial College can go Democrat, for example. Popular vote is meaningless. (Sigh) Ok, but in the history of the US, it has ALWAYS followed the popular vote because that was what is was meant to do. Now, back to my original point. I'm trying to see if anyone here (besides me) understands why an insignificant third party candidate entering this election is important. There is a historical precedent here. C'mon people I should not have to connect these dots for you!

Those were all tounge in cheek comments. Now the part about his 2000 campaign changing history I was serious about that.

Yes Sand, the national popular vote does not decide the election. However, the STATE popular vote decides who gets ALL of the electors of the state. Now consider this, in 2000 Bush won Florida by 1800 or so votes. So do you want to take another shot at my question?

Of course he won't win, or even come close. But think about this, in Florida in 2000 he received around 19,800 out of about 3M votes. Would I be wrong in suggesting those 19K votes changed the course of world history?

It's on the site of the Orange Bowl. There is a reason why the Dolphins, Hurricanes, heck even the FedEx Orange Bowl wanted to get out of the Orange Bowl, the area sucks. Limited freeway access, all two lane surface streets, and very high crime. Just watch the show "The First 48" on A&E and you will see that area all the time. They say having the new stadium there will rejuvenate the area. Well having the OB there didn't help so I'm not sure where they got THAT idea.

I HAVE NEWS! BIG BIG BIG NEWS! HERE IT IS: Ralph Nader Planning Another Presidential Run YESSSS!!!!!! My favorite candidate of all is getting back on that political horse and is going to ride it for all it's worth. Good Luck and Godspeed Ralph. I wish you all the best! Now you get in there and you fight for those liberal votes. Not even Barak can out liberal Nader. If you hate corporate greed WITHTEETH, Nader is your guy. If you want planned economics Pop, vote for Ralph. Sand if you want health care and want me to pay for it Go Green baby, Mr. Nader is your man.

Re-reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I haven't read it since college and it makes so much more sense to me now.

That just will not happen for a number of reasons. They are both Senators, that combo has not won in over 100 years. They are both from states the democrats are going to win anyway so nothing would be gained by having each other. They are both lawyers with no previous business experience and both very liberal. When you pick a VP you need to employ a little strategy. Pick a popular politician from a state whose vote is in play. Or you pick a political icon not in politics. If you are young, pick someone older, if you are older pick someone young. If you are moderate, pick a liberal that will appeal to the left of you party. The VP choice really is not made based on how qualified a candidate is of how good a President they would make, it is all about what they would bring to the campaign. And the other thing is Hillary will not be second chair to anybody.

It is still better than Halo vs Star Wars! I don't spam your threads.

If you hear a great choking sound coming from the south, thats just the Panthers on game night. Last night they go into the 3rd up 4-2, and lost to Boston.

Thats no joke about Japan. When I was in the military I was stationed in Okinawa. Everyone knew that was one thing you just did not do. The JP would not have it.

Link:http://www.cbs12.com/news/cioffi_4706592__...eggy_drunk.html Irony, my favorite form of humor.

Rumor control: Royals and Brewers talk about swapping leagues.

I had McCain 1st with 70%. Huckabee was 66% Paul was 60% Hillary was 34%, Obama was 29%. My best match was Fred Thomson at 74%. I don't see how with Thompson, he never said anything while he was running. Who the heck knows what he believed.

Pop, you need to understand something about politics. And I'm not talking about just the US here, but politics in general. It is a game that the idealists lose and pragmatists win. That is why we have McCain and Clinton/Obama to choose from and not Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich. No one, democrat, republican, whatever gets into office, let alone governs effectively, without shaking hands with the devil. Your first point is that the past three republican presidents have been budget busters. That is true on the surface but let's look at that. First of all the President does not spend money, Congress does. Reagan and Bush were facing a hostile congress so to get what they wanted they had to make sure there was room in the budget for what the democrats wanted. That

Ok, we can work with that. I'd say that Bush certainly qualifies as a neo-conservative based on this outline. And I can say with absolute certainty I do not. But this is not about me. On taxes and federal spending McCain has either sponsored of voted in favor of tax cuts 85% of the time. He has either sponsored or voted in favor of spending cuts 90% of the time. Just looking it over he seems to be more in favor of cutting corporate and capital gains taxes rather than personal income takes and that certainly does more to encourage economic growth. In 1992 he co-sponsored and voted for a bill to require a super majority of Congress to raise taxes and that same year voted for a 15% reduction in capital gains taxes. He voted against Bill Clinton's 1994 budget and tax increase (the largest in American history). He has voted in favor of the $500 per child tax credit, eliminating the marriage penalty, the lifetime learning tax credit (he co-sponsored it's creation) and the balanced budget amendment. He has voted against eliminating the "death tax" and voted against Bush's tax cuts. It must be noted that he voted against Bush's tax cuts only AFTER the cap on discretionary spending was removed from the bill. In short he seems to be a consistent fiscal conservative who favors cutting taxes AND spending rather than the GWB model of cut taxes and spend like a drunken sailor. Not very Neo-Con of him. As far as the size and scope of government, that is impossible to say. He has been in the Senate for a long time and by his voting record he would seem to be inclined towards less government intervention and has consistently voted to reduce spending. But since he has never held an executive office, I really can not make a call. On social policy and traditional values he is a really mixed bag. On one hand he opposes abortion but does not want to overturn Roe. He is in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research but wants strict government control of the process. He is in favor or amnesty and work permits of illegal immigrants but voted in favor of the border fence. He is a strong environmentalist but does not support ethanol subsidies (but he is very much in favor of federal mileage regulations). He has been a consistent champion of affirmative action voting against every bill that limits or weakens it and he sponsored and got passed a bill offering tax credits to media companies owned by minorities in 1999. On crime he has voted in favor of sentencing guide lines and voted for the Brady Bill then voted against the Assault Weapons Ban. He opposes drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico and promises to invest federal dollars in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Not Neo-Con at all. On foreign policy he has been VERY critical of "Nation Building" and almost apoplectic over treatment of detainees in Gitmo. But he does support the "Surge" escalation in Iraq (and who could argue, it is working). He voted in favor of the Iraq war from the start but has been very critical of how it has been managed. He is very much in favor or reducing foreign military commitments overseas (particularly Europe and the West Pacific) but has no trouble with a permanent US presence in the middle east. Too be honest, I would have a hard time defining him as a neo con at all. Politically he is probably a lot closer to JFK that the guy they are actually comparing to JFK (Obama). My read on McCain is he takes every issue and acts on it based on his own personal belief no matter what the party line is. I don't know if that makes him a maverick because I really don't believe he's bucking the party line just to do it. I think he just goes about his life being who he is and is comfortable enough in his own skin to do it. My sourced linked below, because I flatter myself to think I know a lot but I know I don't know everything. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/ http://mccain.senate.gov/public/ http://www.nationalplatforms.com/candidates/john_mccain.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202951082...in_commentaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos...n#Social_policy http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

I would not call myself a McCain supporter because of anything he has ever said or done. He is simply the lesser of all evils. But in the interest of discussion I'll try to make an answer. But first, what is your definition of "Neo-Conservative"? I ask that because it is a term/pejorative that seems to have different meanings to different people.

My best guesses are Charlie Crist, JC Watts, Lindsey Graham, or Mark Sanford and my long shot would be Joe Liberman, THAT choice would light a fire in the tinderbox. But he really can't afford another "moderate" on the ticket with him. I've also heard Phil Gramm, Mel Martinez and Jeb Bush mentioned. I doubt they will get a serious look though. My preference would be Sanford, Crist, or Watts. Any of the three would make a fine President.

He's a Rockefeller Republican. That is he is from the liberal wing of the Republican Party. Not exactly a smaller government type (which bothers me). He does not appeal to the social conservatives either and that is to the good. One this I really do like about him is he is a big proponent of modernizing the military and Homeland Security and reducing manpower in favor of automated and unmanned systems like the Predators. He is also a proponent of developing missile shield technology and has been a friend to NASA in the Senate. On the whole he is a capable, competent Washington bureaucrat who will move the direction of government to the left of where it has been on social and economic issues. In foreign policy he is solidly on the site of the stick as opposed to the carrot. In short, he is the vanilla choice. Not exciting or sexy but what you see it what you get. No surprises with him I think. I'm voting for him.