MN: Mason-Dixon: Obama with Slight Lead in Minnesota

[Franzl]

This is actually rather good. Slight leads in places like MN, terrible deficits in places like Missouri and across the South.

I'm starting to think Romney might have to win the PV by 3-4% (Of course this statement will probably look silly when all the votes are in next week...it's not a very probable thing....but this year is crazy) to win the Electoral College.

[Franzl]

This is actually rather good. Slight leads in places like MN, terrible deficits in places like Missouri and across the South.

I'm starting to think Romney might have to win the PV by 3-4% (Of course this statement will probably look silly when all the votes are in next week...it's not a very probable thing....but this year is crazy) to win the Electoral College.

That's just frightening. So Romney might win 52-47 yet still lose.

Ah but those are the rules, we're a republic, not a democracy! States Rights!

Payback is sweet

[Franzl]

This and their Florida senate poll make it pretty clear that Mason-Dixon has a 3-4 points Republican lean.

Well turnout in 08 was D+4, this shows turnout at D+5, sounds like a lefty lean.....

 

Banging my head against the wall would truly be more productive than trying to reason with you.

[Franzl]

This is actually rather good. Slight leads in places like MN, terrible deficits in places like Missouri and across the South.

I'm starting to think Romney might have to win the PV by 3-4% (Of course this statement will probably look silly when all the votes are in next week...it's not a very probable thing....but this year is crazy) to win the Electoral College.

I highly doubt an election can go +3 or +4 in any direction and the electoral college ends up going the other way. It's not like the Southern vote isn't cancelled out by the Northeast, where Obama is cruising in New York and that California doesn't basically cancel out Texas.

Again, it isn't a likely prospect. I doubt it as well. But it would be very very amusing and just

[Franzl]

Anyone hoping for "sweet payback" to show that America is "not a democracy" is sick and despicable. Wishing for a failure in the system is terrible, and despite the recent brush with it in 2000 highly improbable again. If Romney is up 5% nationally, the swing states will fall, and potentially other unexpected ones as well. Remember Indiana 2008? Anyone seriously thinking Romney would lose the electoral college while winning the pv by 4 or 5 is kidding themselves.

The "republic, not a democracy" claim is something that many Republicans have been saying for a while, it's not my idea. It's absurd and doesn't make sense, but what else is new?

And if you want to keep that possibility from happening, then change the system. Don't just hope for there not to be a "system failure". Not very difficult. I have the funny feeling, though, that Republicans would also (suddenly and certainly by total coincidence!) become fans of abandoning the Electoral College if this were to actually happen.

[Franzl]

Anyone hoping for "sweet payback" to show that America is "not a democracy" is sick and despicable. Wishing for a failure in the system is terrible, and despite the recent brush with it in 2000 highly improbable again. If Romney is up 5% nationally, the swing states will fall, and potentially other unexpected ones as well. Remember Indiana 2008? Anyone seriously thinking Romney would lose the electoral college while winning the pv by 4 or 5 is kidding themselves.

The "republic, not a democracy" claim is something that many Republicans have been saying for a while, it's not my idea. It's absurd and doesn't make sense, but what else is new?

And if you want to keep that possibility from happening, then change the system. Don't just hope for there not to be a "system failure". Not very difficult. I have the funny feeling, though, that Republicans would also (suddenly and certainly by total coincidence!) become fans of abandoning the Electoral College if this were to actually happen.

I was hoping my sick and despicable comment would arouse its intended target. Look, the electoral college has its faults, but definitely has its uses as well. And while if a split did happen again, it might prompt a change, I just can't see it happening. Both parties concede they have certain advantages through the electoral college. If it was solely pv this year Obama is out, period. so I think it's amusing that dems so much want a pv system in place.. Because of 2000? Yes 2000 was insane, unprecedented, and beyond convoluted, but it isn't happening like that again, ever.

I doubt it will happen either, to be honest (But it's really not as unlikely as it seems. Kerry almost also won the EC without winning the PV)....but I really would like to see the reactions it would cause.

It's just a stupid system that I don't think will go until both parties have been burned by it. (And of course, as an Obama voter....the rules seem to benefit me this time around. Might as well use it if those have to be the rules.)