Obama Voters of the World Unite!
The Economist is running an electoral college style online poll. In it, electoral votes are awarded by country and allocated in a winner take all fashion. Currently Obama has a slight edge of 6,216 to 13. I’m not sure that this actually helps Obama, but it is sure fun.
McCain is winning in Bulgaria by 4 points…
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain
Just an educated guess, but I bet that McCain’s losing in Spain?
McCain is WAY ahead in Czechoslovakia.
McCain got 13 whole votes? That is a surprise.
Currently Obama has a slight edge of 6,216 to 13
The worst thing about this poll is that’s within the margin of error.
Or as FOX puts it, “a dead heat.”
This poll is clearly underpolling Georgians.
McCain just lost Bulgaria!
Well, Obama did campaign in Germany…
We are happy to concede the electoral votes of France and Germany and Russua, just as long as we get the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
I do remember our friends on the left telling us how much the Europeans really, really wanted John François Kerry to win in 2004. Didn’t seem to help him all that much.
So the countries in the world that hate us, are jealous of us, and would revel in our demise….want Obama.
’nuff said!
So you admit that the rest of the world hates us. Finally.
“So you admit that the rest of the world hates us. Finally.”
When you are the best country on the face of the planet, and the top dog, it was inevitable. They have hated us since WWII. Why do you think we have given so much money to other countries?
Are you really that dense?
Oh geez. You really live in the twilight zone.
Most countries love us. You don’t get out much do you?
This is somebody who claims to be paying 50% of his income in taxes.
Clues — it’s what’s for dinner!
“Most countries love us. You don’t get out much do you?”
They love our culture…but never our government, regardless whether liberals or conservatives are in charge. The whole EU was put together in hopes of creating an organization that could displace the US as top dog. The UN is ALWAYS looking for ways to abuse and destroy the US and get us to pay for it in the process.
So pardon me if I don’t care who the world thinks we should vote. I think of it like a movie reviewer. If the reviewers pan a movie…it is probably good.
“This is somebody who claims to be paying 50% of his income in taxes. ”
And you are some one that believes Obama will only raise your taxes if you make more that $250,000. Nevermind how many times he has voted for bills that would have raised taxes on people making the digustingly obscenely hihg amount of $38,000.
Clinton drew thousands of admirers when he visited Europe.
Bush drew thousands of protestors.
Chris, all you draw are flies.
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state or country-by-country, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every U.S. state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes– 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
if we do that then the non americans on the coast’s would have a say as to what goes on in the “heart” of merika!
“We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.”
OH HELL NO!
The last thing I want is for northeast and west coast liberals to have even MORE influence. Change to a popular vote and the entire middle of the country may as well be irrelevant.
The world loves America. They buy our products and watch our movies and listen to our music.
They hate George Bush. Just like we do, only moreso.
Evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor has a 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois.
Although no one can predict exactly how a presidential campaign would be run if every vote were equal throughout the United States, it is clear that candidates could not ignore voters in any part of any state.
Even without moving to a direct election, your observation is sound.
There is no reason national political campaigns should not follow your example.