U.S. Presidential Election 2008- the General. Vote: Tuesday, Nov. 4

If McCain is smart and really wants to leave his legacy, he stops trying to win the election and concentrate on getting Libby Dole, Norm Coleman, Saxby Chambliss, Gordon Smith and some of the other GOP senators in jeopardy of losing their seats elected. Given the polls and the electoral map, there is no way that McCain can win this election. There are too many states that Bush won easily that he now has to defend (North Dakota, North Carolina, Georgia) and he is behind in most of the battleground states (Florida, PA, Ohio, Missouri). Too much needs to go right between now and Tuesday for McCain to have a chance of winning. He should therefore concentrate on protecting GOP senators to keep the Dems from having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

 

We had Prop 2 in Austin which I was actually pretty torn on. The city cut a shady business deal to subsidize a high end fancy shopping center with taxpayer money - without taxpayer consent. The proposition was to revoke the contract and prevent the city from entering into such agreements in the future.
I was really, really torn on this, but I ended up voting no because I think it's bad business and reflects poorly on the city if we start letting citizens revoke contracts willy nilly. I felt like I was taking the more principled stance, but at the same time I kind of hope it passes because I'd rather not subsidize this place which will make plenty of money on its own.

 

So now the Prop 8 guys are sending out a mailer saying that Obama and Biden support Prop 8, which, as far as I can tell, is not true.

Also, statistically about the only way that McCain can win right now involves him losing the popular vote and winning electoral college. If that happens, for the second time in 8 years, I predict uprisings across the country. Then we'll see what the Republicans really think about the 2nd amendment.

 

We have three ballot questions in MA
1) To repeal the income tax
2) Drecriminalizing marijuana: possession of one ounce or less becomes a civil instead of a criminal offense
3) To ban dog racing

 

That is something that I don't believe will ever happen, at least on a major scale. The Hayes-Tilden standoff should have led to war. The Bush-Gore decision should have led to war. Neither one did.

 

The reason I think it is more probable now than it was in either of those two scenarios is that wheras those Hayes and Bush were separated by 124, a scenario whereby McCain loses the popular vote and wins the electoral college would come only eight years after the last such scenario. I'm also not positing a war in which two distinct sides rise up and have a military conflict between two governments ala The Civil War, but more I sort of mass uprising of a large portion of the populace of the US which could theoretically storm Washington and hold the government hostage until it agreed to sort out some of the problems in the Constitution.

 

The USA doesn't work that way.

 

I can't believe Palin thinks the first amendment means she can't be criticized by the media.

 

Doesn't work what way?

 

Mass uprisings storming Washington because of a bad election. Mass uprisings storming Washington period actually.

 

Based on that article she clearly doesn't understand what "Negative Campaigning" is either.

 

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it theoretically couldn't. I'm not saying it's going to happen, or even that it's probable or likely, but that several bad elections in close succession would eventually produce some kind of popular action outside of that which is considered to be the mainstream of American political thought. Eventually the people would want answers, and they'd want something done about it, and if the power structure in place in Washington was there because of bad election practices, it is unlikely that would listen to people asking them to change the rules that got them where they were.

 

...are you serious?

 

Not completely, but I'm operating under the theory that if there's a negative situation, eventually people will stop putting up with it and will do something.

 

The fact that all of us are so incredulous that you would suggest such a thing, DLB, sheds light on the reason it never will.

People only act out in political situations in ways that are within their "frame of reference" I guess you would say.

 

No wish fulfillment here, just thought experiment.

Also, I find the use of "you people" to be offensive, considering I'm the only person who was talking about this.

Look, I know it's a ridiculously improbable idea, but I thought that it was interesting topic for rational discussion. Apparently I was wrong.

 

I don't think the US population is near that level of being fed up yet. I think most Americans see their government as generally incorruptable and its wielding of authority as just; revolutions and uprisings only happen in "other" countries.

 

Yeah, that's the main sticking point. Personally I'm actually concerned that a vast majority of the population might consider the US incorruptible. That's usually when a government gets a way with a lot of crap, as it has the past 8 years.

 

It's not necessarily that. Thankfully the vast majority of the U.S. population thinks that an uprising or revolution is a stupid thing to try in response to any realistic scenario. Things like voting certain people into office, protests, etc. tend to achieve more and carry a far lesser risk of getting shot.

 

Call me crazy, but I think if Obama wins the popular vote and loses the electoral vote, that it will just reinvigorate the debate as to whether or not we should scrap the electoral college and provide for the direct popular election of presidents. It will not lead to riots and civil war. That is absolutely ludicrous. War and riots are only responses when there is no viable political solution to the problem. In the above scenario, there are numerous political changes that could be made to our electoral system to address people's concerns.

 

I'll bite. LowBudget, your idea actually doesn't sound crazy to me. Unlikely, yes, but given our political climate, if the government gave the populace enough reason to believe that the elections were "stolen" it would certainly undermine our faith in the process enough to incite angry, possibly violent protest. The thing is, though, a real overthrow of government in the sense of the French Revolution(armed uprising of the people) is, I think a thing of the past. Due to the advent of modern warfare, the gap between ability of the people(yes, even with guns) to inflict damage and the government's ability to do so is just too big. At least in America's case.

 

I'll concede the point then, it is highly unlikely and most likely impossible, though this does kind of render the original intent of the 2nd Amendment kind of moot.

 

Violent uprisings always require sizable assistance from the military in order to succeed anyway.