Romney got how many votes, where?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

Thats so sad...

we gotta work on that third party and stop compromising.

what makes you so sure a different party will make a huge difference? what was your candidate's objective/platform?

If you mean who I voted for in this election ...

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

I know who you voted for. I was hoping for something in your own words, not just a link to his website.

pandora

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

what makes you so sure a different party will make a huge difference? what was your candidate's objective/platform?

If you mean who I voted for in this election ...

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

I know who you voted for. I was hoping for something in your own words, not just a link to his website.

Well before the election I googled my beliefs and up he came!
I found that encouraging and rejuvenating. I'm hopeful more parties will help
the division that is taking place with the two teams. The articles I've posted do show more
people thinking this could be a solution.

JimmyV

polaris_x wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Chalk up one vote here in favor of the Electoral College as is. The system may not be perfect but it works far more often than it doesn't and it is the only reason some of the smaller states have a voice. No candidate would pay attention to the Montanas, Wyomings and Idahos if we were in a popular vote system. There simply aren't enough votes in these states to make it worth spending the resources to campaign there. And don't say that no one campaigns in those states now. No one campaigns there only because their outcomes are not currently in doubt. New Hampshire has only four electoral votes and was as hotly contested as Ohio or Florida. As soon as any small state shows a hint of turning purple candidates will flock to it.

...
Count me in.
Americans need to actually read the Constitution and its Amendments that define us as a Representative Republic... not a Democracy. This provides a voice for, as you have stated, the Montanas and Wyomings out there.

right but right now you have virtually no campaigning in the majority of states ... how is that possibly good? ... and ultimately it fuels a two-party system which is the primary reason everything is fucked to begin with? ... i really don't see how this electoral system can be deemed fair or for the betterment of the american public ...

I think this is the best system for a country this large and this diverse. I would like to see campaigning in more states too but until red and blue becomes purple that won't happen. I admit, my understanding of multi-party systems is rudimentary at best so maybe there is a better solution. I am just not aware of it.

Johnny Abruzzo

pandora wrote:

Registered Rep key word registered hard to believe no one voted for Romney seems
too absolute for my suspicious mind.

pjhakws and I gave you perfectly good reasons for why this happened (and happened in 2008 too), which you, predictably, promptly ignored.

If you happen to be in Center City Philadelphia during election day, you honestly wouldn't know that there was a Republican Party. Then go into minority neighborhoods and it's even more extreme. These places are simply dominated by Democrats, almost completely. That's just how it is. As others said, I imagine there was precincts in Oklahoma, Utah or Wyoming where Obama got zero votes, if they have very small precincts like PA has.

This thread is an implicit accusation of fraud, and it's just not true.

Johnny Abruzzo

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

can someone explain to me why Ohio, which doesn't have the most electoral votes up for grabs, is consistently the make or break state for either candidate? shouldn't california be THE state?

At this point (pretty much since 2000) we have a country that is about 75% "red states" and "blue states" meaning these states are dominated by Democratic voters or Republican voters. The blue states, mostly on the coasts, are out of reach for Republicans because there are too many liberal voters. Vice versa for Democrats in some interior states like Texas and Oklahoma. The campaigns have "limited" funds so Romney isn't going to waste millions of dollars trying to win CA voters when he has no chance of getting 50%. So instead they each just try to get Florida and Ohio, which could go red or blue. It's got to be a boon to those states' economies, but you have to feel sorry for the voters. My state got the swing state treatment in 00, 04 and 08, but not as much this year, even though it ended up pretty close, closer than some other "swing" states.

This red state/blue state phenomenon isn't permanent. In 1964 LBJ won almost all states, and then the reverse happened in 1972 for Nixon. For whatever reason much of the country is fixed in its presidential voting at this point.

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

Registered Rep key word registered hard to believe no one voted for Romney seems
too absolute for my suspicious mind.

pjhakws and I gave you perfectly good reasons for why this happened (and happened in 2008 too), which you, predictably, promptly ignored.

If you happen to be in Center City Philadelphia during election day, you honestly wouldn't know that there was a Republican Party. Then go into minority neighborhoods and it's even more extreme. These places are simply dominated by Democrats, almost completely. That's just how it is. As others said, I imagine there was precincts in Oklahoma, Utah or Wyoming where Obama got zero votes, if they have very small precincts like PA has.

This thread is an implicit accusation of fraud, and it's just not true.

Or could I have missed it or forgotten... I'm getting up there in age now.
Well I do not think of this in a partisan way as you are and others I guess.
No need to be defensive. Mistakes and fraud a possibility in our less than perfect
system.

And in your own words there you say almost completely.
I guess those that make it so didn't vote You yourself refraining from absolutes.

Had some great times in Philly in fact the time of my life one
Halloween

comebackgirl

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

Registered Rep key word registered hard to believe no one voted for Romney seems
too absolute for my suspicious mind.

pjhakws and I gave you perfectly good reasons for why this happened (and happened in 2008 too), which you, predictably, promptly ignored.

If you happen to be in Center City Philadelphia during election day, you honestly wouldn't know that there was a Republican Party. Then go into minority neighborhoods and it's even more extreme. These places are simply dominated by Democrats, almost completely. That's just how it is. As others said, I imagine there was precincts in Oklahoma, Utah or Wyoming where Obama got zero votes, if they have very small precincts like PA has.

This thread is an implicit accusation of fraud, and it's just not true.

and as JC explained back on page one, the article states Romney received 0% of the vote in those districts...not zero votes...so Romney could have gotten a handful of votes, but not enough to amount to 1%. This is not surprising at all if you are familiar with North or West Philly.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

Registered Rep key word registered hard to believe no one voted for Romney seems
too absolute for my suspicious mind.

pjhakws and I gave you perfectly good reasons for why this happened (and happened in 2008 too), which you, predictably, promptly ignored.

If you happen to be in Center City Philadelphia during election day, you honestly wouldn't know that there was a Republican Party. Then go into minority neighborhoods and it's even more extreme. These places are simply dominated by Democrats, almost completely. That's just how it is. As others said, I imagine there was precincts in Oklahoma, Utah or Wyoming where Obama got zero votes, if they have very small precincts like PA has.

This thread is an implicit accusation of fraud, and it's just not true.

Or could I have missed it or forgotten... I'm getting up there in age now.
Well I do not think of this in a partisan way as you are and others I guess.
No need to be defensive. Mistakes and fraud a possibility in our less than perfect
system.

And in your own words there you say almost completely.
I guess those that make it so didn't vote You yourself refraining from absolutes.

Had some great times in Philly in fact the time of my life one
Halloween

partisan has nothing to do with it. it's called FACTS.

Cosmo

comebackgirl wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

As others said, I imagine there was precincts in Oklahoma, Utah or Wyoming where Obama got zero votes, if they have very small precincts like PA has.

This thread is an implicit accusation of fraud, and it's just not true.

and as JC explained back on page one, the article states Romney received 0% of the vote in those districts...not zero votes...so Romney could have gotten a handful of votes, but not enough to amount to 1%. This is not surprising at all if you are familiar with North or West Philly.

...
That is the Key Word, 'Precinct'. The article stated that the largest of the precincts had it 542 to 0. That means 542 people voted in that specific precinct. It does not reqiure any stretch of the imagination that a tiny precinct in Forsythe County, GA. might go 241 to 0 in favor of Romney. It probably happens in every election. People are mking it sound like no one in Phildelphis or Cleveland voted for Romney. If that were true... which it is not... then, yes... it would be big news.

Johnny Abruzzo

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

partisan has nothing to do with it. it's called FACTS.

Correctomondo. Anything someone doesn't agree with must be "partisan". :roll:

Statement: The sky is blue.
Response: You have "blue blinders" and are "partisan". The sky is black and is falling. You just can't see it because you're a Democrat and are in love with Obama.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

partisan has nothing to do with it. it's called FACTS.

Correctomondo. Anything someone doesn't agree with must be "partisan". :roll:

Statement: The sky is blue.
Response: You have "blue blinders" and are "partisan". The sky is black and is falling. You just can't see it because you're a Democrat and are in love with Obama.

pandora

comebackgirl wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

Registered Rep key word registered hard to believe no one voted for Romney seems
too absolute for my suspicious mind.

pjhakws and I gave you perfectly good reasons for why this happened (and happened in 2008 too), which you, predictably, promptly ignored.

If you happen to be in Center City Philadelphia during election day, you honestly wouldn't know that there was a Republican Party. Then go into minority neighborhoods and it's even more extreme. These places are simply dominated by Democrats, almost completely. That's just how it is. As others said, I imagine there was precincts in Oklahoma, Utah or Wyoming where Obama got zero votes, if they have very small precincts like PA has.

This thread is an implicit accusation of fraud, and it's just not true.

and as JC explained back on page one, the article states Romney received 0% of the vote in those districts...not zero votes...so Romney could have gotten a handful of votes, but not enough to amount to 1%. This is not surprising at all if you are familiar with North or West Philly.

How many votes would have made 1% in this case?

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

partisan has nothing to do with it. it's called FACTS.

Correctomondo. Anything someone doesn't agree with must be "partisan". :roll:

Statement: The sky is blue.
Response: You have "blue blinders" and are "partisan". The sky is black and is falling. You just can't see it because you're a Democrat and are in love with Obama.

My point is both parties and all peoples are capable of fraud and mistakes.
The system in place allows for this also.

My mind says of course it is a possibility and I would say the same for the Romney camp.

For me this is common sense and non partisan but I see many of the blues defensive and very partisan.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

partisan has nothing to do with it. it's called FACTS.

Correctomondo. Anything someone doesn't agree with must be "partisan". :roll:

Statement: The sky is blue.
Response: You have "blue blinders" and are "partisan". The sky is black and is falling. You just can't see it because you're a Democrat and are in love with Obama.

My point is both parties and all peoples are capable of fraud and mistakes.
The system in place allows for this also.

My mind says of course it is a possibility and I would say the same for the Romney camp.

For me this is common sense and non partisan but I see many of the blues defensive and very partisan.

for me it is common sense to look at the facts. But oh yeah, you feel therefore facts are irrelevant.

Prince Of Dorkness

I can't be arsed to scroll back over 5 pages of a Republican crying that they let the darkies vote.

Did anyone make the joke about how Mitt Romney only "uses" Latinos for cooking and cleaning and only uses children to sweep the chimneys?

dancepartner

HFD; I agree. It's over. But, how our voting system really works is worth review. Someone here on AMT, who I think is from Denmark, talked about their system versus ours. Actually, I think he called ours pathetic. Anyway, I'd like to see a comparison chart of democratic voting processes. A sort of easy to understand chart. Besides, while we're at it (on divide or unify) this could be a topic for us to form own damn consensus from. A PJ AMT consensus on this can't be that ill-convieved...could it?

fear4freedom

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I can't be arsed to scroll back over 5 pages of a Republican crying that they let the darkies vote.

Did anyone make the joke about how Mitt Romney only "uses" Latinos for cooking and cleaning and only uses children to sweep the chimneys?

"the darkies"??

pandora

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Correctomondo. Anything someone doesn't agree with must be "partisan". :roll:

Statement: The sky is blue.
Response: You have "blue blinders" and are "partisan". The sky is black and is falling. You just can't see it because you're a Democrat and are in love with Obama.

My point is both parties and all peoples are capable of fraud and mistakes.
The system in place allows for this also.

My mind says of course it is a possibility and I would say the same for the Romney camp.

For me this is common sense and non partisan but I see many of the blues defensive and very partisan.

for me it is common sense to look at the facts. But oh yeah, you feel therefore facts are irrelevant.

I feel absolutes rarely exist you on the other hand often base your opinion on generalizations.

pandora

pandora wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pjhakws and I gave you perfectly good reasons for why this happened (and happened in 2008 too), which you, predictably, promptly ignored.

If you happen to be in Center City Philadelphia during election day, you honestly wouldn't know that there was a Republican Party. Then go into minority neighborhoods and it's even more extreme. These places are simply dominated by Democrats, almost completely. That's just how it is. As others said, I imagine there was precincts in Oklahoma, Utah or Wyoming where Obama got zero votes, if they have very small precincts like PA has.

This thread is an implicit accusation of fraud, and it's just not true.

and as JC explained back on page one, the article states Romney received 0% of the vote in those districts...not zero votes...so Romney could have gotten a handful of votes, but not enough to amount to 1%. This is not surprising at all if you are familiar with North or West Philly.

How many votes would have made 1% in this case?

anyone know how many votes?

I looked at our voting results here in Ga Obama had votes in every county ... all
and every precinct that I could find, that was a tougher google though.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

I feel absolutes rarely exist you on the other hand often base your opinion on generalizations.

good one.