|
|
#11
11-06-2007, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
The republican establishment would back a third candidate in order to siphon votes away from Dr. Paul. There by ensuring neither candidate would get the needed 270 electoral votes giving the presidency to Hillary because of the Democratic control of Congress. [/ QUOTE ] It's not quite this simple. Each state gets 1 vote. I'm not sure how the distribution pans out, especially since Republicans usually do well in a large number of small states, and the Democrats do well in a small number of large states. 
|
|
#12
11-06-2007, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] the xtian right back Paul [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about that. I suspect the Christian Right just wouldn't show up. [/ QUOTE ] They're much likely to show up for Paul than for Giuliani...
|
|
#13
11-06-2007, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The republican establishment would back a third candidate in order to siphon votes away from Dr. Paul. There by ensuring neither candidate would get the needed 270 electoral votes giving the presidency to Hillary because of the Democratic control of Congress. [/ QUOTE ] It's not quite this simple. Each state gets 1 vote. I'm not sure how the distribution pans out, especially since Republicans usually do well in a large number of small states, and the Democrats do well in a small number of large states. [/ QUOTE ] I guess civics class was a long time ago. Anyways here is how it would go. What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes? If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
|
|
#15
11-06-2007, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the xtian right back Paul [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about that. I suspect the Christian Right just wouldn't show up. [/ QUOTE ] They're much likely to show up for Paul than for Giuliani... [/ QUOTE ] I agree, the xtian right seems to have this serious obsession with the abortion issue to the point that a candidate could do or say virtually anything but as long as they're pro-life and the opponent is pro-choice, they'll back the pro-lifer.
|
|
#17
11-06-2007, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the xtian right back Paul [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about that. I suspect the Christian Right just wouldn't show up. [/ QUOTE ] They're much likely to show up for Paul than for Giuliani... [/ QUOTE ] I agree, the xtian right seems to have this serious obsession with the abortion issue to the point that a candidate could do or say virtually anything but as long as they're pro-life and the opponent is pro-choice, they'll back the pro-lifer. [/ QUOTE ] There you go. My mom is one of these voters. She's not really interested in politics, so it will be interesting to see her thoughts on it. If I told her Ron Paul was against killin babies and Guiliani isn't, he'd have her vote just for that.
|
|
#18
11-06-2007, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
You probably would see a third-party pro-war Republican candidate. Hillary might get less than 50% of the vote in this circumstance, but she would win a majority of the electoral college in a landslide, something like 45-30-25 at worst.
|
|
#19
11-06-2007, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
You probably would see a third-party pro-war Republican candidate. Hillary might get less than 50% of the vote in this circumstance, but she would win a majority of the electoral college in a landslide, something like 45-30-25 at worst. [/ QUOTE ] Most Americans want the US out of Iraq. How does that resonate with what you are suggesting? Why should a pro-war candidate have an advantage over an anti-war candidate?
|
|
#20
11-06-2007, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You probably would see a third-party pro-war Republican candidate. Hillary might get less than 50% of the vote in this circumstance, but she would win a majority of the electoral college in a landslide, something like 45-30-25 at worst. [/ QUOTE ] Most Americans want the US out of Iraq. How does that resonate with what you are suggesting? Why should a pro-war candidate have an advantage over an anti-war candidate? [/ QUOTE ] Because its not the only issue. Most democrats seem to want out of the war + some kind of universal health coverage.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
