Chris, Packrat, etc. Here's what BVW wrote, in part, in the next to last para: "It isn't going to work, because increasingly people are understanding that the only real "stuff" that matters is comfortable housing, decent food, affordable health care, and a way to make a living..."
See the part about "affordable health care"? BC/BS wisely is abandoning ACA & Marketplace Plans in memphis, nashville, and knoxville in 2017. the state's exchange is "very near collapse". But hey, what's a measly $500M to you Bernie lovers, you bridge closers, and you empty stretch of grass humpers?
Community Health Alliance? Done and gone.
United Healthcare? Can't depart all of Tennessee fast enough.
We're left w a dearth of options & exploding premiums.
Cigna & Humana, you ask, while not inhaling? yes, they're still here, but not for long. Huge $ losses; an overwhelmed system; physicians, professionals & staff working excessive hours for a non-compliant, inflexible, and diet- and health-oblivious population. Neither Cigna nor Humana want to be the last sucker out the door, but one of them will be in 2018.
Watch your premiums and deductibles rise like Bubba Bill's raping Peyronie's pecker @ a Penn State sorority meeting.
By 2020, the National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states, like Tennessee, that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
A survey of Tennessee voters showed 74% overall support for the idea that the President should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
“Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.
The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, from the free-trade party.
Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).
Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years is skewed to battleground states
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) and (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states),in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a difference of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A difference of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.
One analyst is predicting two million voters in seven counties are going to determine who wins the presidency in 2016.
With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of three-quarters of all Americans is now finished for the presidential election.
In the 2016 general election campaign
As of Sept 23, half (77 of 153) of the presidential and vice-presidential campaign events between the nominating conventions and the first debate were in just 4 states (Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio).
88% of the events (135 of the 153) were in the 11 states identified as closely divided "battleground" states by Politico and The Hill. 29 states have been totally ignored.
In the 2012 general election campaign
38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.
More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..
Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).
Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.
Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”
Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”
Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.
Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws. Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
I don't know Bruce. There are a LOT of people moving into big new houses in Collierville, some drive expensive cars and some don't, some are older and some are younger (late twenties to early thirties). Most of those moving into the homes are doing so for Collierville schools. That said, I don't discount that a lot of young people are living in the city and enjoying its many amenities.
Grove, you're presuming that having children means moving to the suburbs. I think that's a false assumption, at least based on what I'm seeing with the young folks I know who have kids. (And with my own.) They may move from downtown to Midtown when the family arrives, but they ain't moving back out to Eads or Collierville.
Moving the goalposts to 'social conservatives' to prove your point? Sure. Now you are right. Congrats on the sophomoric rhetoric.
But referring to your political opponents by saying, "hmmmm, maybe those dipshit sibling-fuckers are right after all?" isn't the voice of reason, democracy or progress.
Dong expressed an opinion, then someone else expressed an opinion about Dong's opinion.
Clyde is the only one being a whiny baby.
I'm going to posit that the accumulation of wealth and status symbols for the younger generation will still be important.
I think what you're seeing is a few things.
1) Young people are getting married later and starting families later. They're going to school longer. That means many of them have freedom to live wherever without concern for schools and things of that nature. That's why so many have moved to urban areas, where the action is. Essentially, the window for being young, single, and free has widened, and thus the behavior and values that come with being young, single, and free tend to last longer than they used to last.
2) The Millennial generation is a large percentage of the population and increasingly a larger percentage of the country's consumers. Therefore their buying habits are driving the market. Since so many are single, without families, and living the social life for longer, you're seeing that reflected in the spending habits they have.
3) Young people early in their careers usually don't have the disposable income to buy the luxury cars and nice watches. They spend their spare funds on bar tabs. When a large percentage of your consumer population can't afford luxury goods yet, then that'll be reflected in the revenues for those types of goods.
Point being, I don't think it's nearly as much a shift in values as it's just a stage in life thing. As young people start getting married off and start having kids, they will still generally start shifting to the suburbs. I've seen it with a number of my friends. I started earlier than they did, so I ended up in the burbs before they did. They all wanted to live in Downtown or East Memphis. Well, now they've pretty much all got kids, and they've either moved to Germantown/Collierville, or they're planning to move.
As you see this generation age and start having kids of their own, I think you'll still see the traditional shift to the suburbs, and as this generation gets older and starts entering peak earning years, you'll see luxury goods and status symbol purchases ramp up yet again.
The Millennial generation is a very large wave of people, and I tend to think this generation will be just like the majority of the ones before it, and they'll value similar things at 40 and 50 years old that their parents did.
France has had two empires. The Second Empire, under Napoleon III, lasted from 1852 until Bonaparte the Sequel was overthrown after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870.
Well the law already guarantees the first two, and neither party is offering universal health care. So I think you may be a little confused. Becoming an ideologue can do that to you.
Social conservatives have been wrong on every social issue they've championed for the last 75 years, maybe longer, thoughtful. That's a pretty consistent track record of being wrong. Have conservatives of the general variety been wrong all the time? No, and I've never said or believed that.
As it turns out, sometimes the conservatives ARE right about things. Because nobody has a monopoly on the truth. Additionally, in my experience, those who are the most certain about the superiority of their own particular opinions, are also the most likely to be dead wrong about whatever it is that they hold true as Gospel.
I drive a Subaru which tends to really confuse a lot of folks in this part of the country. My primary doctor says I'm a hippy for driving one, but I don't think so. Peace :)
"The point is, that neither Trump nor Clinton are going to stop the Eternal War Machine."
Well, I agree with that, thoughtful.
But since I support the rights of gay people to get married and not be discriminated against, and since I support the rights of women to get abortions if they choose, and since I believe the government should at least attempt to make health care available to all, those are reasons enough for me to make a distinction between these 2 candidates (and parties).
Clyde, your Dear Leader is the one getting fired in about a month. Prepare yourself emotionally.
We're all expressing opinions, which is our right. You're the one advocating for safe spaces.
Now I had to go back and reread my comment to see where I whined like a baby. Turns out Clyde was also having a seizure. Going around.
By Flyer Staff
download this issue
click here to see more »