2010 US Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
washingtonpost.com

Gang of Eight emerges

As the time table to raise the national debt ceiling approaches, both parties understand the need to do so in order for the economy to continue to recover, but both parties are also looking for a strong measure to cut the deficit and debt levels the country has. Emerging from the ongoing discussions between the leaders of congress is a group so-titled the "Gang of Eight." Not to be confused with the Gang of Eight leaders of congress, this Gang has been highlighted by party leaders as the best chance the country has at reducing the deficit.

The group has four members from the democrats and four members from the the republicans. The Democrats are: Senators Nicole Kershaw (D-CA), Dante Jenkins (D-NJ), Joseph Rathburn (D-CT) and Hayden Straus (D-OH). The Republicans are: Robert Cantina (R-AK), Bill Armstrong Jr. (R-CO), James Lancaster (R-KY), and Caroline Dempsey (R-ME). Today, the group came forward and openly announced it's plans to spend the next few weeks focused on finding a bipartisan compromise to solving the deficit problems.

Both sides have members representing all the different ideological positions of their parties. The democrats have Kershaw and Straus, both big time liberals, along with Jenkins and Rathburn, who have been advocating for a deficit plan since President Bartlet left office. Republicans have the "Mainstreet Republican Coalition" chairman and vice-chairwoman Armstrong and Dempsey, along with staunch conservatives in Cantina and Lancaster. The group said they hope to have a plan ready to present by the end of June and get a plan passed well before the August recess.
 
I just re-watched the west wing seasons over twice and realized they got somethings wrong, but the biggest thing is Vinick won the election. How, Santos won New Jersey right? Well they have a law which passed after 2000 which states that Whoever wins the popular vote gets the state electoral votes. That means Vinick won.
 
I just re-watched the west wing seasons over twice and realized they got somethings wrong, but the biggest thing is Vinick won the election. How, Santos won New Jersey right? Well they have a law which passed after 2000 which states that Whoever wins the popular vote gets the state electoral votes. That means Vinick won.
Not quite. See in Season 7, a situation like in our world's 2000 election transpired. Vinick won the popular vote but Santos won the pop vote in Oregon and Nevada, giving him over 270 in the Electoral College, and hence the White House. Also I am almost sure that the law you are referring to regards the popular vote in New Jersey, not the national popular vote. Santos must have won the Popular vote in New Jersey, hence he got the electoral votes for New Jersey.

However another point needs to be considered, would that law in New Jersey even have been passed in the WWU? Remember they had no nailbiter election like we had in 2000, would they even have had the impetus to do so?
 
I see what your saying, but the laws is for the national popular vote. In the real life election in 2008 early on they were talking about it because McCain was winning the popular vote for awhile and that means New Jersey would give their votes to McCain. I've worked on several campaigns and it's crazy what you have to know.
 
Dee Chat, I think you misunderstood the National Popular Vote Compact. While it's been passed (in OTL) by Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, et cetera, it hasn't been passed by enough states (~270 electors) to take effect. So, in 2008, the 7 states (and DC) would not have had to vote for McCain in the popular, because they only had 77 electors between them.

Here is the specific New Jersey Law for the introduction of the Compact in 2007. It specifies on line (8) about the July 20 date on a presidential year when a majority (270+) of electoral votes have agreed to the compact. All states (MA, MD, IL, DC, WA, VT, HI) have this clause. All those states voted for Obama in 2008, and all but Vermont voted for Santos in 2006 and 2010.

Here's a little comparo-chart (made with RL and Bunny-provided numbers):
OTL/WW 1984
Ronald Reagan / George (H.W./P.) Bush (R) - 525 EV (54,455,472 PV)
Walter Mondale / Geraldine Ferraro (D) - 13 EV (37,577,352 PV)​

WW 1986
D. Wire Newman / Roland Pierce (D) - 274 EV (46,053,991 PV)
Joseph Furman / Jim Hohner (R) - 264 EV (45,738,821 PV)​

OTL 1988
George H. W. Bush / Dan Quayle (R) - 426 EV (48,886,597 PV)
Michael Dukakis / Lloyd Bentsen (D) - 111 EV (41,809,476 PV)
Lloyd Bentsen / Michael Dukakis (D) - 1 EV (0 PV)

WW 1990
Owen Lassiter / Lewis David Eisenhower (R) - 401 EV (48,495,798 PV)
D. Wire Newman / Roland Pierce (D) - 137 EV (43,086,587 PV)​

OTL 1992
Bill Clinton / Al Gore (D) - 370 EV (44,909,806 PV)
George H. W. Bush / Dan Quayle (R) - 168 EV (39,104,550 PV)
Ross Perot / James Stockdale (I) - 0 EV (19,743,821 PV)

WW 1994
Owen Lassiter / Lewis David Eisenhower (R) - 523 EV (64,834,235 PV)
Roland Pierce / Barry Goodwin (D) - 15 EV (39,669,831 PV)​

OTL 1996
Bill Clinton / Al Gore (D) - 379 EV (47,401,185 PV)
Bob Dole / Jack Kemp (R) - 159 EV (39,197,469 PV)
Ross Perot / Pat Choate (Ref.) - 0 EV (8,085,294 PV)

WW 1998
Josiah Bartlet / John Hoynes (D) - 303 EV (48,203,483 PV)
Lewis David Eisenhower / Robert Bennett (R) - 235 EV (45,633,501 PV)
Jim Buckner / Wendy LaMarr (G) - 0 EV (6,527,555 PV)​

OTL 2000
George W. Bush / Dick Cheney (R) - 271 EV (50,456,002 PV)
Al Gore / Joe Lieberman (D) - 266 EV (50,999,897 PV)
Ralph Nader / Winona LaDuke (G) - 0 EV (2,882,955 PV)
abstention - 1 EV (0 PV)

WW 2002
Josiah Bartlet / John Hoynes (D) - 394 EV (53,766,221 PV)
Robert Ritchie / Jeff Heston (R) - 144 EV (42,992,342 PV)​

OTL 2004
George W. Bush / Dick Cheney (R) - 286 EV (62,040,610 PV)
John Kerry / John Edwards (D) - 251 EV (59,028,444 PV)
John Edwards / John Edwards (D) - 1 EV (0 PV)

WW 2006
Matt Santos / Leo McGarry (D) - 272 EV (68,746,542 PV)
Arnold Vinick / Ray Sullivan (R) - 266 EV (69,754,328 PV)​

OTL 2008
Barack Obama / Joe Biden (D) - 365 EV (69,456,897 PV)
John McCain / Sarah Palin (R) - 173 EV (59,934,814 PV)

WW 2010
Glen Allen Walken / Liz Clark (R) - 310 EV (72,181,327 PV)
Matt Santos / Wendell Tripplehorn (D) - 228 EV (68,279,734 PV)​

As you can see, the scenarios played out quite different than OTL. If the NPV was in response to the 2000 election, then ITTL, it'd most likely be in response to the 2006 election (and do well in bigger conservative states). It's about 6 years behind the times though, and won't even affect the 2014 election.
 
No need to show me election shit, I know it all the way back to 1900. That's not the law I'm talking about. I'll find it, but it says that whoever wins the national vote wins the electoral votes for New Jersey. It was no deal with any other states, but I'll have to find it. It passed like a year after the 2000 election, which means Vinick would have won. Personally it's a violation of the Constitution, the President is elected by electoral votes. I'm a Moderate Conservative who is all for states rights and I think states making these laws are wrong.
 
Okay, after reading the bill and the outline of it, it states that if you win the national vote you win the those electoral votes. Which is what I'm saying. NJ had their own law, so they must of did away with it when they joined with other states in this bill. Either way Vinick is still the winner of the election.

I'm not trying to cause a fight or anything on this, I love this page. Also, I know it's hard to say who won the election by what amount in the West Wing world, but the 2002 election shows Bartlet winning KY, Indiana, And I believe TN and Virgina. When you watch it on DVD those states have been called for Ritchie.
 
Dee, instead of just saying you read it, can you provide a link? My belief is that it is more along the lines of what Tim said. Best example? 2004. Kerry won New Jersey and it's electoral votes, yet Bush won the election.
 
New Jersey passed a law in 2008 saying that its electoral vote would go to the national popular vote winner. It was part of a national compact and would only go into effect the number of electoral votes of the states in the compact adds up to a majority of the electoral votes (270).

You said in your post that New Jersey passed its own law a year after the 2000 election. This is clearly wrong because in 2004 New Jersey's electoral vote went to Kerry even though Bush won the national popular vote.

Here is a link to an article about New Jersey's change in the law

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/01/nj_backs_giving_states_elector.html
 
I understand what you guys are saying and I cannot find that bill from after the election, the only one I can find is the 2008 bill that we have a link to. One thing I'm not making clear is that this 2008 bill and the other one would only come into effect if something like 2000 happened again. In which the winner of the election didn't win the popular vote. Still, I believe it's un-constitutional.
 
I always thought Vinick should have won. South Carolina would never went for Santos, they should have used a different state. I also think Vinick would have lost in 2010 because the odds of winning never look good for someone who lost the first time around.
 
I always thought Vinick should have won. South Carolina would never went for Santos, they should have used a different state. I also think Vinick would have lost in 2010 because the odds of winning never look good for someone who lost the first time around.
Well, that was the original plan (depending on who you ask).

Vinick winning Vermont was ASB as well.
 
Still, I believe it's un-constitutional.
Why? "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Also, the others in this thread are correct. You are thinking of the National Popular Vote compact. It has been passed by seven states, including NJ, and DC.
 
wallstreetjournal.com

Entitlement Reform and Defense Spending are at the center of the deficit problem

By Congressman Riley Church

As the country finally accepts the concept that running deficits is not in the best economic defense of this country. Keynesian economics are a time long forgotten, it's time we turn our eyes to the way of the future in the field of economics. At the center of the debate of reducing government spending is the battle over entitlement reform and defense spending. Democrats and Republicans can in general accept that discretionary spending sometimes needs to be cut back, but that is also not where the biggest problems of our deficit lay. The areas that democrats and republicans must come to a census agreement to is how to make bipartisan initiatives last and become law.

The budget battle earlier this year was one of smooth sailing for President Walken. With a Speaker in Carol Gelsey who is willing to work to get things done, within reason, the ability to get a deal done was made a lot easier. Some liberal democrats and conservative republicans voted against it for their own respective reasons, but the middle ground of both parties were able to get a deal done. It is likely that this is where our deal may be struck on a signature move by the President to assure his commitment to reducing the deficit while raising the coming debt ceiling. In Toby Ziegler's tell all book released last summer, the American people learned quite a piece of history. President Bartlet and his team covertly struck a deal with both parties in the senate to save social security. Former Senators Steve Gains (R-IL) and Roy Turner (D-VA) were the key dealmakers in the process. And that is another example of bipartisan work being done on the deficit.

On it's current trajectory, Medicare will run out of money in a little over a decade. Democrats and Republicans understand the need to figure out a plan to save the popular program. Recent republican proposals by those on the more conservative budget committee like ranking member and senate candidate Travis Hoyt. Hoyt has proposed a plan not to dismantle the program, but to simply scale back heavily on the program's funding and put strong limitations on what Medicare pays for. My fellow California congressmen, Democrats Sam Howard and Jack Caton along with Ways and Means Chairman Drake Headley have put forth a plan that would allow people 55 and older remain on the current plan, but those younger than that would be place on a new plan. Much like a company's option for a 401k, employers and employees would pay a small monthly tax. The thought process being that as population increases, the payments would increase, thus sustaining the program for future generations. Medicare is becoming a huge, gagging hole in the middle of all deficit reduction plans, and it must be solved in the deficit is to be solved.

The next area that must be looked at, is defense spending. Republicans normally die fighting over it, but it's a necessary place to cut spending. The two parties, before going over the entire defense department budget with a fine-tooth comb for wasteful spending, must agree to one thing. Veteran's benefits do not get touched. It is a universally accepted belief, and one that will have full support in congress. Then, we need to identify big wasteful spending areas in the the DoD budget. One of the most glaring to me in recent years is that for every F-22 fightercraft built (currently at 126 per year) an extra engine is built. A plane, that costs $150 million per fighter to build, has a completely extra engine built. It cannot replace the fighter's engine, and it's not used in making other fighters. They just sit there. The CBO estimates that the engine is at least $70 million of the place. That is almost $9 billion a year on engines that are never going to be used. Examples like this are littered through the defense departments budget.

The fight ahead is going to be a difficult, but a necessary one. It is for our future generations of children to have it as good as we did. There are initiatives waiting to be picked up by both sides to reach a deal. Getting this deal done is not impossible. In fact it is very possible. We can get it done. And we must.
 
Last edited:
Why? "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Also, the others in this thread are correct. You are thinking of the National Popular Vote compact. It has been passed by seven states, including NJ, and DC.
Because all this started with Bush in 2000 and whoever wins that states popular vote should win the electoral votes. I have know problem with states like Nebraska and Maine giving 1 electoral vote per district, but I don't like the NPVC.
 
Because all this started with Bush in 2000 and whoever wins that states popular vote should win the electoral votes. I have know problem with states like Nebraska and Maine giving 1 electoral vote per district, but I don't like the NPVC.
In the West Wing Universe the NPVC wouldn't exist until 2007 at the earliest, because the motivations and causes of the NPVC to come into existence IOTL in 2000, wouldn't hit the West Wing Universe until 2007 at the earliest, and even then its doubtful because the 2006 election didn't drag on with a recount crisis like in 2000, which prompted the NPVC in the first place.

In short its doubtful the NPVC exists in the West Wing Universe at all.
 
In the West Wing Universe the NPVC wouldn't exist until 2007 at the earliest, because the motivations and causes of the NPVC to come into existence IOTL in 2000, wouldn't hit the West Wing Universe until 2007 at the earliest, and even then its doubtful because the 2006 election didn't drag on with a recount crisis like in 2000, which prompted the NPVC in the first place.

In short its doubtful the NPVC exists in the West Wing Universe at all.
The West Wing Universe doesn't have a lot of things the real world does. Not saying that's bad or good. I really really really wish they'd bring it back. Even though I'm a die hard Conservative it was a nice show. As I've said before I've worked on campaigns and the West Wing hit those right on the head.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top