Because that’s what the various states agreed to all those years ago.
You should review how Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral college votes. You might learn something interesting.
That’s because the electoral vote matched the popular vote. It would be ideologically inconsistent if Obama won one of his elections without the popular vote, and people were saying “Nyah nyah doesn’t matter Electoral College MAGA!”
On a related note: I have held a long-term belief that the ever increasing Federal deficit/debt will be a game-changer in US politics. As the boomers retire the deficit is about to balloon. If the deficit isn’t THE issue in 2020 it will be by 2024. I personally believe the deficit will lead to a further rightward tilt in US politics but we’ll just have to wait and see.
The debt will start becoming a political issue for real by 2020. This is because the tax cut bill that passed late last year means that interest on the debt - which must be paid to keep our credit rating in good standing - is going to start ballooning. That means there will be pressure to cut something big in the budget. There are two things that are big: one is defense, and the other is entitlements (like SS and Medicare).
But there’s another looming debt crisis, and this one is in the private sector in the form of corporate debt. The corporate debt situation isn’t a problem as long as there’s cash flow, but if a trade war starts hurting that cash flow, and if interest rates continue to rise as they have been, then this could be another financial crisis in the making.
If we experience another 2008 style recession within the next 2-3 years, recovery would be even more difficult than it was then. The forerunner to the Tea Party opposed TARP and momentarily delayed federal toxic asset relief, and in doing so nearly sent our financial system into a unrecoverable tailspin. Now the Tea Party and its affiliates have real power and control of congress. It is quite possible that they would refuse to intervene and choose to let the financial system collapse. It’s also unclear how competent officials at the Treasury and current Fed would be in response to such a crisis. And even if they choose to respond, rising budget pressures might make a Bush/Obama type response impossible. So we could see a wave of bank failures without a coordinated response. Worst of all, there are many more accounts in the hands of fewer financial institutions, meaning that when these institutions go down, they will go down harder than they did in 2008.
No, people in the democratic party are moving left on the issues too.
Medicare for all is a good example of this. It went from a pipe dream to something looking mainstream in a decade. Universal public college too.
You’re missing the beauty of our partisan system.
Republicans slash taxes on the wealthy and claim all the credit. But they don’t cut government spending because that would be unpopular. They just borrow money to make up the difference between what they’re collecting and what they’re spending.
Then right around the times their policies are going to cause a collapse, the Republicans lose power and the Democrats take over. They pay off the debt the Republicans caused by restoring the taxes the Republicans abolished. The economy gets back on its feet.
Once the economy has been fixed by the Democrats, the Republicans are able to argue that they should be voted back into power so they can lower taxes and start the cycle over again.
The Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility. But they abandoned that back in the eighties. Now they push for policies that will cause a short-term boom that will last just long enough for their term of office.
Obama didn’t “pay off the debt”
Obama inherited an economic crisis. In fact his campaign was interrrupted by it if you recall. Clinton did though, create a surplus IIRC.
Obama didn’t suspend his campaign, that was McCain. That was also around the time when Palin started to backfire on McCain as she was shown as the idiot she is.
They both took time to go to the White House to participate in talks regarding the economic crisis. Obama participated and contributed, McCain sat in the corner and pouted.
But that’s Little Nemo’s whole claim: “Then right around the times their policies are going to cause a collapse, the Republicans lose power and the Democrats take over. They pay off the debt the Republicans caused by restoring the taxes the Republicans abolished.” Obama didn’t pay off the debt. Little Nemo’s claim is disproven.
Let me explain it at an appropriate level.
Obama and Clinton enacted programs that decreased the debt (that means it gets smaller). Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Trump all enacted programs that increase the debt (that means it gets bigger). Decreasing the debt is better than increasing the debt. Republicans bad. Democrats good.
You don’t win an argument by not understanding it.
So it was interrupted. And because McCain did it first, it was another example of Obama having to be twice as good as the white guy to pass (no pun). He was the gentleman and wouldn’t fire while McCain claimed he was tending to the crisis, but actually went in and looked for solutions.
That’s funny. Obama was an exception for a lot of reasons, as he is here. It certainly doesn’t mean he wasnt’ saving the nation from the predation of the repunblicans. He just started at a different place. He needed to mop up some shit first. Of course he won’t get credit for it from some people.
The total national debt was $10.6 trillion on 1/31/2009. It was $20 trillion on 12/31/2016.
It’s a fucked-up worldview that thinks going from $10.6T to $20T in eight years can be appropriately described as “gets smaller”, don’t you think?
I guess we can add percentages to the list of things you don’t understand.
Here’s an article that explains it. I know you won’t read it but it has a picture you can look at.
I haven’t the time to fetch it on Google but most valid economic analyses make it clear who’s to blame for the debt – it’s not the fake deficit hawks. Obama’s budgets were far better than his republican predecessors, but he had the onerous distinction of inheriting the worst economy in 80 years. And yes he inherited spending, but that spending was vital to protecting the financial system that the irresponsible private sector institutions destroyed. Even so, it’s worth pointing out that Obama already inherited TARP spending – Bush signed the first half of it into law before his term ended. Obama’s stimulus was spending on public works projects, but a third of that stimulus was in the form of tax rebates or tax breaks. He gave first time homeowners major tax incentives, which spurred a recovery in numerous housing markets. Basically, much of what Obama did was what Republicans used to propose back in the 1980s…when the party still had some sanity.
Here’s a paragraph from the article you cited:
Here is what your original claim was:
You followed that up with this:
To clarify, your cite used the words “grew” “increase” and “added” while your claims used the words “pay off” “decreased” and “gets smaller”. I understood your argument just fine, it was just wrong.
Hey everyone? 'member when being proven an idiot cost you votes if you were running in a presidential election? I 'member.
2008 was so quaint.
Oh racism. You take so much from us.
He may have meant deficit, not debt.
I think the only president that lowered the debt since the 70s was Clinton.
Under Obama, the deficit went from 1.413 trillion down to 585 billion.
Trump has exploded the deficit back up to a trillion dollars after 8 years of cutting the deficit under Obama.