Ben Nelson Done.

[HSKR]

Surprised nobody has brought it up here yet. Crappy timing if you ask me as far as the Democrats getting someone else ready for 2012. It really sounded like Ben didn't know which way he was going to go on the decision until the holidays. Now he is giving his party less then a year to prepare a candidate. I guess in a way that could be good since it gives the Republicans less time to dig up dirt on whoever runs. Ben was making a comeback in the polls and had a huge war chest. I think Ben vs Bruning would have been a very tight race because Bruning is such a polarizing figure. I just don't know who the Dems are going to come up with now. The reason Nelson did well getting reelected is because he could get a good chunk of votes west of Lincoln and Omaha. They need to stick to that formula if they want a chance because even if they win the metro areas, they will lose if the Republicans dominate the percentages out west which is likely to happen if they go against Bruning.

[VectorVictor]

It's kinda funny about Nebraska--we tend to be moderate with our politics, and really stay away from polarization or absolutes.

 

We have a Republican that leans left, and a (soon to be former) Democrat that leaned right in the Senate.

 

Frankly, it doesn't matter if they're Republican or Democrat in Nebraska--as long as they're moderate and work for the farmers and the state business, it doesn't matter what party you belong to.

 

And just FYI, there are quite a few Democrats in the state--enough that Obama got an electoral college vote from NE last time around.

[HSKR]

It's kinda funny about Nebraska--we tend to be moderate with our politics, and really stay away from polarization or absolutes.

 

We have a Republican that leans left, and a (soon to be former) Democrat that leaned right in the Senate.

 

Frankly, it doesn't matter if they're Republican or Democrat in Nebraska--as long as they're moderate and work for the farmers and the state business, it doesn't matter what party you belong to.

 

And just FYI, there are quite a few Democrats in the state--enough that Obama got an electoral college vote from NE last time around.

The only reason Obama got and electoral college vote is because Nebraska split its votes with Obama caring metro vote. If we did it like most other states, he would have not. I can look it up but if I remember correctly, Nebraska has something like 150K more registered Republicans vs Democrats. For our population, the Democrats are outnumbered by a good percentage. Assuming the independents don't lean heavily towards the Democrats, that's a huge voting advantage for statewide elections.

 

I would agree that Nelson is in the moderate category but I am surprised you think Johanns leans left. To me he much closer to the far right then center. If Bruning does win the Senate, I'd say that Nebraska would be as far right with its representation as it has been in many decades.

[carlfense]

Surprised nobody has brought it up here yet. Crappy timing if you ask me as far as the Democrats getting someone else ready for 2012. It really sounded like Ben didn't know which way he was going to go on the decision until the holidays. Now he is giving his party less then a year to prepare a candidate. I guess in a way that could be good since it gives the Republicans less time to dig up dirt on whoever runs. Ben was making a comeback in the polls and had a huge war chest. I think Ben vs Bruning would have been a very tight race because Bruning is such a polarizing figure. I just don't know who the Dems are going to come up with now. The reason Nelson did well getting reelected is because he could get a good chunk of votes west of Lincoln and Omaha. They need to stick to that formula if they want a chance because even if they win the metro areas, they will lose if the Republicans dominate the percentages out west which is likely to happen if they go against Bruning.

Good riddance to Nelson. Disliked that guy from the first time I met him.

[HSKR]

Surprised nobody has brought it up here yet. Crappy timing if you ask me as far as the Democrats getting someone else ready for 2012. It really sounded like Ben didn't know which way he was going to go on the decision until the holidays. Now he is giving his party less then a year to prepare a candidate. I guess in a way that could be good since it gives the Republicans less time to dig up dirt on whoever runs. Ben was making a comeback in the polls and had a huge war chest. I think Ben vs Bruning would have been a very tight race because Bruning is such a polarizing figure. I just don't know who the Dems are going to come up with now. The reason Nelson did well getting reelected is because he could get a good chunk of votes west of Lincoln and Omaha. They need to stick to that formula if they want a chance because even if they win the metro areas, they will lose if the Republicans dominate the percentages out west which is likely to happen if they go against Bruning.

Good riddance to Nelson. Disliked that guy from the first time I met him.

 

One thing I will always give Ben credit for, he is a diehard Husker fan just as much as any of us are. When he was Governor, he would go to a lot of Basketball games at the Bob and he always stood out in the good seats of the B section because was standing up cheering and clapping while everyone around him was just sitting there shooting the bull.

[Comish]

Surprised nobody has brought it up here yet. Crappy timing if you ask me as far as the Democrats getting someone else ready for 2012. It really sounded like Ben didn't know which way he was going to go on the decision until the holidays. Now he is giving his party less then a year to prepare a candidate. I guess in a way that could be good since it gives the Republicans less time to dig up dirt on whoever runs. Ben was making a comeback in the polls and had a huge war chest. I think Ben vs Bruning would have been a very tight race because Bruning is such a polarizing figure. I just don't know who the Dems are going to come up with now. The reason Nelson did well getting reelected is because he could get a good chunk of votes west of Lincoln and Omaha. They need to stick to that formula if they want a chance because even if they win the metro areas, they will lose if the Republicans dominate the percentages out west which is likely to happen if they go against Bruning.

Good riddance to Nelson. Disliked that guy from the first time I met him.

 

Agree with that ^^^^^^

 

Although most pols say one thing when back in the hustings and vote another once they get leaned on by the whip in D.C., Nelson always seemed particularly sleazy doing it............

[strigori]

What I'm afraid of with Nelson retiring, is the asshat Brunning getting the seat. I really hate the man, and trust him less.

[carlfense]

What I'm afraid of with Nelson retiring, is the asshat Brunning getting the seat. I really hate the man, and trust him less.

Agreed. Bruning is one of the few politicians that would cause me to cast a vote for Nelson. If you think Nelson is sleazy . . . well . . . just wait until you see Bruning.

 

I wish Deb Fischer would get more support. I certainly don't always agree with her positions but I respect her.

[Comish]

What I'm afraid of with Nelson retiring, is the asshat Brunning getting the seat. I really hate the man, and trust him less.

Agreed. Bruning is one of the few politicians that would cause me to cast a vote for Nelson. If you think Nelson is sleazy . . . well . . . just wait until you see Bruning.

 

I wish Deb Fischer would get more support. I certainly don't always agree with her positions but I respect her.

 

Surprising that she doesn't ...........................kind of an updated Virginia Smith...........................

[VectorVictor]

It's kinda funny about Nebraska--we tend to be moderate with our politics, and really stay away from polarization or absolutes.

 

We have a Republican that leans left, and a (soon to be former) Democrat that leaned right in the Senate.

 

Frankly, it doesn't matter if they're Republican or Democrat in Nebraska--as long as they're moderate and work for the farmers and the state business, it doesn't matter what party you belong to.

 

And just FYI, there are quite a few Democrats in the state--enough that Obama got an electoral college vote from NE last time around.

The only reason Obama got and electoral college vote is because Nebraska split its votes with Obama caring metro vote. If we did it like most other states, he would have not.

 

Which is why I respect how Nebraska divides its electoral college votes (I think Maine and another state do this too?).

 

The process would be more representative of the actual vote if all states were required to proportionally split their electoral college votes based on percentage of ballots. At the least, it would help with getting rid of the idiotic red/blue state designation and force campaigns to address states not commonly visited by campaigns (read: Nebraska).

[carlfense]

It's kinda funny about Nebraska--we tend to be moderate with our politics, and really stay away from polarization or absolutes.

 

We have a Republican that leans left, and a (soon to be former) Democrat that leaned right in the Senate.

 

Frankly, it doesn't matter if they're Republican or Democrat in Nebraska--as long as they're moderate and work for the farmers and the state business, it doesn't matter what party you belong to.

 

And just FYI, there are quite a few Democrats in the state--enough that Obama got an electoral college vote from NE last time around.

The only reason Obama got and electoral college vote is because Nebraska split its votes with Obama caring metro vote. If we did it like most other states, he would have not.

 

Which is why I respect how Nebraska divides its electoral college votes (I think Maine and another state do this too?).

 

The process would be more representative of the actual vote if all states were required to proportionally split their electoral college votes based on percentage of ballots. At the least, it would help with getting rid of the idiotic red/blue state designation and force campaigns to address states not commonly visited by campaigns (read: Nebraska).

Or just do away with the electoral college entirely. That would be my choice.

[Comish]

It's kinda funny about Nebraska--we tend to be moderate with our politics, and really stay away from polarization or absolutes.

 

We have a Republican that leans left, and a (soon to be former) Democrat that leaned right in the Senate.

 

Frankly, it doesn't matter if they're Republican or Democrat in Nebraska--as long as they're moderate and work for the farmers and the state business, it doesn't matter what party you belong to.

 

And just FYI, there are quite a few Democrats in the state--enough that Obama got an electoral college vote from NE last time around.

The only reason Obama got and electoral college vote is because Nebraska split its votes with Obama caring metro vote. If we did it like most other states, he would have not.

 

Which is why I respect how Nebraska divides its electoral college votes (I think Maine and another state do this too?).

 

The process would be more representative of the actual vote if all states were required to proportionally split their electoral college votes based on percentage of ballots. At the least, it would help with getting rid of the idiotic red/blue state designation and force campaigns to address states not commonly visited by campaigns (read: Nebraska).

Or just do away with the electoral college entirely. That would be my choice.

 

I've seen studies in the past that elections via a pure popular vote actually work against what cures they are intended to produce. (can't remember the specifics, but for sure it would lessen the impact of states like Nebraska because huge urban areas can cancel us out quickly)

[carlfense]

Or just do away with the electoral college entirely. That would be my choice.

 

I've seen studies in the past that elections via a pure popular vote actually work against what cures they are intended to produce. (can't remember the specifics, but for sure it would lessen the impact of states like Nebraska because huge urban areas can cancel us out quickly)

Sure it might lessen the impact of states like Nebraska . . . but it would ensure that each vote cast was given equal weight.

[Mavric]

Which is why I respect how Nebraska divides its electoral college votes (I think Maine and another state do this too?).

 

The process would be more representative of the actual vote if all states were required to proportionally split their electoral college votes based on percentage of ballots. At the least, it would help with getting rid of the idiotic red/blue state designation and force campaigns to address states not commonly visited by campaigns (read: Nebraska).

I think the arguement usually given is splitting the state votes would actually have the opposite effect: If, for example, Nebraska would be about 60% Republican and 40% Democrat (don't know if those are the actual numbers, just an example), you would expect the Republican to get four votes to one for the Democrat (or 3-2 if you're splitting the senator's votes as well). Thus, it doesn't do them any good to campaign in Nebraska on the slim hope of getting one more vote than they would get without doing anything. However, if it's winner-take-all, swinging the vote either side of 50% would be a five vote swing, which could be worth putting some money into a campaign for.

[carlfense]

Which is why I respect how Nebraska divides its electoral college votes (I think Maine and another state do this too?).

 

The process would be more representative of the actual vote if all states were required to proportionally split their electoral college votes based on percentage of ballots. At the least, it would help with getting rid of the idiotic red/blue state designation and force campaigns to address states not commonly visited by campaigns (read: Nebraska).

I think the arguement usually given is splitting the state votes would actually have the opposite effect: If, for example, Nebraska would be about 60% Republican and 40% Democrat (don't know if those are the actual numbers, just an example), you would expect the Republican to get four votes to one for the Democrat (or 3-2 if you're splitting the senator's votes as well). Thus, it doesn't do them any good to campaign in Nebraska on the slim hope of getting one more vote than they would get without doing anything. However, if it's winner-take-all, swinging the vote either side of 50% would be a five vote swing, which could be worth putting some money into a campaign for.

I disagree. Nebraska would almost always vote Republican and therefore neither side would have incentive to campaign in the state. At least with split electoral votes there is 1 or more votes up for grabs. In a winner take all Nebraska there would be no point in campaigning in the state.