Someone told me that Hawaii's 2 electoral votes don't really count in the national presidential election.  Is this true?

If so, I'm going to vote for who I believe is the best for this country, not who I think is going to win. I think if folks stopped voting along party lines and started voting for the best person, we wouldn't be in this divide-and-conquer partisan politics mess.

Someone told me that Hawaii's 2 electoral votes don't really count in the national presidential election.  Is this true?

If so, I'm going to vote for who I believe is the best for this country, not who I think is going to win. I think if folks stopped voting along party lines and started voting for the best person, we wouldn't be in this divide-and-conquer partisan politics mess.

I agree that people should vote based on who they feel is the best candidate. This is not the super bowl where u can only choose one of two teams, people don't realize that there are other candidates running but the media does not publicize so the majority of Americans have no clue what platform these people are running on.

My understanding is that Hawaii would only count if the national presidential race is within one or two electoral college votes. Hawaii usually sides with the democrats so in the case of the 2008 elections, Obama already received enough votes to clinch the nomination prior to Hawaii residents voting thus Hawaii did not count.

If people could get their information for outside the mainstream media I think this country would be more awesome than it already is. People who vote because they hear the persons name on tv more often than the other candidates or polls show such and such candidate in the lead so they jump on the band wagon are just playing into the system and deserve when rights get taken away or freedom is given up in the name of security. I am weary of our future as a country but thankful for blessings that I have been born into by just being an American citizen.

The grass to me is never greener on the other side but it is a lot better to fertilize the grass you have than to let it go to waste.

Kevin, I hear ya. Another one of the reasons that Paul should have gotten the nomination. He is the only Republican candidate that can pull Obama's supporters away from him. And Paul is well known grass: been on the same message for decades. Oh, well.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican strategists don't mind if Obama takes the throne for another term. The gamble is if the economy is going to get better enough in the next 4 years for a democrat to take credit. If not then getting their boy in now will be a liability next election as everyone will blame him for the economy taking so long to recover. If the timing is right they won't have to fight an incumbent next time and they'll be getting in just in time to take credit for fixing the economy. Doesn't matter that economists from one end of the scale to the other have all said that this will be a long process no matter what rabbits and shiny bits of tin foil the politicians pull out of their hats to "fix" the economy. The public didn't and doesn't want to hear that so they don't.

Public approval of congress is low enough that we're not complaining too much about the blatant obstructionist tactics so 4 more years of it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. Obama doesn't have the political capital to get much done and the democrats are too divided amongst themselves to give him cohesive support. The republicans can consolidate their power by blaming Obama and the democrats for everything thats going wrong, mitigate the damage the Tea Party is causing for them and regroup for a strong showing in 2016.

I would feel that way too but Mr. Willard 'Mittens' Romney may push for gun control as he did when he was Governor. Like some people say, 4 more years of King Obama or 8 years of possibly King Romney.  If they are only choices then what does it matter but I wouldn't vote for either of the two.  Just my 2 cents

Agree on that but obummer is pure evil.

  regroup for a strong showing in 2016.

I was actually watching Hannity, which I don't do often, when Rand Paul made his endorsement of Romney. I felt sick to my stomach because I had faith that he would take his fathers place in the liberty movement and be that push in 2016. I saw Ron Paul on Wolf Blitzer and was cheered up when he said he was not endorsing Romney.

Then I heard some interviews online with Rand Paul and how he is trying to play ball with the GOP in order to push the liberty movement and saying that an endorsement does not mean u agree with everything the person says but instead it means that u will be taken more seriously by the party you choose to represent. rand went on to say that he has fought for 4 bills which shrink the government since the endorsement and the GOP has taken him more seriously because of the endorsement.

Maybe Ron Paul's approach, although I like his hard nosed attitude approach, was not the way to get things done. Maybe Rand Paul, as long as his voting record remains consistent, new approach will be the ticket to bigger and better changes. I will keep my eye on Rand because he may have a strategy that hardcore Ron zpaul supporters cannot yet see. Time will tell.

Agree on that but obummer is pure evil.

I hear you, if he is re-elected we, in my opinion, are in for a lot of hurt as a country. More debt, more welfare, more government control of our lives. NDAA will probably be rewritten and passed under a different name, SOPA will probably be the same and forums such as these will be shut down for expressing our opinions. Side deals will be made with other countries and "messages will be transmitted to Vladimir".

I hear man, I hope the system we run and can last forever but from my understanding some geniuses at MIT said that America's economy will fall by 2030 at the rate it's going. An Obama second term with the attitude or worst that he has about spending and foreign affairs, may be shorter than that

2030 or so: yup, the liberalish crowd I tended to hang out with over the years thinks about the same except that McCain was the one that might have brought doomsday earlier. Romney has them scratching their heads, as does Obama, really. Neither one of them seems like a strong enough leader in one way or another to make much difference in the direction of the country. At least in terms of the overall system being absolutely unsustainable.

At this point most of the crowd of "liberals" hang around has given up hope that ~anyone~ in the government is interested in averting the eventual economic collapse. Instead, those in power seem to be just trying to set themselves and their families up as best they can before it happens. You and I are specifically not in that club.

That's what really irks me. EVERYONE thinks we're going to hell in a bucket. And yet we (the greater we, Americans, the nations of the world) all seem way more interested in positioning ourselves for the most comfortable (or prestigious, or morally superior) seat in the bucket than actually addressing the problem, finding an apolitical consensus for getting ourselves out of this mess and averting much larger consequences.

I don't mind going down with the ship. I do mind that we really are that stupid enough to set up a popcorn stand to make the last penny possible selling it to everyone as we watch the horror movie play itself out. "What? Its not MY fault! I just sell popcorn!"

The USA is done.  RP has no chance of winning. 
One can either...

Jump ship = Vote for someone who does not stand a chance of winning at all, thereby not helping the situation any and letting the ship sink.

Add to the flooding = Vote for Obama, thereby open the scuttle valve and flood this nation with the same policies and out of control spending and unachievable social programs which will kill the country.

Start bailing = Vote for Romney (and as many conservative representatives as you can), thereby, at the very least, keep the ship afloat, slow the flooding of the progressive's socialist anti American agenda. 

I believe the conservatives in this nation out number the radical left.  The problem is that the conservative person is very individualistic, self sufficient, and idealistic.  It is very hard to get together as a team and move forward.  By themselves nothing can go wrong, but hard to work together as a team.  On the other hand the liberal/progressive need to feed off each other.  They naturally band together and do things as a unit.  Even if that unit, as a whole, follows one another off of the cliff, like lemmings. 

So I submit that one should vote for the person that is the lesser of two evils.  Why?  Slow the ship from sinking.  It is wayy easier to fix the damage to the hull if the ship is still afloat.  If the ship is sunk,  the ship may never be able to be salvaged and re-floated.

The USA is done.  RP has no chance of winning. 
One can either...

Jump ship = Vote for someone who does not stand a chance of winning at all, thereby not helping the situation any and letting the ship sink.

Add to the flooding = Vote for Obama, thereby open the scuttle valve and flood this nation with the same policies and out of control spending and unachievable social programs which will kill the country.

Start bailing = Vote for Romney (and as many conservative representatives as you can), thereby, at the very least, keep the ship afloat, slow the flooding of the progressive's socialist anti American agenda. 

I believe the conservatives in this nation out number the radical left.  The problem is that the conservative person is very individualistic, self sufficient, and idealistic.  It is very hard to get together as a team and move forward.  By themselves nothing can go wrong, but hard to work together as a team.  On the other hand the liberal/progressive need to feed off each other.  They naturally band together and do things as a unit.  Even if that unit, as a whole, follows one another off of the cliff, like lemmings. 

So I submit that one should vote for the person that is the lesser of two evils.  Why?  Slow the ship from sinking.  It is wayy easier to fix the damage to the hull if the ship is still afloat.  If the ship is sunk,  the ship may never be able to be salvaged and re-floated.

I agreE with you in some ways for voting for the lesser of two evils but I disagree that in this election there is much of a less evil based on history. Romney has shown socialist tendencies with Romney care, support of NDAA, gun control as well as many flip flops on social issues such as abortion. I think by voting for one of the two you are playing into the system of restricting the freedom of choice.  Say for instance 1 million Ron Paul supporters vote for the lesser of two evils instead of voting for Ron Paul. When the ballots are counted the media will only count those who voted for Romney or Obama.

But if Ron Paul has 15% of the vote, write in, then the media will not be able, in my opinion some media outlets, to ignore that and would at least mention it on the news that Ron Paul although not technically a candidate, cause he is not going to run 3rd party, has 15% of the vote. I think that would be awesome cause it would show that there are Ron Paul,supporters out there and guess what, someone who is a sheep and did not research for themselves but instead voted for who the media told them was the right candidate will hopefully at least google Ron Paul's name and may find take his message to heart.  Then that person will spread the message and so on, which would gain support for the candidate and or platform.

In 2008 I voted McCain cause I was still stuck in the left right paradigm and never even took the time to research the other candidates. Guess what Ron Paul ran for president in 2008. From my understanding Paul did not get even half of the media time last time and if he did it was negative media. I truly think if u support a candidate just vote for that candidate,  if not then whatever you believe in may be lost the next time around.

With that being said, 2012 election is, I think the most important election cause I doubt Ron Paul will run in 2016 and I cannot completely get behind Rand Paul as of yet due to the, in my opinion per-mature endorsement of Romney. So, I lean more conservative on most issues but the R or D does not really distinguish you anymore. Romney or Obama will not slow the ship from sinking but instead watch it go down while they 'bailout' *pun intended* their loved ones and friends.

Maybe I am totally wrong but I don't think a terrorist attack, meteor strike, or EMP will do us in as a country but instead our bad economy is what will bring us down. Obama will increase our debt again by trillions of dollars in a second term supporting his welfare system/nanny state and unfortunately Romney will increase our debt by dragging us into a war with Iran thus leading to WW3. That's what I think any way, so the lesser of two evils is writing in Ron Paul or better yet, if you want to vote for someone on the ticket that would actually count and may run again in 2016 then vote for Gary Johnson..

Whew, sorry I get into politics because that is what drives this country and I think 2012 is becoming an important year in our country, starting on new years eve when Obama snuck in the NDAA which was found unconstitutional by the supreme court, go figure.

Alright, enough politics, let's talk guns!!!

Thanks for humoring me though, I know I can go off on this stuff sometimes 

Would someone please explain the difference to me between Romney and Obama? I don't see much different between the two. Both (IMHO) are big government supporters and big spenders. Both seem to be more of the same type of politicians. I doubt if Romney gets in that we will see much if any difference in the way things are done in DC. I have tried looking for Romney's stand on certain subjects and he is either not taking a stand one way or another or he has no statement about it. For instance, what is his stand about Obama giving amnesty to all those illegals?

Ron Paul supporter here!

Would someone please explain the difference to me between Romney and Obama? I don't see much different between the two. Both (IMHO) are big government supporters and big spenders. Both seem to be more of the same type of politicians. I doubt if Romney gets in that we will see much if any difference in the way things are done in DC. I have tried looking for Romney's stand on certain subjects and he is either not taking a stand one way or another or he has no statement about it. For instance, what is his stand about Obama giving amnesty to all those illegals?

Ron Paul supporter here!

Color of their skin   

Someone told me that Hawaii's 2 electoral votes don't really count in the national presidential election.  Is this true?

I believe Hawaii has 4 electoral votes.

Also, it doesn't really matter because Hawaii is a traditionally Democratic state, not a "swing state".

Quote from: Jl808 on June 20, 2012, 10:12:44 PM

Someone told me that Hawaii's 2 electoral votes don't really count in the national presidential election.  Is this true?

I believe Hawaii has 4 electoral votes.

Also, it doesn't really matter because Hawaii is a traditionally Democratic state, not a "swing state".

Yes, it's 4. The number of electoral votes each state gets is equal to the number of congressman the state has. Every state has 2 senators so the difference is in the House of Reps, we have 2 of each.

Have a great Independence Day, everyone!

We won independence from Great Britain, but we didn't win indpendence from the control-hungry governmental mentality and allowed our own to develop.

I hereby propose a new acronym to cover the bases thoroughly --FLINOS.

"Freedom Lovers In Name Only"

Suitable for either party --or individuals, for that matter.

Great post, Heavies (Reply #47) !

Terry, 230RN

Have a great Independence Day, everyone!

We won independence from Great Britain, but we didn't win indpendence from the control-hungry governmental mentality and allowed our own to develop.

I hereby propose a new acronym to cover the bases thoroughly --FLINOS.

"Freedom Lovers In Name Only"

Suitable for either party --or individuals, for that matter.

Great post, Heavies (Reply #47) !

Terry, 230RN

Thanks Terry, and happy 4th!  I just hope...

The founding fathers did do their best to create a system that was resilient to excessive government power. While we complain about "gridlock" in the government I think it was intentionally set up to work that way. The theory being that nothing will actually get through unless there is a clear majority in support of it and not a strong enough dissent.

The details of the first federal government are a bit shocking by today's standards but the spirit of it is still inspiring.

Yeah, these candidates are bragging about their "strong leadership skills."

On sober reflection and careful rumination at this point in our history I think I'd rather have a wimp in that office, not a "strong leader."

Just do your job and execute the laws without trying to develop a "legacy" for yourself.

Maybe that should be your legacy.

Terry, 230RN