Another Biased Poll Shows Romney's Lead Widening

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

well it's pretty useless until it factors in last night's debate.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

And Rasmussen has it at 49% Romney, 48% Obama.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

well it's pretty useless until it factors in last night's debate.

Last night's results won't be reflected in a moving average poll until Sunday, and Monday is another debate.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Last night's results won't be reflected in a moving average poll until Sunday, and Monday is another debate.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!! What will we do?

NM

[Karee 4,189]

I don't know why they even bother with polls like this. What a waste of money. Popular vote doesn't mean anything. It's about winning states. There's maybe 6-8 states that are even close. The other 40+ are a forgone conclusion.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I don't know why they even bother with polls like this. What a waste of money. Popular vote doesn't mean anything. It's about winning states. There's maybe 6-8 states that are even close. The other 40+ are a forgone conclusion.

I know, right? Californian can't do anything about who gets selected as President, other than write checks to their favorite politician or political association. They went for the direct election of Senators, which was a mistake in my opinion. So, they might as well do away with the electoral college, and screw letting places like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida decide things for the rest of the country. I been to those states. Not impressed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I know, right? Californian can't do anything about who gets selected as President, other than write checks to their favorite politician or political association. They went for the direct election of Senators, which was a mistake in my opinion. So, they might as well do away with the electoral college, and screw letting places like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida decide things for the rest of the country. I been to those states. Not impressed.

The electoral college was never anything more than a unique solution to a problem that I doubt ever existed.

I agree that elections for Senators is a HUGE mistake. There should be at least one house of congress not subject to election...and campaign contributions. Besides the Senate was designed to represent states, not people, so the state governments should select them. Not only would you eliminate the influence of donations on legislation (everything has to get through the Senate) but you would increase the turnover of members as state legislatures or governors changed.

Eliminating the electoral college will make the president answerable to ALL Americans and give ALL Americans a value.

Both of these things, along with burning the current tax code are necessary before any signifgant change can be made...and guess what? The guys that wanted to do it dropped out long ago.