The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

This is just this year(most of which is less then 2 months)

#JohnMcClane4President

 

[Biggles]

This is just this year(most of which is less then 2 months)

I don't see anything that bad in that compilation - you could certainly make a similar compilation for Trump & probably a number of the other Democratic candidates. As I said, I would see Biden as more of a figurehead - kind of like Ronald Reagan was for conservatives in the '80's. By his second term Ronnie WAS somewhat senile, suffering from Alzheimers.

Warren and Sanders have completely different Voter bases despite them being closer to policy then the others.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/0...t-sounded-last-week-supporters-far-different/

Warren's base is older Whiter and more wealthy & educated.

She is going to get ruined in the South for the Primary if her Supporters are strictly white, just like Bernie did in 2016.
[/MEDIA]

I can see that Warren & Sanders have differing personalities & differing appeals, but should one of them drop out, I suspect either of them would pick up much of the support of the other's supporters. Bernie has a higher profile at the minute, due largely to his long run in the last primaries, however Warren has been gradually & consistently gaining ground. I do worry about Warren struggling to gain enthusiastic support among non-white voters ... AND male voters & I worry that in a GE deeply ingrained, subconscious misogyny would sink her candidacy & allow Trump to win. VP choice is going to be a big factor in whichever candidate wins the Democratic nomination.

Personally, I am more concerned about anyone other than Trump winning, rather than which Democrat comes to the fore. I could see a Biden/Warren ticket with Biden appealing to blue collar voters & Warren appealing to women & more progressive voters & with the expectation that she would head the ticket in 2024. Biden/Harris (would be a pretty conservative ticket)? I find it hard to picture Sanders with a helpful VP running mate ... who would that be?

 

[BobK]

It's gonna be fun watching some heads explode around here if/when Trump wins a second term.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's gonna be fun watching some heads explode around here if/when Trump wins a second term.

Highly unlikely though. The majority of swingvoters that voted for him in 2016 are unlikely to vote for him again. He has a strong base, but that base isnt enough votes. But obviously it depends on the democratic nominee. Biden is tainted (irrelevant if hes innocent or not) and should not run, otherwise its going to be the clinton debacle all over again and Trump might win another term. I am already having Deja-vu. Every accusation Trump receives, is answeed by "what about Biden" and his following gets fired up in the process.

 

[Dotini]

It's gonna be fun watching some heads explode around here if/when Trump wins a second term.

A lot of people around my town were very distraught when Bush won his 2nd term. The day after the election, my good friend John, owner of The Globe Bookstore in Pioneer Square, came down with a terrible case of shingles. He was in great pain for many weeks, and severely facially disfigured for life. It was not fun for him or his family and friends. I myself was not pleased with Bush winning again, but didn't let it get to me, and got back to what mattered most - my own business and life,

Trump's victory was supposedly responsible for some people moving to Canada, and many others suffering so-called "Trump Derangement Syndrome". I've seen many of them, shuffling despondently, heads down, in the parks and sidewalks of Seattle. I wonder if there are any reliable clinical studies on this matter?

 

[PocketZeven]

A lot of people around my town were very distraught when Bush won his 2nd term. The day after the election, my good friend John, owner of The Globe Bookstore in Pioneer Square, came down with a terrible case of shingles. He was in great pain for many weeks, and severely facially disfigured for life. It was not fun for him or his family and friends. I myself was not pleased with Bush winning again, but didn't let it get to me, and got back to what mattered most - my own business and life,

Trump's victory was supposedly responsible for some people moving to Canada, and many others suffering so-called "Trump Derangement Syndrome". I've seen many of them, shuffling despondently, heads down, in the parks and sidewalks of Seattle. I wonder if there are any reliable clinical studies on this matter?

Wait, you actually think its actually a "syndrome"? You dont realise it was used as a way to mock their political opponents?

 

[Dotini]

Wait, you actually think its actually a "syndrome"? You dont realise it was used as a way to mock their political opponents?

Like I said, I don't know if it's a proper clinical problem involving shingles, depression, drinking, self-harm or the like. I do know what I've seen first hand. But schadenfreude? People taking pleasure from another's suffering? Yes, I know that happens, and it's probably a spiritual sin that too many of us are guilty of.

 

[Dennisch]

Highly unlikely though.

Remember that predicted landslide for Killary?

 

[PocketZeven]

Remember that predicted landslide for Killary?

I said "highly unlikely", not "impossible".

 

[TenEightyOne]

Like all major publications they prepare a copy for both eventualities. The trick is to avoid distributing the wrong one. The Chicago Tribune suffered the same distribution accident in 1948

 

[Liquid]

Like all major publications they prepare a copy for both eventualities. The trick is to avoid distributing the wrong one. The Chicago Tribune suffered the same distribution accident in 1948

View attachment 856015

Nothing spared on the Simpsons. They even went for the correct finger placements.

 

[Dennisch]

Like all major publications they prepare a copy for both eventualities. The trick is to avoid distributing the wrong one. The Chicago Tribune suffered the same distribution accident in 1948

I know, but everything and everyone knew that Hillary would win by a massive landslide.

 

[Biggles]

I know, but everything and everyone knew that Hillary would win by a massive landslide.

Except that that is not true. Hillary was expected to win in the weeks leading up to the election, partly because Trump was such an inarticulate boob in the debates. But the polls showed a reasonably narrow margin for Clinton of a few percentage points, which was, in the end, reflected in the actual popular vote. However, due to strategic over-confidence the Democrats allowed the "safe" states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania & Michigan to slip away, while also failing to win other swing states like Florida & North Carolina ... & so lost the electoral college vote.

 

[ryzno]

So in the end there is nothing wrong with the EC... Got it!

However, due to strategic over-confidence the Democrats allowed the "safe" states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania & Michigan to slip away, while also failing to win other swing states like Florida & North Carolina ... & so lost the electoral college vote.

 

[PocketZeven]

So in the end there is nothing wrong with the EC... Got it!

You read it wrong. The popular vote should always determin the winner. Its a broken system if winning an election is heavily dependant campaigning in "swing " states.

 

[Biggles]

So in the end there is nothing wrong with the EC... Got it!

Why would you conclude that? The worst aspect of the EC is that if you're a Republican voter in California, your vote is never going to count for anything in the tally of Presidential voting & similarly, if you're a Democrat voter in a solidly Republican state your vote will not have any effect in determining the outcome. Why does that seem to you to be a good thing?

 

[Danoff]

So in the end there is nothing wrong with the EC... Got it!

The EC is an abomination, re-writing your vote (and the votes of people who didn't vote) in favor of the majority. It's an affront to the whole concept of a democratic election.

 

[Famine]

The popular vote should always determin the winner.

It does. Within each state. Because the USA is a legal body constructed out of the cooperation of fifty small countries (or "states"). Each state says who it wants to win, and - by agreement with the other 49 - they get so many votes depending on their population. Because the USA is a legal body constructed out of the cooperation of fifty small countries (or "states").

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The EC is an abomination, re-writing your vote (and the votes of people who didn't vote) in favor of the majority. It's an affront to the whole concept of a democratic election.

I think it's a perversion of an abomination. It doesn't even do what it was intended to do. All it does is weirdly and unpredictably distort/subvert the presidential election for no real purpose.

 

[Dotini]

I think it's a perversion of an abomination. It doesn't even do what it was intended to do. All it does is weirdly and unpredictably distort/subvert the presidential election for no real purpose.

Okay, so what? Change it? Yes!! Do it the constitutionally provided legal way, and everything should be okay.

 

[PocketZeven]

It does. Within each state. Because the USA is a legal body constructed out of the cooperation of fifty small countries (or "states"). Each state says who it wants to win, and - by agreement with the other 49 - they get so many votes depending on their population. Because the USA is a legal body constructed out of the cooperation of fifty small countries (or "states").

One can win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote in the USA. That isnt my idea of democracy.

If each state were voting for their own leader its logical. In your argument, I would actually would get rid of direct president election alltogether. Let the senators and congress vote for president. That would make much more sense.

edit: and I do know it clashes with the idea of seperation of powers. But the electoral college only further conflicts with the possibility of a multiparty system that more accurately represents the people.

 

[Famine]

One can win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote in the USA.

About the same as any other nation where the leader is directly elected then. Meanwhile the public gets no vote in the leader of the UK.

Also one can become President without ever facing a public vote. That's in the Constitution too.

 

[PocketZeven]

About the same as any other nation then.

Please explain?

Also one can become President without ever facing a public vote. That's in the Constitution too.

Those are special circumstances. Apparantly the electors are not even constitutionally required to match the actual winning vote in each state.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Please explain?



Those are special circumstances. Apparantly the electors are not even constitutionally required to match the actual winning vote in each state.

Well, at the beginning there was no direct popular vote for president, if I understand it correctly. The electoral college voted for the president as an independent group. The elites decided what was best for the commoners. A good scheme.

edit: From wiki, the original rationale:

1. Choice of the president should reflect the “sense of the people” at a particular time, not the dictates of a cabal in a “pre-established body” such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of “foreign powers”.[30]
2. The choice would be made decisively with a “full and fair expression of the public will” but also maintaining “as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder”.[31]
3. Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.[32]
4. Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.[30]
5. Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president.
6. The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the presidential election to the House of Representatives.

 

[Famine]

Please explain?

In many other countries where a leader is directly elected, they can do so with about the same proportion of the popular vote as in the USA.

Those are special circumstances.

Given that it's happened five times* in 45 Presidents**, not that special.

*Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Garfield, Ford
**45 Presidencies, 44 Presidents; Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President

 

[PocketZeven]

In many other countries where a leader is directly elected, they can do so with about the same proportion of the popular vote as in the USA.

Given that it's happened five times* in 45 Presidents**, not that special.

*Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Garfield, Ford
**45 Presidencies, 44 Presidents; Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President

I am curious which leaders were elected with 23% in a 2 candidate situation? It is a bold statement to justify the electoral college.

Kinda does make it special though. Becoming president by death or resignation are special circumstances to me.

 

[Famine]

I am curious which leaders were elected with 23% in a 2 candidate situation?

Why are you adding qualifiers to what I said? I didn't say anything about a two-candidate situation - and wouldn't have because the US Presidential Election isn't one either.

It is a bold statement to justify the electoral college.

Which I didn't do either.

Don't fall back into these habits please.

Kinda does make it special though. Becoming president by death or resignation are special circumstances to me.

One in every nine Presidents is not elected to the office of President. Doesn't seem "special".

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Why are you adding qualifiers to what I said? I didn't say anything about a two-candidate situation - and wouldn't have because the US Presidential Election isn't one either.

Which I didn't do either.

Don't fall back into these habits please.

One in every nine Presidents is not elected to the office of President. Doesn't seem "special".

Name another country where an executive candidate can win a majority of the vote and not win the office. Because that's possible in our stupid system. In 2016, if more Liberals had voted in blue states like California or NY, it's conceivable her popular vote percentage would have been a clear majority of American voters, and she still would have lost. Yes, many parliaments result in leaders who didn't secure a majority of the vote, but that isn't the same thing.

Also, special means different from what is usual. Is it ordinary for a president to die or resign from office? I'd say...no.

 

[Danoff]

Name another country where an executive candidate can win a majority of the vote and not win the office. Because that's possible in our stupid system. In 2016, if more Liberals had voted in blue states like California or NY, it's conceivable her popular vote percentage would have been a clear majority of American voters, and she still would have lost.

You mean over 50%?

I'm not entirely sure why that matters. Plurality is sufficient to take the popular vote.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You mean over 50%?

I'm not entirely sure why that matters. Plurality is sufficient to take the popular vote.

I understand that. What I'm trying to get at is the US is the only country in the world (AFAIK) in which a clear majority of voters could vote for a presidential candidate and that candidate could still lose.

In many(?) other countries (Israel, GB, Canada) it is possible that the candidate receiving the plurality of the vote doesn't win the election. (See Gantz in Israel most recently...though that hasn't been completely decided yet). But that is almost always because there are many parties with legitimate chances to win seats and there is a substantial amount of coalition building. Neither of those things is true in the US.

Here's an interesting thought, just to take it to a logical extreme. If there where only 20 states, and one of them was California as it is now, and the other 19 only had 1 person each in them, it's possible those 19 persons could wield more electoral power than the 40 million people in California. They would have 57 votes to California's 55.