The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

GTPlanet Exit Poll - Which Presidential Ticket Did You Vote For?

  • Trump/Pence

    Votes: 16 27.1%
  • Biden/Harris

    Votes: 20 33.9%
  • Jorgensen/Cohen

    Votes: 7 11.9%
  • Hawkins/Walker

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • La Riva/Freeman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • De La Fuente/Richardson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Blankenship/Mohr

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Carroll/Patel

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Simmons/Roze

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Charles/Wallace

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 15 25.4%

  • Total voters
    59
  • Poll closed .
It maintains the purpose of the Presidency - a representative of the 50 states to defend the glue that binds them.

The President is not a representative of the people, but of the legal construct of "the United States" - the effective agreement of 50 different cultures and territories to cooperate for mutual benefit while retaining their own identities.

As such, the President should be elected by the states, not the people, but directed by the people of each state (because that's what the states are).

Turning it into a single, Stateswide popular vote ignores why and how the USA exists. I agree my method brings the result closer to the outcome of the popular vote, but it maintains the principle.

I don't think that the President represents the states anymore. The civil war didn't just undermine the point of the EC (by freeing everyone who had 3/5ths population weight), but it also drastically undermined the notion of the US as a loose collective states rather than a unified nation.

The EC was originally designed as a popular vote proxy. The proxy was necessary because the popular vote of people allowed to vote didn't have enough weight according to states with lopsided populations of people who weren't allowed to vote. Thus, the proxy was born. We have no need of that proxy now.

Edit:

To be totally fair, the EC also overweights states with tiny populations by flooring the number of electors at 3. But I maintain that we also do not need that, since the senate has it more than covered.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that the President represents the states anymore. The civil war didn't just undermine the point of the EC (by freeing everyone who had 3/5ths population weight), but it also drastically undermined the notion of the US as a loose collective states rather than a unified nation.

The EC was originally designed as a popular vote proxy. The proxy was necessary because the popular vote of people allowed to vote didn't have enough weight according to states with lopsided populations of people who weren't allowed to vote. Thus, the proxy was born. We have no need of that proxy now.

Can you imagine the mudslinging and punditry that would have occurred surrounding the 3/5ths compromise if Twitter and 24hr cable news had existed in the 18th century? Yikes.

The 3/5ths compromise itself is probably one of the most heinous things the US has ever implemented. The more you think about it...the worse it is.
 
Last edited:
The idea that the United States is a collection - federation - of autonomous states or "countries" - may have made some sense in 1776. The 13 original colonies had fairly distinct origins, economies & religious leanings at that time. In the present day, the idea that, for example, Rhode Island is significantly different from Massachusetts, or Wyoming from Montana makes little sense. Continuing to give Rhode Island or Wyoming the same representation in the US Senate as California or Texas is extremely irrational & anti-democratic. There's no way on earth a new constitution would countenance an arrangement like that.

So, the smaller population states have a wildly disproportionate influence on the political process through their representation in the Senate ... but they also have disproportionate influence on the Judicial branch through the Senate's ability to block or approve candidates nominated by the President.

Finally, the amending formula also gives the smaller population states the ability to block any changes to the basic structure of government, through the requirement for a 2/3rds majority vote in the Senate & then ratification by 3/4 of the states. Good luck persuading Rhode Island or Wyoming, North Dakota or Vermont to relinquish their historically entrenched political power in the interests of "democracy".

The basic structure of the US political system may be rationally conceived, but its practical implementation is extremely idiosyncratic & illogical.
 
The idea that the United States is a collection - federation - of autonomous states or "countries" - may have made some sense in 1776. The 13 original colonies had fairly distinct origins, economies & religious leanings at that time. In the present day, the idea that, for example, Rhode Island is significantly different from Massachusetts, or Wyoming from Montana makes little sense. Continuing to give Rhode Island or Wyoming the same representation in the US Senate as California or Texas is extremely irrational & anti-democratic. There's no way on earth a new constitution would countenance an arrangement like that.

So, the smaller population states have a wildly disproportionate influence on the political process through their representation in the Senate ... but they also have disproportionate influence on the Judicial branch through the Senate's ability to block or approve candidates nominated by the President.

Finally, the amending formula also gives the smaller population states the ability to block any changes to the basic structure of government, through the requirement for a 2/3rds majority vote in the Senate & then ratification by 3/4 of the states. Good luck persuading Rhode Island or Wyoming, North Dakota or Vermont to relinquish their historically entrenched political power in the interests of "democracy".

The basic structure of the US political system may be rationally conceived, but its practical implementation is extremely idiosyncratic & illogical.

My own take on it quite similar to this actually. Even if we went to straight popular vote for the Presidency, the smaller states would still have what I personally would consider to be far too much weight in congress. The Senate has a huge amount of power when it comes to shaping legislation, and in that Senate, Wyoming and Montana have the same number of votes as Texas and California. I'm not trying to fix the Senate though, just pointing out that we don't need to pile on with the Presidency.
 
My own take on it quite similar to this actually. Even if we went to straight popular vote for the Presidency, the smaller states would still have what I personally would consider to be far too much weight in congress. The Senate has a huge amount of power when it comes to shaping legislation, and in that Senate, Wyoming and Montana have the same number of votes as Texas and California. I'm not trying to fix the Senate though, just pointing out that we don't need to pile on with the Presidency.

The US is a special case in many ways - it's a vast country in terms of territory, population & economy that had its constitutional structure created when it was in its infancy. There is no comparable country.

The answer to protecting states' rights would seem to be through the states having a significant degree of autonomy within the federal system rather than giving citizens of the smaller states undemocratic power over the country as a whole. Hard to have a coherent national identity under those conditions though ... & sucks if you're a progressive living in Montana or a conservative living in Maryland.
 
The idea that the United States is a collection - federation - of autonomous states or "countries" - may have made some sense in 1776. The 13 original colonies had fairly distinct origins, economies & religious leanings at that time. In the present day, the idea that, for example, Rhode Island is significantly different from Massachusetts, or Wyoming from Montana makes little sense.

True enough as far as that goes, but arguing that Rhode Island is not significantly different from Montana, or Wyoming from Massachusetts, makes just as little sense.
 
True enough as far as that goes, but arguing that Rhode Island is not significantly different from Montana, or Wyoming from Massachusetts, makes just as little sense.

But I'm not arguing that. Wyoming should have the ability to regulate its internal policy, but should it have the ability to influence national policy in a massively disproportionate manner? It's undoubtedly a tricky balance.
 
Since this thread likes hypotheticals so much, the same could've been said about California in 1850 as compared to say, Massachusetts.
 
But I'm not arguing that. Wyoming should have the ability to regulate its internal policy, but should it have the ability to influence national policy in a massively disproportionate manner? It's undoubtedly a tricky balance.

Massachusetts, however, has 2 1/2 times the population of the other three states combined (and itself ranks only 15th). Why should Massachusetts have 2 1/2 times the influence on regulation of, say, the logging industry?

States are increasingly losing the ability to regulate internal policy to federal diktat.

I agree completely, though, it's undoubtedly a tricky balance.
 
Massachusetts, however, has 2 1/2 times the population of the other three states combined (and itself ranks only 15th). Why should Massachusetts have 2 1/2 times the influence on regulation of, say, the logging industry?

States are increasingly losing the ability to regulate internal policy to federal diktat.

I agree completely, though, it's undoubtedly a tricky balance.

It isnt exclusive to a country with "states". There are protest in the Netherlands by (mostly) farmers from the rural provinces concerning the nitrogen emissions regulations.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...oads-netherlands-protest-191016092802990.html

But I still think it would be crazy to give the rural areas more weight to their votes (electoral college) because these provinces are less populous. Politics is compromise, there will always be a dissatisfied minority, whatever decision made.
 
Trump rally in Dallas tonight. He gave a great speech.

Which Democrat candidate could pull a crowd like this?

"The radical left tolerates no dissent, it permits no opposition, it accepts no compromise, and it has absolutely no respect for the will of the American People. They are coming after me, because I am fighting for YOU!" ~ Donald J. Trump

EHIGQ4hWsAc5qFt


 
Last edited:
Trump rally in Dallas tonight. He gave a great speech.

Which Democrat candidate could pull a crowd like this?

"The radical left tolerates no dissent, it permits no opposition, it accepts no compromise, and it has absolutely no respect for the will of the American People. They are coming after me, because I am fighting for YOU!" ~ Donald J. Trump

EHIGQ4hWsAc5qFt




Trump had a pretty poor showing in Texas in 2016, relatively speaking. I doubt Tarrant county will vote for him again. If the Democrats elect a moderate like Buttigieg or Biden (Maybe even Andrew Yang) I could see Texas flipping blue. That Hillary Clinton got nearly 45% of the vote is quite remarkable. The congressional races are another story, and I imagine Texas will remain decisively red in congress. But I don't think those north Texas suburbs are particularly fond of him. I don't know Houston as well, but I can't imagine he would do great there either. The urban centers of Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso are reliably Democrat already. Fort Worth will probably go democrat in 2020 regardless of the nominee, it was the only major metro not to in 2016. Time's are a changin'.
 
Beto O'rourke rally in Dallas area tonight. mmm

I watched this whole thing, you should too.

Not the whole thing, I set the video to start at Beto's intro.

 
Trump had a pretty poor showing in Texas in 2016, relatively speaking. I doubt Tarrant county will vote for him again. If the Democrats elect a moderate like Buttigieg or Biden (Maybe even Andrew Yang) I could see Texas flipping blue. That Hillary Clinton got nearly 45% of the vote is quite remarkable. The congressional races are another story, and I imagine Texas will remain decisively red in congress. But I don't think those north Texas suburbs are particularly fond of him. I don't know Houston as well, but I can't imagine he would do great there either. The urban centers of Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso are reliably Democrat already. Fort Worth will probably go democrat in 2020 regardless of the nominee, it was the only major metro not to in 2016. Time's are a changin'.
Ok.
 
Trump rally in Dallas tonight. He gave a great speech.

Which Democrat candidate could pull a crowd like this?

"The radical left tolerates no dissent, it permits no opposition, it accepts no compromise, and it has absolutely no respect for the will of the American People. They are coming after me, because I am fighting for YOU!" ~ Donald J. Trump

EHIGQ4hWsAc5qFt

Perhaps they just wanted to get a last look at him before he's impeached. :D Not much time left now.

I'm really not looking for a rock star (or past prime reality TV star) to be the leader of my country. I've never quite understood the appeal of such rallies. Trump obviously has; his whole m.o. has been to feed into the anger and frustrating that people, particularly of a certain age and demographic feel and channel it into support for himself. As a registered independent, and as a business owner, traditional Republican ideals should appeal to me more (lower taxation, less regulation, etc). But Trump is hardly a traditional republican and along with those traditional concepts came the grotesque caricature of what the party has morphed into under his leadership and it's barely recognizable to me. I was never fully in either red or blue camp but at this point, I can't see myself voting GOP on anything.

I don't think Obama gave enough credit to entrepreneurs and business owners. Often times it felt like there was a theme coming from his administration that business owners are just out to screw their employees, and this coming from a man who never really had a real private sector job in his life. But overall, I thought he was a great president who did much to move this country forward under very trying circumstances (an economy in free fall, a GOP opposition that stonewalled rather than compromised). And as time has gone by, I find myself, growing counter to the normal way of starting out very liberal and slowly aging to a more conservative ideology later in life, and I find, at least on most social issues, that I'm becoming more liberal and progressive and slowly turning more blue. Although to be clear, Obama himself was more a centrist.

I can see that many people felt lost and disenfranchised with the way things were going in 2015. I personally didn't but I can understand how many did. I didn't vote for Trump and I never would have voted for Trump because as a native New Yorker, like most people from the tri-state area, we knew he was a lying, two faced opportunist at best, and a hard core white color criminal and borderline senile at worst. I personally know two people who had business dealings with him back in the 90s and 2000s and both were really screwed. These weren't just newspaper stories but first hand accounts. But what I find incredulous, years later, is that this privileged, rich, New York billionaire, has managed to con so many salt of the earth folk into REALLY believing that he's fighting the good fight for them, and not just for his own ego and for lining his own pockets. To me, what I see in that picture, is the biggest con job he ever pulled.

I look at the picture above and I can't help but think, wow, so many sad and gullible people. Maybe they believed him in 2015. But now? Today? After everything that he's done. It's like tribal warfare. The line has been drawn. They've picked a side and right or wrong, they're sticking with him. These are people not just disenfranchised from life or prosperity but from reality itself. Rallies like this scare me. They truly do. It's not just here in the US but you see again in Europe (France, Germany, Poland, etc) and Asia (Philippines, Turkey, etc), there is a resurgence of nationalism. A frightening return to the kind of ignorance and scape goating that led us to so much conflict in the first half of the 20th century.

I personally don't think Trump will make it to the 2020 election. But I think he will continue to be a disruptive presence long after he resigns or is removed from office. He has indeed become a rock star. But whoever wants him can have him.
 
Perhaps they just wanted to get a last look at him before he's impeached. :D Not much time left now.

I'm really not looking for a rock star (or past prime reality TV star) to be the leader of my country. I've never quite understood the appeal of such rallies. Trump obviously has; his whole m.o. has been to feed into the anger and frustrating that people, particularly of a certain age and demographic feel and channel it into support for himself. As a registered independent, and as a business owner, traditional Republican ideals should appeal to me more (lower taxation, less regulation, etc). But Trump is hardly a traditional republican and along with those traditional concepts came the grotesque caricature of what the party has morphed into under his leadership and it's barely recognizable to me. I was never fully in either red or blue camp but at this point, I can't see myself voting GOP on anything.

I don't think Obama gave enough credit to entrepreneurs and business owners. Often times it felt like there was a theme coming from his administration that business owners are just out to screw their employees, and this coming from a man who never really had a real private sector job in his life. But overall, I thought he was a great president who did much to move this country forward under very trying circumstances (an economy in free fall, a GOP opposition that stonewalled rather than compromised). And as time has gone by, I find myself, growing counter to the normal way of starting out very liberal and slowly aging to a more conservative ideology later in life, and I find, at least on most social issues, that I'm becoming more liberal and progressive and slowly turning more blue. Although to be clear, Obama himself was more a centrist.

I can see that many people felt lost and disenfranchised with the way things were going in 2015. I personally didn't but I can understand how many did. I didn't vote for Trump and I never would have voted for Trump because as a native New Yorker, like most people from the tri-state area, we knew he was a lying, two faced opportunist at best, and a hard core white color criminal and borderline senile at worst. I personally know two people who had business dealings with him back in the 90s and 2000s and both were really screwed. These weren't just newspaper stories but first hand accounts. But what I find incredulous, years later, is that this privileged, rich, New York billionaire, has managed to con so many salt of the earth folk into REALLY believing that he's fighting the good fight for them, and not just for his own ego and for lining his own pockets. To me, what I see in that picture, is the biggest con job he ever pulled.

I look at the picture above and I can't help but think, wow, so many sad and gullible people. Maybe they believed him in 2015. But now? Today? After everything that he's done. It's like tribal warfare. The line has been drawn. They've picked a side and right or wrong, they're sticking with him. These are people not just disenfranchised from life or prosperity but from reality itself. Rallies like this scare me. They truly do. It's not just here in the US but you see again in Europe (France, Germany, Poland, etc) and Asia (Philippines, Turkey, etc), there is a resurgence of nationalism. A frightening return to the kind of ignorance and scape goating that led us to so much conflict in the first half of the 20th century.

I personally don't think Trump will make it to the 2020 election. But I think he will continue to be a disruptive presence long after he resigns or is removed from office. He has indeed become a rock star. But whoever wants him can have him.

Well said. I was always a little skeptical of Obama (hard not to be growing up in semi-rural Texas) but looking back...what a great President he was. Even before he was president I always saw Donald Trump as a sort of only-in-America construct - not a real person, but a character in our reality TV world. I've never understood how people could perceive him as a genuine businessman...its baffling. How can people so much faith in one person....not even the ideas of that person, but the person himself. DT may have created the largest cult there's ever been.
 
Well, this exciting news - if true - is sure to liven up the race if not the debates, since Tulsi doesn't have the poll percentages to proceed any further into the debates. I notice Hillary also called out Jill Stein as a secret Russian agent. Paranoia? Dementia?
 
Well, this exciting news - if true - is sure to liven up the race if not the debates, since Tulsi doesn't have the poll percentages to proceed any further into the debates. I notice Hillary also called out Jill Stein as a secret Russian agent. Paranoia? Dementia?

Hillary is not a big fan of people contesting the pre-selected nominee.
 
Hillary is claiming Tulsi is a Russian plant to steal votes in a 3rd party bid.

A "plant", a "Russian agent"? Is Clinton actually saying this ... or just saying that the Russians are promoting Gabbard through social media to create confusion & doubt in the US election process & advance their own interests?
 
A "plant", a "Russian agent"? Is Clinton actually saying this ... or just saying that the Russians are promoting Gabbard through social media to create confusion & doubt in the US election process & advance their own interests?
Directly from the source Danoff posted:
They are also going to do third party again," Clinton, 71, said. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.

"She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.


"They know they can't win without a third-party candidate, and so I do not know who it's going to be, but I can guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it."
 
A "plant", a "Russian agent"? Is Clinton actually saying this ... or just saying that the Russians are promoting Gabbard through social media to create confusion & doubt in the US election process & advance their own interests?

I guess she literally called her a "Russian asset" as well as Stein. But it kinda depends on what you consider to be an agent, asset, or plant. She claims that Tulsi is being "groomed", I don't know to what extent she means. If all she means is that they're going to try to support her, "groomed" and "asset" seem like odd choices. I think mostly this is Hillary supporting a democratic party that condemns and attacks individuals that leave the fold. This is Trump's playbook at work on the left. Ensure that your people are loyal by absolutely demolishing anyone who defects.

Edit:

In this case, she's getting out ahead of it. The message is clear "don't even try to run independently or we will Bernie Sanders you so fast your head will spin".
 
As far as I can tell, Tulsi is 100% in line with all Democrats Party policies and tactics, except for two: She does not support wars of choice or regime change, and she does maintain cordial speaking relations with some house members on the other side of the aisle.

If Russians are trying to exploit her as a wedge into the 2020 campaign, IMO these would be the reasons why.
 
The Hillary thing is especially fun because of how it will be perceived.

On the republican side, they don't think Russia has ever done anything wrong to begin with. To them, the Mueller report was "total exoneration" of Trump, and they completely disregard (or conveniently forgot) the part where there was detailed Russian involvement to sway 2016 election. So if you think that Russia has always been a hoax, then the Hillary Russia claim looks like going back to the same well of lies to pull a Bern on any disruptive elements within the party. It looks as slimy as it gets, and only further proves that Trump is in the clear. Keep in mind, you have to ignore extremely important facts to get there (ie: past Russian involvement in US elections).

On the democrat side, they know that Russia absolutely would try this kind of thing, and so this is to be completely expected. Not only does it solidify the need to stay loyal in the democratic party, but it further demonstrates Trump's guilt and the perceived wrongs against Hillary herself.

I'm, naturally, in the middle. What she says is plausible, but also she's the very last person to be believed on this particular subject. If we were picking a spokesperson for this message, Hillary would be at the bottom of the list.
 
Provided Hillary is correct (I have no opinion, at the moment) Tulsi's candidacy is only a threat because our system is incredibly vulnerable to exploitation. How is it that our elections cannot tolerate a viable third party without the entire system being jeopardized and launching us into the mendacious rule? That's not Russia's fault...that's ours.

Universal Ranked Choice and @Famine ™ proportional delegate assignment. We need it now.
 
Directly from the source Danoff posted:

She doesn't use the term "plant" or "Russia agent". "Asset" could mean anything, including being used without her knowledge or consent.

As far as I can tell, Tulsi is 100% in line with all Democrats Party policies and tactics, except for two: She does not support wars of choice or regime change ...

That's one way of putting it. Or, she is actively promoting the US disengaging from Syria, leaving the Russians a free hand to pursue their own agenda there.
 
Back