The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Danoff]

Obviously there was an almighty war between the states as a result of constitutional differences. I worry that states which perceive themselves as disenfranchised of their constitutional rights pursuant to activation of the NPV compact between some states could lead to a constitutional crisis. This might start as a lawsuit leading to the Supreme Court while, pending adjudication, any election results would be challenged, disputed or defied. Hopefully not by violence.

When you really think about it, this notion is hilarious. People want folks to be disenfranchised by the electoral college. And yet even though the electoral college can be used in the way proposed, if it is, people will consider themselves disenfranchised because it's not being used to disenfranchise others.

 

[Dotini]

When you really think about it, this notion is hilarious. People want folks to be disenfranchised by the electoral college. And yet even though the electoral college can be used in the way proposed, if it is, people will consider themselves disenfranchised because it's not being used to disenfranchise others.

Are you hereby dismissing the possibility of legal and election confusion, and possibly violence?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[Danoff]

Are you hereby dismissing the possibility of legal and election confusion, and possibly violence?

Nope. Although that stands a big risk right now regardless of any change the to EC. Trump has undermined credibility in the national election process greatly, and is sewing the seeds for confusion, and potentially violence, for more than a popular vote compact ever could. Additionally, the EC itself could result in exactly what you fear unless the popular vote compact is enacted. There is risk in all paths, and you're picking on potentially the least risky and calling it dangerous.

 

[Rallywagon]

No one is dodging anything, the truth is no matter how I answer your question your opinion will not change so really why bother and waste my time.
But for the sake of entertainment the current system does what it is capable of to give a voice to all members of society and the differences that their regions have on those lifestyles because of those differences.
A life long urbanite that lives in New York city has no clue as to what a rancher faces in Wyoming or what a farmer in rural Mississippi faces as far as issues or needs out their government just like those same people have no idea what a New York city or L.A. city dweller faces and what they consider the main needs from its government.
Population numbers alone in small highly populated geographical areas should not decide who leads this nation while not considering the voices of those in more open areas of the country.


Well again it seems that the border patrol agents who are the leading pointy end of the spear concerning the southern border disagree and think that the wall will be a useful tool for controlling sections of that border.
I do not think anyone here on this board really has the knowledge or experience of controlling the situation to override the opinions of those that this is how they make their lively hood and have studied this issue for decades.

I mean, besides the fact I have good friends in the BP that contradict your statement, there is a lotn of examples of BP being against. And, since they are human individuals, also for. But mainly against. And I have qualms about the legitimacy of the BP union backing the wall. Mainly, it seems to be more politically motivated than anything.

 

[huskeR32]

No one is dodging anything, the truth is no matter how I answer your question your opinion will not change so really why bother and waste my time.

What does it tell you that even you don't think there's any version of your position that is persuasive?

But for the sake of entertainment the current system does what it is capable of to give a voice to all members of society and the differences that their regions have on those lifestyles because of those differences.

But why should the system do what it can to help the small states? Because as you yourself point out...

A life long urbanite that lives in New York city has no clue as to what a rancher faces in Wyoming or what a farmer in rural Mississippi faces as far as issues or needs out their government just like those same people have no idea what a New York city or L.A. city dweller faces and what they consider the main needs from its government.

...the problem goes both directions. So, how do you look at that situation and conclude that we should advantage the smaller states?

I honestly can't think of any explanation other than it happens to produce results that you like. And if that's your reasoning, fine. But be upfront about it.

Population numbers alone in small highly populated geographical areas should not decide who leads this nation while not considering the voices of those in more open areas of the country.

But population numbers alone are what's deciding things. Anything other than a straight national election where everybody's vote counts equally is divided disproportionately by population. It just happens to be working in the direction you want it to.

So, again - why is it okay to divide votes in a way that favors lower population, but not okay to divide votes in a way that favors higher population?

 

[Biggles]

No one is dodging anything, the truth is no matter how I answer your question your opinion will not change so really why bother and waste my time.
But for the sake of entertainment the current system does what it is capable of to give a voice to all members of society and the differences that their regions have on those lifestyles because of those differences.
A life long urbanite that lives in New York city has no clue as to what a rancher faces in Wyoming or what a farmer in rural Mississippi faces as far as issues or needs out their government just like those same people have no idea what a New York city or L.A. city dweller faces and what they consider the main needs from its government.
Population numbers alone in small highly populated geographical areas should not decide who leads this nation while not considering the voices of those in more open areas of the country.

You'd have to explain to me how a life long urbanite living in Rhode Island should have more influence over the election of the President & the make up of the Senate than an urban voter in neighbouring Massachusetts, or for that matter, why a rural voter living in Wyoming should have more influence than a rural voter in California. In all honesty, the make up of the Senate is a bigger problem than the vagaries of the electoral college, but both are problematic. The concern about protecting the interests of rural populations is a legitimate one, but the present arrangement is patently non-equitable.

The combination of first-past-the-post PLUS the EC & the Senate is especially problematic as it effectively disenfranchises people in both predominantly Red & Blue states.. NPV is at least a step in the right direction.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

The concern about protecting the interests of rural populations is a legitimate one, but the present arrangement is patently non-equitable.

Clinton supposedly had more of the popular vote in raw numbers than Trump, but look at the election map at how few states overall Clinton won the vote in. The majority of the states actually voted in the majority for Trump, in this case the electoral college worked as envisioned.
Actually in some states even though the majority of the population that inhabits the rural geographical area that covers 85%+ of the entire state votes one way a few much smaller but densely populated urban centers carries the entire states vote not just in National elections but state elections as well.
So how are these people that inhabit the majority of the state having their voice heard? Actually they are not.
The below maps show both the National presidential results by the entire country and the top state map national election and for my home state by county.
The bottom state map is supposed to be the 2017 governors race which as you can see the election by county pretty much mirrored the national presidential results according to these maps.

 

[Danoff]

So how are these people that inhabit the majority of the state having their voice heard?

The Senate.

 

[Biggles]

Clinton supposedly had more of the popular vote in raw numbers than Trump, but look at the election map at how few states overall Clinton won the vote in. The majority of the states actually voted in the majority for Trump, in this case the electoral college worked as envisioned.
Actually in some states even though the majority of the population that inhabits the rural geographical area that covers 85%+ of the entire state votes one way a few much smaller but densely populated urban centers carries the entire states vote not just in National elections but state elections as well.
So how are these people that inhabit the majority of the state having their voice heard? Actually they are not.
The below maps show both the National presidential results by the entire country and the top state map national election and for my home state by county.
The bottom state map is supposed to be the 2017 governors race which as you can see the election by county pretty much mirrored the national presidential results according to these maps.
View attachment 892458
View attachment 892465 View attachment 892466

Yeah, we've all seen that map before - it's pretty meaningless, as it only represents square milage, not human beings. You might find an electoral map of Canada makes an interesting comparison.

Those huge swathes of orange in the centre? They're areas that voted NDP ("socialist"). The huge red area to the north? Those are areas that voted Liberal. The voting population in those areas is tiny. Kind of like areas of the US ... but more so. Overall, the Liberals or NDP won the vote in almost every urban area in Canada, but they also won the vote in the most "rural" areas in the country - the areas that have tiny population density. In the end, voting is done by people, not by square footage.

Aside from that, a first-past-the-post system further distorts the picture. Just as many people in Virginia may have voted Republican, but the map ends up showing "blue", many people in other areas of the country that show "red" on the map may have voted Democrat.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Aside from that, a first-past-the-post system further distorts the picture. Just as many people in Virginia may have voted Republican, but the map ends up showing "blue", many people in other areas of the country that show "red" on the map may have voted Democrat.

If you investigate the Virginia map closer you will also see that the areas that carried the majority Democratic vote were basically ALL the largest densely populated Urban cities within the state. Democrats basically failed to carry any other areas and even looking at the national map the states that the Democrats mostly carried were also those that are known to be high population city locations. No actual rural areas were won by the Dems.

 

[Joey D]

Democrats basically failed to carry any other areas and even looking at the national map the states that the Democrats mostly carried were also those that are known to be high population city locations. No actual rural areas were won by the Dems.

Except you know, New Mexico with a population of 2 million, Nevada with a population of 3 million (almost all in Vegas Metro), and Maine with a population of 1.3 million. All three of those states are very rural and in the case of Maine, it's downright still mostly wilderness. Nevada and New Mexico are more or less a dry and desolate wasteland...much like Utah.

 

[Biggles]

If you investigate the Virginia map closer you will also see that the areas that carried the majority Democratic vote were basically ALL the largest densely populated Urban cities within the state. Democrats basically failed to carry any other areas and even looking at the national map the states that the Democrats mostly carried were also those that are known to be high population city locations. No actual rural areas were won by the Dems.

I'm well aware of that, I've already coined the term the "Panera Principle" to describe this phenomenon. 💡

But you're misunderstanding. I'm saying that lots of people voted Democrat in areas that were "carried" by the Republicans, just as lots of people voted Republican in areas that were carried by Democrats. When it comes to the Presidency it makes sense for everyone to have a voice, not just those who represent the majority in any given county/state. If Virginia as a whole votes Democrat, your (presumably) Republican vote carries no weight at all.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

❤People waiting to get into the Trump rally in Phoenix today.❤


Waiting for images of "German people" waiting outside for Hitler rally so I can bitch some more.

The only Democrat that could come close to drawing this kind of crowd is Bernie Sanders. The DNC is working hard to prevent him from getting the nomination.

The DNC has already changed the debate rule that required large numbers of individual campaign donors in order to allow Bloomberg (who has already spent over a third of a billion dollars on TV and digital ads) into the debates.

The Democrats are going to have a tough time come November. If socialist Sanders wins the nomination, Trump wins in a landslide. If the DNC steals it from Bernie again, god only knows what the Bernie Bros will do. I doubt many of them will vote for Bloomberg.

 

[mustafur]

Lol, Based on what data says Trump will win in a landslide if Sanders wins the nomination?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Lol, Based on what data says Trump will win in a landslide if Sanders wins the nomination?

lol, You don't live here. Americans are not going to vote for a socialist.

 

[mustafur]

lol, You don't live here. Americans are not going to vote for a socialist.

He advocates Social Democracy but go on.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

He advocates Social Democracy but go on.

Just my opinion, we'll have to wait until November.

 

[McLaren]

❤People waiting to get into the Trump rally in Phoenix today.❤


Waiting for images of "German people" waiting outside for Hitler rally so I can bitch some more.

The only Democrat that could come close to drawing this kind of crowd is Bernie Sanders. The DNC is working hard to prevent him from getting the nomination.

The DNC has already changed the debate rule that required large numbers of individual campaign donors in order to allow Bloomberg (who has already spent over a third of a billion dollars on TV and digital ads) into the debates.

The Democrats are going to have a tough time come November. If socialist Sanders wins the nomination, Trump wins in a landslide. If the DNC steals it from Bernie again, god only knows what the Bernie Bros will do. I doubt many of them will vote for Bloomberg.

Sanders is the only candidate that can draw a crowd similar to Trump, yet Sanders will also get crushed in a landslide if he wins the nomination?

 

[baldgye]

lol, You don't live here. Americans are not going to vote for a socialist.

lol, good thing there isn't a socialist running for presidency

 

[Imari]

lol, You don't live here. Americans are not going to vote for a socialist.

That'll be why he has no supporters then, hm?

Clearly at least some Americans are eager to vote for the "socialist". Whether that proportion is high enough in the right places to result in winning the presidency is another question.

Traditionally, the US has been at the forefront of moral panic surrounding the Red Threat and so your generalisation would have been broadly correct. Hell, America has started several wars over it. But it's quite possible that in 2020 a more nuanced view of what Social Democracy actually entails combined with the growing distaste that a decent proportion of Americans seem to have towards authoritarianism and the wealthy make that no longer such a sure thing.

Sanders is unlikely to be the favourite against Trump (almost no one is ever going to be a favourite against a sitting president), but he's not some rank outsider with no support at all either. And lest we forget, Trump was hardly favoured to win in 2016 either, so it's probably worth not getting too high on your own hubris.

 

[Daniel]

lol, You don't live here. Americans are not going to vote for a socialist.

Looks like you're right. America's never voted for a president who's been called a socialist.

 

[Rallywagon]

If socialist Sanders wins the nomination, Trump wins in a landslide.

Americans are not going to vote for a socialist.

The only Democrat that could come close to drawing this kind of crowd is Bernie Sanders.

Soooooo, you're opinion is that Sanders can pull a crowd to match Trump, but will not only lose really bad to Trump, but no American supports him? Have you walked this logic out ?
I mean. I know you dont like polls and statistics, at least when they don't show what you want, but interestingly, voting in America and polling have a lot of similarities. And if the polls real clear politics have been gathering are an indicator, you're probably not wrong about the landslide, you just have the wrong mountain.

 

[Dotini]

From the debate* last night between the contenders, now including Bloomberg, the picture becomes increasingly muddled. Even so, Sanders seems to retain an advantage.

--------------

* Here described as the greatest debate in human history(!)
https://nypost.com/2020/02/19/nevada-democratic-debate-was-the-greatest-debate-in-human-history/

 

[VFOURMAX1]

From the debate* last night between the contenders, now including Bloomberg, the picture becomes increasingly muddled. Even so, Sanders seems to retain an advantage.

I watched the clown and comedy show that was was being passed off as the Democratic Debate last night and I have not seen as much backstabbing or internal inter fighting in one spot unless you were considering some groups of Jr high school girls.

I will say if what was displayed on that stage last night was the best possible candidates the Democratic party can muster to be the possible nominee to run for the office of the President of the United States then stick a fork in them, call them done and count on 4 more years in the oval office for President Trump.
Also it is bizarre the policies that each of the Democrats are suggesting putting forth as their plan for this and that without ever saying how it could realistically be accomplished and even worse how it could possibly be paid for. Warren was the worse that on every different issue she has a plan for that that only cost 750 billion dollars or more that she will institute on day one. Add up all her 750+ billion individual plans price tags and tell me where that money is coming from in addition to what this nation already spends in its budget!
The whole Democratic fiasco has to be one of the biggest overall jokes in this nations political history.

Also flipping through the different news broadcast this morning and the "experts" were ask who won last nights Democratic debate the most common answer was Donald Trump! Seems the democrats are Trumps best reelection strategist and campaign managers. lol!

 

[Rallywagon]

I watched the clown and comedy show that was was being passed off as the Democratic Debate last night and I have not seen as much backstabbing or internal inter fighting in one spot unless you were considering some groups of Jr high school girls.

I will say if what was displayed on that stage last night was the best possible candidates the Democratic party can muster to be the possible nominee to run for the office of the President of the United States then stick a fork in them, call them done and count on 4 more years in the oval office for President Trump.
Also it is bizarre the policies that each of the Democrats are suggesting putting forth as there plan for this and that without ever saying how it could realistically be accomplished and even worse how it could possibly be paid for. Warren was the worse that on every different issue she has a plan for that that only cost 750 billion dollars or more that she will institute on day one. Add up all her 750+ billion individual plans price tags and tell me where that money is coming from in addition to what this nation already spends in its budget!
The whole Democratic fiasco has to be one of the biggest overall jokes in this nations political history.

Also flipping through the different news broadcast this morning and the "experts" were ask who won last nights Democratic debate the most common answer was Donald Trump! Seems the democrats are Trumps best reelection strategist and campaign managers. lol!

Man, I mean, I have some serious short term memory issues, but damn, I definitely didnt forget any of the debates Trump took part in like you must have. He was far more catty in those debates than any of the Dems were last night. He couldn't make an educated point in any debate, and simply resorted to name calling and "lock her up" bs. But yeah, those damn dems...
Really the debate last night was just business as usual. It's not exactly like those on stage aren't competing against each other or anything. And it's not exactly like any debate for was conducted cordially and with great amount of respect and manners. Hospitality I dont think has ever been a part of political debates.

 

[mustafur]

Party Nomination process is the best thing about the election(The biggest reason why it's way more interesting then any other countries election too), to say it makes the Democrats look bad is stupid though, Republicans in 2016 were bad, especially with Trump just calling people names, denying facts and just living in his alternate reality.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

That'll be why he has no supporters then, hm?

Soooooo, you're opinion is that Sanders can pull a crowd to match Trump, but will not only lose really bad to Trump,

Sanders can pull ample support to fraction off the Democratic party but cannot garner enough support from the other Democratic voters who do not support him or the on the fence independent voters to defeat the entire GOP voter base.

 

[Rallywagon]

I got a feeling we will be putting that notion to the test.

 

[baldgye]

I will say if what was displayed on that stage last night was the best possible candidates the Democratic party can muster to be the possible nominee to run for the office of the President of the United States then stick a fork in them, call them done and count on 4 more years in the oval office for President Trump.

Four more years for a man who; openly talked about sexually assaulting women, making openly racist comments about a judge, championed falsehoods, banned countries based on ???, talks to a foreign leader who's nation meddled with his own election... without aides, refuses to release his tax information and claims that White Supremacists are fine people too...

I'm not sure what debate you watched last night but it must have been one hellova show to come close to even a handful of the insane and dangerous **** Trump has done... as President.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Republicans in 2016 were bad, especially with Trump just calling people names, denying facts and just living in his alternate reality.

With that statement I guess you are just saying that as bad as Trump is in 2016 the Democrats managed to put up an even worse candidate in 2016 since Trump is in the oval office and Hillary is sitting at home still bitter about her defeat.