2020 Election is today, next year - PREDICT WHO WINS AND COME BACK

[Fugus]

The election really is Trump vs Not-Trump though. That's exactly how it's being framed. And I really don't think that saying that the cuts are the easiest way to pay for a Republican tax cut is going to hurt him, not when he can point to his platform and show that this isn't his core belief.

Regardless of what he claims his core belief is, that is recent and it is him and his words. It WILL be plastered wall to wall to kill his support.

And if it comes to Trump vs Not-Trump, many voters will rather stay home. Most people aren't as engaged as the people here and won't bother to do near the research. Biden blew his chances with that one.

[jellmoo]

Regardless of what he claims his core belief is, that is recent and it is him and his words. It WILL be plastered wall to wall to kill his support.

And if it comes to Trump vs Not-Trump, many voters will rather stay home. Most people aren't as engaged as the people here and won't bother to do near the research. Biden blew his chances with that one.

I honestly don't think so. The republicans will be reluctant to play something that seemingly supports their tax cut. It would be a weird narrative for them to push. I think Trump would likely stick to attacking the ACA and border security as his main talking points.

Engagement is always the issue Democrats have. High voter turnout usually means Dems win. Low voter turnout usually means they lose. A lot will depend on how well the Dems play their anti-Trump rhetoric, and if their candidate appeals to swing voters.

[Fugus]

I honestly don't think so. The republicans will be reluctant to play something that seemingly supports their tax cut. It would be a weird narrative for them to push. I think Trump would likely stick to attacking the ACA and border security as his main talking points.

Engagement is always the issue Democrats have. High voter turnout usually means Dems win. Low voter turnout usually means they lose. A lot will depend on how well the Dems play their anti-Trump rhetoric, and if their candidate appeals to swing voters.

No, they will lie their butts off. Remember Trump has already lied to his base saying he was trying to protect Social Security and Medicare. This would play directly into that lie.

The Republicans would be stupid NOT to air this. The main ones that would support cutting this stuff are their voters to begin with and the main ones it would run off is basically everyone as those are pretty much sacred cows across the isle when it comes to popular opinion. That is why the Republicans want to use the words "Reform" instead of cut.

You are correct in that high voter turnout usually means the Dems win. This cuts that turnout and lowers their chances of winning.

If you want candidates that get a turnout, you got Sanders and Warrren who both motivate voters who typically stay out. They have issues, but they are still more electable than Biden at this point.

[Dacien]

True, but those aren't Trump winning the election. That is Trump cheating or trying to abuse tricks to avoid an election. Not really the same thing.

Clever use of election mechanics.

[Ghostpanther]

Oh I absolutely agree, Indiana is unlikely, but I do think it's possible. Ohio is going to be very hard as well, though I do think it could be flippable as Obama did pretty well there. But, I think we may be in the utterly unique position of Ohio not picking the winner for once.

If Trump holds Florida (I think he likely will) and keeps Michigan and Pennsylvania, then the path to victory for the Democrats becomes ridiculously narrow. Losing Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin would put Trump at exactly 270. This, to me, is a worst case scenario for all as we then run the risk of a faithless elector being what decides the election, and the crisis this would cause would be massive.

It would be a constitutional election result. Those who would react to it as a crisis, would be creating one for themselves. As much as I disapprove of the far left Democrat candidates, if one gets elected constitutionally, then so be it. They would be my president.

But I do agree with your assessment on the election and states mentioned. He has to ether win Penn or Michigan or flip another state like Minn and Nevada. Ether scenario is possible even if it is unlikely he will flip those two. One thing is certain when it comes to politics and elections. History is full of examples of surprises.

[jellmoo]

It would be a constitutional election result. Those who would react to it as a crisis, would be creating one for themselves. As much as I disapprove of the far left Democrat candidates, if one gets elected constitutionally, then so be it. They would be my president.

I mean, that's a great approach to have, but I have a strong feeling that it would certainly not be a universal one. If a candidate were denied the presidency because of a faithless elector, it would create a constitutional crisis at best, and possibly a recipe for violence where different states/regions would recognize a different president.

But I do agree with your assessment on the election and states mentioned. He has to ether win Penn or Michigan or flip another state like Minn and Nevada. Ether scenario is possible even if it is unlikely he will flip those two. One thing is certain when it comes to politics and elections. History is full of examples of surprises.

Pretty much what I think. The Dems are absolutely going to try and hammer Pennsylvania and Michigan to get them back. They may make a play for Florida, and historically they almost have to try for Ohio, but I actually think it would be a mistake this time around. Trump is actually playing it smart electorally by bringing troops home though. No big ongoing wars and a strong economy are usually good indicators that a President will be reelected. If he can keep his head down and minimize the explosive rhetoric, solidify a trade deal with China and actually get USMCA through, the Dems are going to have to fight hard to flip those states back.

[Blur4stuff]

Yes, the EC is part of the constitution. However, to have one party continually winning with it despite more voters going for the other candidate is to bound to have negative effects. The will of the people is constantly being thwarted in favor of the losing party.

It's not just the EC and the office of the president. This has been happening at every level. Neither the Senate, House, or even SC accurately reflect the will of voters.

[Ghostpanther]

Yes, the EC is part of the constitution. However, to have one party continually winning with it despite more voters going for the other candidate is to bound to have negative effects. The will of the people is constantly being thwarted in favor of the losing party.

It's not just the EC and the office of the president. This has been happening at every level. Neither the Senate, House, or even SC accurately reflect the will of voters.

The US is not a democratic nation, but a Republic, made up of Democratic States. The will of the people within each state is being represented. Or change the Constitution if you can get enough states to go along with it. That also would be constitutional. But if we do, we will no longer be the nation the founders designed for us to be.

[Skroe]

And if it comes to Trump vs Not-Trump, many voters will rather stay home. Most people aren't as engaged as the people here and won't bother to do near the research. Biden blew his chances with that one.

Given voting patterns in the last two elections (2018 and 2019), that is emphatically not true. We're seeing record voting numbers and people voting straight democratic regardless of candidate, to rebuke Trump and his party at every turn.

There is zero evidence that the candidate matters this term. I mean, I think you would *like* it to matter because for you and some on the progressive side of things, this is a policy election. But you wanting that, and that being the reality of the situation, are two different things.

Fact is, Trump is so dominant of our political discourse, that even the best Progressive Candidate with the best plan will be utterly swamped in the Trump vs Not-Trump dynamic.

In 2020, ideas do not matter, the end.

[rogueMatthias]

Given voting patterns in the last two elections (2018 and 2019), that is emphatically not true. We're seeing record voting numbers and people voting straight democratic regardless of candidate, to rebuke Trump and his party at every turn.

There is zero evidence that the candidate matters this term. I mean, I think you would *like* it to matter because for you and some on the progressive side of things, this is a policy election. But you wanting that, and that being the reality of the situation, are two different things.

Fact is, Trump is so dominant of our political discourse, that even the best Progressive Candidate with the best plan will be utterly swamped in the Trump vs Not-Trump dynamic.

In 2020, ideas do not matter, the end.

No, that's just fantasy. In the UK many people always voted "ANYONE but the Tories". And then Corbyn came along and took over the oposition and fucked that up quickly.

These "Anyone but.." votes only work when the opposition is very moderate. No matter how united people seem against one hated party/figure, if they think the opposition might hurt themselves economically they're not going to vote.

Same goes in the US. If "Anyone but Trump.." people think the final Democratic candidate will hurt them financially or in other ways (enough people seem to think Bernie is a commie for instance), or if they just think they're crooks too then they're just not going to turn up and vote.

[Blur4stuff]

The US is not a democratic nation, but a Republic, made up of Democratic States. The will of the people within each state is being represented. Or change the Constitution if you can get enough states to go along with it. That also would be constitutional. But if we do, we will no longer be the nation the founders designed for us to be.

It's a broken system that doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people. I don't expect us to lose 2 senators per state or the EC. The house problem can be fixed with legislation. What I do expect for dems to gain more senators from DC and PR eventually.

As for the EC, it's a ticking clock for republicans. The response you give here is one that many republicans like to give. It's been posted who knows how many thousands of times, "The US is a republic". When Texas/Florida eventually turn reliably blue I'm betting that this phrase will never again be uttered by a republican. I fully expect their opinions to immediately change.

Once the EC becomes impossible for republicans to win, I will still want it gone. Maybe we can get rid of it then, although I'll admit dems in power may suddenly want to keep it.

As for the founding fathers, well first of all there were plenty that didn't even like things like the EC. But in any case, the number of states and population wasn't like it is today. At the time states like Virginia did have big populations compared to some of the smaller ones, but the difference today is enormous. Also, we now have a lot more low population states each getting 2 senators. It's completely ridiculous. Small numbers of people are getting huge amounts of power.

Yes, it's the system we have. No, it isn't a great system or even a good one.

Here's a real simple question. If you were trying to convince a citizen in a country without democracy that they should support some version of democracy for their own country, would you use the US system as an example? I sure as hell wouldn't. The second you tell them that people with the most votes can lose they'll laugh in your face. This applies to the senate as well as the presidency.

[Dadwen]

I still want the person I suggested writing in 2016... Alfred E. Neuman...

[cubby]

The US is not a democratic nation, but a Republic, made up of Democratic States. The will of the people within each state is being represented. Or change the Constitution if you can get enough states to go along with it. That also would be constitutional. But if we do, we will no longer be the nation the founders designed for us to be.

That's not correct at all. You're guessing on that last line. The EC is a backwards form of choosing a leader. There is no logical reason to continue using it, except, it gets the GOP into the White House (they haven't won a popular election since '92).

The founders didn't "design" us to be a country where one persons vote is worth more than another.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

I still want the person I suggested writing in 2016... Alfred E. Neuman...

I know this is a joke but... Who??

[Dadwen]

I know this is a joke but... Who??

2016 thread lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman

[Ghostpanther]

It's a broken system that doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people. I don't expect us to lose 2 senators per state or the EC. The house problem can be fixed with legislation. What I do expect for dems to gain more senators from DC and PR eventually.

As for the EC, it's a ticking clock for republicans. The response you give here is one that many republicans like to give. It's been posted who knows how many thousands of times, "The US is a republic". When Texas/Florida eventually turn reliably blue I'm betting that this phrase will never again be uttered by a republican. I fully expect their opinions to immediately change.

Once the EC becomes impossible for republicans to win, I will still want it gone. Maybe we can get rid of it then, although I'll admit dems in power may suddenly want to keep it.

As for the founding fathers, well first of all there were plenty that didn't even like things like the EC. But in any case, the number of states and population wasn't like it is today. At the time states like Virginia did have big populations compared to some of the smaller ones, but the difference today is enormous. Also, we now have a lot more low population states each getting 2 senators. It's completely ridiculous. Small numbers of people are getting huge amounts of power.

Yes, it's the system we have. No, it isn't a great system or even a good one.

Here's a real simple question. If you were trying to convince a citizen in a country without democracy that they should support some version of democracy for their own country, would you use the US system as an example? I sure as hell wouldn't. The second you tell them that people with the most votes can lose they'll laugh in your face. This applies to the senate as well as the presidency.

Absolutely I would. We enjoy a large degree of freedoms and opportunities here that most countries do not enjoy. While the reasons to dislike the EC are understandable from certain view points, it has worked well for over 200 years. And here is a question for you, " What other country in the world today has had the same form of government working continuously as long as the US has? ".

[cubby]

Absolutely I would. We enjoy a large degree of freedoms and opportunities here that most countries do not enjoy. While the reasons to dislike the EC are understandable from certain view points, it has worked well for over 200 years. And here is a question for you, " What other country in the world today has had the same form of government working continuously as long as the US has? ".

Would you include "when voting for the leader of your country, some people's votes will be worth more than others" as part of your sales pitch?

Because that's what the EC does.

[Elegiac]

Absolutely I would. We enjoy a large degree of freedoms and opportunities here that most countries do not enjoy. While the reasons to dislike the EC are understandable from certain view points, it has worked well for over 200 years. And here is a question for you, " What other country in the world today has had the same form of government working continuously as long as the US has? ".

Pretty poor question since the US is currently on its third to fourth major content patch depending on who you ask.

[Wyrt]

Absolutely I would. We enjoy a large degree of freedoms and opportunities here that most countries do not enjoy. While the reasons to dislike the EC are understandable from certain view points, it has worked well for over 200 years. And here is a question for you, " What other country in the world today has had the same form of government working continuously as long as the US has? ".

Um, bud, the US has only been a fully fledged democracy since 1965. There's TONS of countries that are older than that.

[Blur4stuff]

Yeah you'd lose most people after explaining how just living in a certain area gives you more voting power and that cheating is allowed regarding representation. No sane person on the planet would look at things like gerrymandering and think, "Wow, that's a great system!"

US voting and representation is very lackluster. I don't expect republicans to object, obviously, because it gives them more power. I think they realized over a decade ago that they weren't going to win based on having better ideas.

I'm optimistic, though, because the next few decades is going to have a significant shift toward the left and democrats. Maybe after the GOP crashes they can reform into something that will actually give me a second choice instead of having to automatically side with democrats.