It might be time to split the country.

[PC2]

Not it doesn't. It correctly states that the GOP without the tricks that have kept it alive for at least the last 80 years, EC/gerrymandering/suppressing voters ,would implode and democrats would have no challenger until a replacement splintering off from the Democratic party came about.

Again that depends on economic performance of lefty policies. If Democrats and their "splinter party" is always economically successful then yes it would mean they could always get re-elected forever. If not then it would be inevitable that voters turn on their side of the political spectrum.

[Shadowferal]

The problem with the idea is thinking conservatives and liberals are only in red and blue states.

[shimerra]

Again that depends on economic performance of left of center policies. If Democrats and their "splinter party" is always economically successful then yes it would mean they could always get re-elected forever. If not then it would be inevitable that voters turn on them.

Again, you're completely not understanding anything that's actually being said. No one said Democrats would hold power forever, only that Republicans would never be able to get it back. Whether an actual left wing party replaces them or a right wing party that isn't rank with corruption and bigotry who knows for sure. But existing voting data shows that if you removed the EC and gerrymandering Republicans would have been fucked for decades.

[PC2]

Again, you're completely not understanding anything that's actually being said. No one said Democrats would hold power forever, only that Republicans would never be able to get it back.

I'm telling you that's wishful and magical thinking unless it's coupled with successful economic metrics. With a great economy you can basically always keep opponents away but without real world results that idea is simply detached from reality.

[Mihalik]

No because that assumes that the Democrats would be able to successfully manage the economy forever and that voters would never turn against them in the future. In reality it's very difficult to maintain control for more than 8 years unless the economy is doing extremely well.

The state of the economy and the success of a party have exactly zero to do with each other in the United States.

Statistically speaking in the past 100 years the state of the economy can the characterized by a boom bust cycle. It booms under Democratic administrations and goes bust under Republican administrations. I know reason why you love pushing your past doesn't predict the future grift is because it allows you to explain away patterns like this.

There is a core problem with Republican economic policies. Policies they have held consistently for the past 100 years with a brief intermission under New Deal Republicans.

Donald Trump wasn't elected because of economic anxiety. That's a bullshit narrative. If it would be true he would be polling in 0% range right now.

Furthermore proportional representation would allow the emergence of coalition governments, something that is very common across democratic systems (the two party system is the anomaly, not the norm). Coalition governments can in fact deliver a better and more representative range of policies than two party systems can.

The reason why the GOP would become a large fringe party (it could possibly become the largest national party) that would never be able to form a government is because its values and economic policies are so radically out of line with general population that it's almost comical. Hell, the GOP's economic policies are even out of line with its own voters.

In a proportional representation the Democratic party would likely become part of a 3 sided left leaning coalition as its most center to center right side, similar to what European center right parties look like, the Green Party would likely see a significant expansion and a Progressive/Social democratic party would emerge from the progressive wing of the party. These 3 parties would still wildly outvote the Republicans.

Even more, if the Republican party manages to drag itself out of the gutters of fascism and racism it could potentially become a coalition partner for the Democratic party. It could do this by spinning off the nutters into their own new American Fascist or whatnot party.

Yes proportional representation would drastically alter the political landscape and would dilute the power of the GOP and the Democratic party, but ultimately that would be for the better for the health of the American political system as it could turn the antagonistic bipolar rift into more of a spectrum where radical positions would be harder to hold when you need to form coalitions to govern.

[Egomaniac]

No because that assumes that the Democrats would be able to successfully manage the economy forever and that voters would never turn against them in the future. In reality it's very difficult to maintain control for more than 8 years unless the economy is doing extremely well.

Since WWII the data shows that economy does better under democratic presidents.





And hey, if you don't believe me...take it from this guy:

[Adam Jensen]

But the problem is the divide is not state to state it is rural vs urban. You would almost have to go with city states to do anything like that.

Eh. Worked for Ancient Greece.

For a bit.

Until it didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with the idea is thinking conservatives and liberals are only in red and blue states.

I saw a poll for Georgia that shocked me. It was something like 47-45% Trump vs Biden. I don't remember the exact numbers but Biden was behind by only 2-3%. It surprised me. Georgia wasn't the Republican stronghold I expected it to be. I still fully expect Trump wins the state on Nov 3, but I was surprised to find a Democrat so close behind.

While sometimes I make jokes that Lincoln should have let the south go, I never actually believe such statements and the reality is that US politics aren't as simple as "red vs blue."

[DingDongKing]

-snip-

Recent polls in Georgia are going Biden's way. Will be interesting to see how it goes over the next few weeks.

[PC2]

Since WWII the data shows that economy does better under democratic presidents.





And hey, if you don't believe me...take it from this guy:

[video=youtube_share;rRndMiVIB-w]https://youtu.be/rRndMiVIB-w[video]

There's two main reasons for why this is meaningless.

1. Statistical data tells you about 'correlations' and correlation does not imply causation. In order to have a causation-based argument it must be based on explanations or reasons that can address why/how questions.

2. The future of society and the economy is never determined by past trends and future performance is never effected by correlations and historical data

[Ivanstone]

There's two main reasons for why this is meaningless.

1. Statistical data tells you about 'correlations' and correlation does not imply causation. In order to have a causation-based argument it must be based on explanations or reasons that can address why/how questions.

2. The future of society and the economy is never determined by past trends and future performance is never effected by correlations and historical data

1. The cause is GOP economic policy. If you give money to poor they spend it. This helps the economy. The GOP doesn't believe this or is paid to ignore it.

2. If I close my eyes and wish real hard, this time it will work!!!!

[CastletonSnob]

Trump is only the 2nd Republican president in 20 years to have caused a recession. Yes, partially because of the pandemic, but we were headed towards a recession anyway with his tax cuts and tariffs.

Also, during 3 consecutive Republican presidencies, the Great Depression happened.

I think that should be a pretty good sign that Republican economic policies don't work.

[Adam Jensen]

Trump is only the 2nd Republican president in 20 years to have caused a recession. Yes, partially because of the pandemic, but we were headed towards a recession anyway with his tax cuts and tariffs.

I think that should be a pretty good sign that Republican economic policies don't work.

Yeah but don't tell that to Republicans. They won't believe it.

A surplus under Clinton, a recovery under Obama, but they still claim Democrats are bad for the economy, especially whenever the stocks rise under Trump. Because we all know the stock market = the economy

[Machismo]

There's two main reasons for why this is meaningless.

1. Statistical data tells you about 'correlations' and correlation does not imply causation. In order to have a causation-based argument it must be based on explanations or reasons that can address why/how questions.

2. The future of society and the economy is never determined by past trends and future performance is never effected by correlations and historical data

Once again, if you brush your teeth, you are arguing against yourself, nd losing.

How could you possibly know that brushing your teeth will do anything for you, if you only have past events to base it on?

- - - Updated - - -

Recent polls in Georgia are going Biden's way. Will be interesting to see how it goes over the next few weeks.

Biden isn't going to win Georgia.

Biden isn't going to win Texas.

But, he's making a big enough impact in those states, along with other swing states, that Trump has to work overtime to play defensively. Biden's path to the White House is much easier than Trump's, and he can push in every one of those states. Obama will be a huge help for that. If Biden wins Florida or Pennsylvania, Trump's chances are almost out the window entirely. Biden should still focus in on the rust belt, and see if Obama can campaign for him in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. Hell, Obama can even push into the Philly suburbs, and work those voters.

Pence does nothing for Trump, nobody cares what he has to say. That's the problem with it being the party of Trump, everyone only wants to see their messiah, nothing less will do. Trump has 2-3 weeks, and he needs to cover about 8 states in that time.

[DingDongKing]

-snip-

In simple terms, it's a war. Attack Trump on as many fronts as possible. And hit him where it hurts. Even if Biden doesn't win Texas or Ohio or Georgie or Iowa, as long as the pressure is on, Trump will not be able to actually focus his spending and campaigning in very many places.

[BlackDruid96]

I think it's time to split the country due to irreconcilable differences. The red states and blue states are so fundamentally different, there's no way to compromise. When a country can't even agree to wear masks during a pandemic, or that a cop shooting unarmed people is bad, it's time to accept that the United States is a failed experiment. Why should two parts of the country force themselves to stay with someone they so obviously can't stand?

There is more than unites us than divides us.

[Xeones]

Anyone who looks at a district based map the nation and thinks you can split us up in any meaningful way to solve problems is crazy.

The biggest issue we face is how many people have rejected reality and went all in on having their reality and political opinions revolve entirely around conspiracy theories.

[Machismo]

In simple terms, it's a war. Attack Trump on as many fronts as possible. And hit him where it hurts. Even if Biden doesn't win Texas or Ohio or Georgie or Iowa, as long as the pressure is on, Trump will not be able to actually focus his spending and campaigning in very many places.

Absolutely, Biden gets to use Obama, and Trump has nobody. Biden can use people like mark Kelley in Arizona, because he's very popular, and he can push for voting up and down the ticket. Obama can hit Trump in the Atlantic South, and appeal to minorities, to get them to vote. And that should be Obama's message, getting people enthusiastic about voting. Pennsylvania is the prize, with Biden being able to appeal to blue-collar people, and Obama having more appeal with suburbanites around Philly, as well as those within the city itself. They cannot ignore Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota (or even Nevada). If that means appealing to them in his town hall, then that's what he should do.

They should put Obama on national television, and get him to do interviews, not just campaign stops, for Biden.

Edit: I see we're off topic in this perfectly reasonable civil war thread, so I'll stop here with the election talk (even though a Biden victory will help to heal the divide). Trump is the cancer.

[DingDongKing]

Absolutely, Biden gets to use Obama, and Trump has nobody. Biden can use people like mark Kelley in Arizona, because he's very popular, and he can push for voting up and down the ticket. Obama can hit Trump in the Atlantic South, and appeal to minorities, to get them to vote. And that should be Obama's message, getting people enthusiastic about voting. Pennsylvania is the prize, with Biden being able to appeal to blue-collar people, and Obama having more appeal with suburbanites around Philly, as well as those within the city itself. They cannot ignore Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota (or even Nevada). If that means appealing to them in his town hall, then that's what he should do.

They should put Obama on national television, and get him to do interviews, not just campaign stops, for Biden.

Edit: I see we're off topic in this perfectly reasonable civil war thread, so I'll stop here with the election talk (even though a Biden victory will help to heal the divide). Trump is the cancer.

It will also have the massive side effect of infuriating Trump. His rallies are already a joke (which I sincerely hope don't backfire on Dems).

Just. Keep. Voting. Simple. As. That.

[Mihalik]

There's two main reasons for why this is meaningless.

1. Statistical data tells you about 'correlations' and correlation does not imply causation. In order to have a causation-based argument it must be based on explanations or reasons that can address why/how questions.

2. The future of society and the economy is never determined by past trends and future performance is never effected by correlations and historical data

I already knew you'll pull this card. It has become highly predictable. That's is why I already pointed out that the problem is rooted in the economic policies of the GOP.

Sure the GOP could actually turn around and adopt wildly different stances on economics in the future. Just as an alien spaceship might crash on my car and an asteroid might wipe us all out tomorrow.

For the GOP to offer economic policies that don't consistently ruin the economy, they'd first have to actually fix their fucking policies.

[Ivanstone]

Pence does nothing for Trump, nobody cares what he has to say.

This isn't true actually. There's one group that does care what Pence has to say and its why he's there in the first place. He's there to keep the rich white christian conservative donors happy. Trump still needs their money. Especially since Trump keeps giving away campaign funds to grifters.