Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Felya]

No, it's a fundamental problem with the EC where it over-values rural votes in less populous states compared to the value of votes in more populace states like CA and NY, and FL/TX for that matter too.

Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is pretty recent, it's happened before but was rare. It happening 2/3 times in the span of 20 years, and potentially twice in a row, is a sign that the EC is disproportionately giving power to those small states.

We aren't "crying after a loss", Democrats have been talking about this shit since the 2000 election.

Democrats: “Get out and vote!!!”
Republicans: “May we have a look at that census?”

That simple.

[Felya]

Which, tbf, was a loss for the dems... so it can be perceived as crying after a loss.

I don’t know... in sports, trading for a better play can mean you want to close the gap at the finish line.

[Edge-]

You mean it values those in rural areas the "minority" over those who live in large urban areas the Majority.

Uh...yeah? Like, people's votes should count equally, regardless of if they live in a rural farmtown with 50 people vs. a urban city with millions.

If it's happen so frequently it's because the Democrats fail to reach out to rural voters and struggle to even get out their own voters, but of course that couldn't possible be the case.

Because those are Republican voters that are difficult to reach? Because they shouldn't have outsized influence on the election, especially given the relatively low contribution to the country economically?

Sorry we aren't a Majority Rules Republic, and we never have been.

For a great many things...we are. Senate races, House races, governors, propositions etc. are all "majority rules". The President is the only office where there's a secondary layer obfuscating the vote.

Crying about it 200 years later because your side isn't winning and wanting to change the rules is a bigger problem then trying to address the needs of people and winning a majority of all the states.

No, because it's been historically rare for such an occurrence until recent years. That speaks to a late developing flaw with a system created 200 years ago that doesn't have any place in modern society anymore.

[passingthrew]

You mean it values those in rural areas the "minority" over those who live in large urban areas the Majority. If it's happen so frequently it's because the Democrats fail to reach out to rural voters and struggle to even get out their own voters, but of course that couldn't possible be the case. Sorry we aren't a Majority Rules Republic, and we never have been. Crying about it 200 years later because your side isn't winning and wanting to change the rules is a bigger problem then trying to address the needs of people and winning a majority of all the states.

How do you reach someone who lives in a different reality?

[Sunseeker]

I had that talk with a few during Obama's term and they were supportive of it, then Trump came and all that went out the window because that is what it took for them actually take the presidency. They don't care about Democracy unless it says what they want it to.

Unfortunately this is what I experienced as well, but honestly, it was no different with Democrats. They didn't care for addressing the EC until they started losing because of it, and complaints by Republicans to address it were seen as shallow attempts to swing elections.

The system is always fine until it bites you in the ass.

[Sunseeker]

When has the GOP lost because of the EC?

I'm talking about Republicans feelings on the subject. Again, this is all very much "in my experience with the people I've spoken with". Not "These are the facts and figures of national election trends". And the feelings I've heard expressed often blame electoral losses on the EC.

[Edge-]

Well if you knew US History then you would know they specifically made the Electoral College to avoid that.

I mean, if you read Sean Hannity's version of history, sure.

The EC, much like House apportionment, is closely tied to the "Three-fifths compromise", remember, the one that gave slaves partial representation but gave all their votes to their owners because they were slaves.

It was also not some grand, permanent vision. It was what they could agree on 200 years ago. You're taking a shockingly literalist approach for an alleged progressive.

This is just people crying because they didn't get the landslide win they were expecting.

Again, we've been "crying" about this since the year 2000. That you've apparently been unaware of this is on you. That you think this is because liberals are mad that Democrats didn't get a "landslide" is also grossly missing the point. You're, again, intentionally or not repeating literal Republican rhetoric.

The United States isn't a pure democracy which is exactly what you all want for the Presidential election.

Literally not, do you know what a pure Democracy would mean? That would mean no House or Senate. That would mean every bill would need to be voted on nationally. Nobody here is arguing for this.

The House/Senate would still exist as part of our Democratic Republic, the only change would be that the president would be directly elected, as governors are in states and mayors in cities (all executive branch officers). That's it.

Jesus, you really need to re-takeyour basic US history/civics.

If you want it so badly pass an amendment or the democrats could be productive and actually address the needs of people.

Uh...hi. We've been pushing for this for years. We know this is a longshot. I'd just imagine that progressives would be on board with it rather than repeating Republican talking points.

[Themius]

Yeah if you want a very simplistic version and think an entire system of government was set up for that sole purpose and not as a compromise in order to defend against a larger threat... But go ahead. Also note that people were already there as slaves under the current rule, so if all they wanted was to keep slaves why wouldn't they just side Monarch that had supported it until that time?

I literally posted the amendment from the constitution that speaks of this that specifically dealt with slavery and then sourced a university that specialises in constitutional law... but hey that won’t sway you.

[Edge-]

Yeah if you want a very simplistic version and think an entire system of government was set up for that sole purpose and not as a compromise in order to defend against a larger threat... But go ahead.

Hello unrelated strawman! He makes a valid point, and rather than respond you go hyperbolic.

Also note that people were already there as slaves under the current rule, so if all they wanted was to keep slaves why wouldn't they just side Monarch that had supported it until that time?

Because, as you're showing your gross ignorance here, it had nothing to do with "keeping" them as slaves, and everything to do with giving the very low populace Southern states more representation by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person and giving their votes to their owners for the purposes of EC apportionment, House apportionment, and taxation.

[Sunseeker]

Then the people you know are borderline mentally handicapped.

Kay.

We done here?

[downnola]

People crying about EC because Democrats fail to perform in rural states is a bigger problem with Democrats and not the Electoral College. We've had it for long time, why is this still shocking to people? The fact Biden didn't have this locked up thus far against Drumph proves Biden was as weak of candidate as I had been saying for months. I still think Biden will win, but honestly the whole election is a toss up at this point and it was Biden's to lose. Don't start crying about the rules after you loss.

If Democrats didn't have to pander to rural voters in the mid-west and south, they could actually run to the left of center. People who uncritically oppose Democrats on every issue should be leading that charge, no?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I mean, Cali is a juggernaut, but Texas has more and Florida has the same EC votes that New York has, and they conveniently forget about them when standing up for the EC. Texas has been red for a long time, and Florida is increasingly looking like less of a battleground state and more of solid red state.

Yeah, I get the feeling that Dems are losing their grasp on Florida and should probably concentrate efforts in Georgia, Texas, and NC. While those all sound like conservative bastions, the rural population of conservative voters in those states is dwindling, and tech industries are booming in their major cities, attracting more liberal minded people. Florida used to be pretty reliably liberal but the younger population of permanent residents is fleeing, and it's a booming state for retirees and Cuban-Americans.

[PfeffermintShake]

Watch the Cosplay Socialist Left.
They want Trump to continue his march to total authoritarian. They have always been Trump's Fifth Column and their current conduct is proof.

[Edge-]

Well keep not being critical at all against the democrats and falsely believe they can't go center left because of red states?

Because going hard-left in a state that elects guys who openly campaign against "socialism/communism" is...a winning strategy? Are you serious? It's not "Defending" Democrats, it's dealing with reality.

Just look at the evidence Florida just passed a $15 min wage, WV and Kansas backed their public education and more evidence showing that they are a bunch of low information hicks.

I'll try to find it, but there's a huge disconnect between party identity/voting and policies that was being discussed on NPR over the weekend.

They were bringing up tons of stats about Democratic backed/passed policies (like the $15 minimum wage) and how they largely enjoy either immediate popularity, or end up being popular (like the ACA) by margins far greater than the Democrat/Republican split. Republicans, by contrast, consistently propose and pass unpopular legislation and have unpopular policies - opposition to legal abortion and the recent Republican Tax cut which are both unpopular being two good examples.

The problem is that people are on their political sports teams and don't want to break ranks, even if they support some progressive policies like a $15 minimum wage. Also, that they're not single issue voters when it comes to candidates. So while they may vote to back a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage, they're not going to vote for a Democrat campaigning on raising the minimum wage.

[beanman12345]

Watch the Cosplay Socialist Left.
They want Trump to continue his march to total authoritarian. They have always been Trump's Fifth Column and their current conduct is proof.

yup yup yup!

[passingthrew]

Give people a reason to vote and you'd be surprised. Keep running pro-corporate funded clowns and keep losing to pro corporate GOP members like Mitch. There is a very large untapped resource of voters in every state you just have to give them a reason to vote for you and have them believe you will deliver on your promises.

Remember when Hilary gave the coal miners a reason to vote for her? And they just voted for a lying con man instead? The mistake your making is assuming these people are ever going to vote dem.

Hillary Clinton’s proposal for $30 billion in aid for people suffering from the decline of the coal industry drew a mixed-to-hostile response Thursday from critics of President Barack Obama’s environmental policies — raising doubts about whether she can arrest the Democratic Party’s electoral slide in coal country.

The package her campaign outlined includes billions of dollars to shore up coal workers’ pension benefits and retrain out-of-work miners or power plant employees to find jobs in other industries. It also includes spending on the so-far-elusive goal of developing “clean coal” technology that would capture and store coal-burning plants’ greenhouse gas pollution.

[Zan15]

Can we have our taxes moved to an EC type system so that those silly large urban coastal cities and states don't have to pay an unfair federal burden they are currently paying?

I mean we want to be fair in our democratic system right???



Oh well looks like if Biden wins he gets to use all those wonderful Executive Order standards set by Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Republicans were whining about the EC when Obama won. They would always cry about how California and New York always decide our elections and it's unfair that two states have so much power. Which is hilarious since there's like 3-5 swing states that are the only ones that really matter to candidates for campaigning in. Californian? Yeah you're not gonna see a left wing candidate do anything more than a token rally in your state. Texan? Well Texas used to be solidly red but it's starting to flip so we're beginning to see more campaigns there. But of course Louisiana and Mississippi get ignored. The Top Gear crew got assaulted for having pro-Hillary graffiti on their car even before 2016.

They never seem to cry when so much tax revenue comes from those two states and get filtered out to them.
funny when they fight for "fair" treatment in this country.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't start crying about the rules after you loss.

20+ years of "crying".....have you been living under a rock?

[Edge-]

Well if you know the difference between primary and a general you would know a candidate like Bernie would do better with independents. The voters intentionally locked out of primary voting.

They're like...not? In some states they are, but in many primaries are either entirely open or, like in CA, if you're registered NPA (the equivalent of independent) you can request a primary ballot for either party.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/electi...ary-types.aspx

There are more open, partially open, or open to unaffiliated voters than there are closed and partially closed.

Hell its the only reason I am a registered Democrat because I am forced to be in order to have any say on who the two choices are. Yes if Bernie had won he would have ran on his platform which I believe would have done much better. IMO

Again, the platform that pushed away Cuban voters? The platform that Republicans pretty much ran against, painting Biden as a "socialist" and accusing him of supporting Sanders policies like M4A, Green New Deal, and more?

The only way to hold this view is by not paying any attention.

Don't get me wrong, if Biden ends up losing I'm all for functionally burning the whole thing down and pushing the furthest left candidate that Democrats can field, AOC even as she'll be 35 by the election, and just see where the chips fall.

But right now, there's no data to support that. Just feels.

[s_bushido]

Looks like AP called Wisconsin for Biden. I guess with Trump demanding a recount there, they might as well...

[omerome]

Yeah, why vote for the guy who gave you access to healthcare as opposed to the guy who is actively trying to take it away from you.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ollment-118578

They actively voted against their own interests. Which is sad.

Florida continues to be the meme they were destined to be. And it does show you that like African Americans, Latinos are not a monolith. Stupid people come from every background. And as a Afro-Latino, it is sad for me to say this.