The Next President is...

[Guardian]

It's been 16 years since the Republican nominee won the popular vote in the general election. But something the electoral college purists never concede is that the Permanent Apportionment Act capped house seats and thus electoral college votes, effectively diluting the power of a vote in a populated state. If they were truly purists about the electoral college, they would demand electoral college representation in line with actual population distribution, versus a representation artificially cuffed by a 90 year old law. 

For those who don’t really understand why the electoral college in its current state is one of the reasons the United States to continues to be the best country in the history of the world.

[Guardian]

She tried to stay apolitical, but the white supremacists of the alt-right made her their Aryan darling.  It's literally their fault she was forced into the political spotlight because they had projected it onto her.  That's why I think it would be karmic justice if she were to actually mobilize her millions of young followers to vote in a sort of karmic loop.
His tweets are him unfiltered, so to not like his tweets do you really like Trump himself?  Firing up your base is good, ultimately the return on investment is less for the right since they vote regularly in all elections.  We saw this in 2018 when trump was beating the drums over the migrant caravan that everyone forgot about after election day, and it didn't really pay off for them.  "Orange man bad" is the equivalent for the left, and it works because any time trump has a chance to score an easy win he passes it up to benefit his base.  Trump had several opportunities to draw in the middle...for example scuttling McCain's legacy...He could have buried the hatchet and wooed the republicans who liked McCain, or the middle who voted for him in 2008, but instead he doubled down in Trumpian fashion and alienated the handful of folks who really liked McCain, and looked petty feuding with a corpse.
Yes it is possible, and historically likely Trump will win...but I think he may just shoot himself in the foot enough times in the next 6 months to lose.  Being from rural flyover america I have friends and family who were diehard republicans turned off by trump by one thing or another over the last 3 years.  It was never one specific event, but slowly he would attack something they held dear and they would stop and rethink things.  Will they vote?  Probably but the margins are slim and I think the left is still gathering momentum we saw in 2018.  We'll see what happens.

????? Huh? Tay tay isn’t conservative. Listen or watch her latest man hating song. It’s way over the top liberal.

[brickhistory]

27 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Lol, have you seen her?

Too far on the crazy axis in the hot/crazy graph.

[Waingro]

13 minutes ago, Guardian said:

For those who don’t really understand why the electoral college in its current state is one of the reasons the United States to continues to be the best country in the history of the world.

I watched the videos. Nothing new there. She incorrectly states at 1:35 or so that the number or representatives is "based entirely on population." This is false due to the Permanent Apportionment Act or 1929. We have been capped at 538 electoral votes ever since despite having grown just a tiny little bit as a country since then (it used 1910 population numbers.) Because of this act, a Wyoming vote is worth 3.7 times as much for a presidential election than a California vote. Artificially. Due to a law that is only 91 years old. Constitutional purists trip all over themselves to invoke the founding fathers but they always let this one slide. 

The Wyoming Rule theory of distribution would appear to bring us back closer to true electoral college parity. Hopefully we see something like that soon.

You seem to be a proponent of the electoral college as written, so I'm curious to hear an argument as to why an artificial cap on electoral delegates makes sense in the context of the constitution?

[bfargin]

12 minutes ago, Waingro said:

I watched the videos. Nothing new there. She incorrectly states at 1:35 or so that the number or representatives is "based entirely on population." This is false due to the Permanent Apportionment Act or 1929. We have been capped at 538 electoral votes ever since despite having grown just a tiny little bit as a country since then (it used 1910 population numbers.) Because of this act, a Wyoming vote is worth 3.7 times as much for a presidential election than a California vote. Artificially. Due to a law that is only 91 years old. Constitutional purists trip all over themselves to invoke the founding fathers but they always let this one slide. 

The Wyoming Rule theory of distribution would appear to bring us back closer to true electoral college parity. Hopefully we see something like that soon.

You seem to be a proponent of the electoral college as written, so I'm curious to hear an argument as to why an artificial cap on electoral delegates makes sense in the context of the constitution?

The population statement isn't false and votes are still redistributed based on census populations every 10 years. The total number is capped at 435 but states can and do lose votes as populations change. It's still based on population counts in each state. For example my home state of TN has seen a high of 12 electoral votes and a low of 10 electoral votes and right now we are at 11. We are a republic, and hopefully will remain so and not transition into a direct democracy. Also, repeal the 17th amendment!

Another example: CA has grown from 13 EV in 1928 to 55 currently

Edited June 5, 2020 by bfargin
add another example

[Waingro]

2 minutes ago, bfargin said:

The population statement isn't false and votes are still redistributed based on census populations every 10 years. The total number is capped at 435 but states can and do lose votes as populations change. It's still based on population counts in each state. For example my home state of TN has seen a high of 12 electoral votes and a low of 10 electoral votes and right now we are at 11. We are a republic, and hopefully will remain so and not transition into a direct democracy. Also, repeal the 17th amendment!

I'd be OK with the 17th amendment going away. 

It's still not entirely based on population though. Texas could gain 10 million people and still have exactly 38 electoral votes. 

Under the Wyoming Plan though, Tennessee would pick up two votes. Texas would pick up nine. No states would lose any votes. 

[Guardian]

I didn’t know any of that. Very interesting. Thanks all.

[nsplayr]

For another POV check out this podcast episode with author Jesse Wegman discussing his book Let The People Pick The President.

The quirkiness & hackishness of the Electoral College didn't used to be a partisan issue, and I'm disappointed the discussion on reforms to our system has reached the places where it's at today.

Other than the obvious electoral outcome (I'm a big-D Democrat as well as a small-d democrat), I was sincerely hoping that Kerry would have eeked out Ohio in 2004 over GWB and thus become President while losing the popular vote. Had that happened, the Electoral College would have been eliminated in short order, having affected each party once for two elections in a row, 2000 and 2004.

FWIW I'm a big fan of automatic voter registration, ranked choice voting, expanding the size of the House of Representative (we can build a bigger room people!) to bring the Reps. closer to the people they represent, and eliminating the Electoral College. All small-d democratic reforms that bring more power to individual citizens.

Edited June 5, 2020 by nsplayr

[17D_guy]

Read the history on the 17th Amendment.  Wiki's got a good summary, and I'm fine with it aftewards.

Your boy's tweeting again.  Someone come get your mans.

[drewpey]

47 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Read the history on the 17th Amendment.  Wiki's got a good summary, and I'm fine with it aftewards.

Your boy's tweeting again.  Someone come get your mans.

I like the part where he says his COS wasn't in his inner circle.

 

4 hours ago, brickhistory said:

So she's a victim?  Riiiight...a simple statement like "I reject the association of my music with any political viewpoint or ideology" wouldn't have worked.  Instead she's forced to campaign for the left.

Damn, that's some powerful logic she's using.

As to her being "country," she sure seems to have forgotten 'who brung her to the dance' including at least one video mocking those "country folk."

My money is on Ms. Swift deciding to get woke.

Made a boatload of money so good on her.  Why would any guy hit that knowing he's gonna be a follow-on hit song....

Did I say victim?  I have no issue with people exercising their first amendment rights as long as it isn't harmful to someone.  In fact I think more people should...telling people for decades it isn't polite to discuss politics has led people to be really bad at...discussing politics.  Have an opinion and own it.

 

3 hours ago, Guardian said:

????? Huh? Tay tay isn’t conservative. Listen or watch her latest man hating song. It’s way over the top liberal.

I never said she was.  I'm saying that for a period of time she had a huge following of white supremacists because they thought she supported them.  Yes, they are dumb and the whole thing was dumb, but to be honest we aren't talking about the deep end of the gene pool here.

[Sim]

6 minutes ago, drewpey said:

white supremacists

Never met one IRL.  You mean KKK?  Oddly, it seems one political party is closely associated with those "supremacists". 

[drewpey]

1 hour ago, Sim said:

Never met one IRL.  You mean KKK?  Oddly, it seems one political party is closely associated with those "supremacists". 

Q2 for lack of effort

You seem to be a bit confused...go meet some over at stormfront and ask them their political associations yourself...they are very outspoken about their views and willing to share them.

For some context into who these people are when they aren't behind a keyboard, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/beholdthemasterrace/ for additional entertainment

[bfargin]

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Read the history on the 17th Amendment.  Wiki's got a good summary, and I'm fine with it aftewards.
 

Its the typical reaction we see with bureaucracies, someone shits the bed, everyone wears diapers. A couple of states allowed shenanigans to happen so we decided to edit sound procedure (intended to give states power in the Senate (to appoint and to immediately recall if they failed in their duty) and the general population the power in the House). I'm surprised it got through the rigorous process to become an amendment but from 1913-1919 they ratified 3 poorly thought through amendments (XVI - income taxes, VXII - senators, and XVIII - booze).

 

Also: someone needs to break trumps thumbs so he can't tweet

[ItnStln]

16 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Why would any guy hit that knowing he's gonna be a follow-on hit song....

I would, assuming I could sue her afterwards for royalties on the song.

[ItnStln]

16 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Lol, have you seen her?

This

[ItnStln]

15 hours ago, Guardian said:

????? Huh? Tay tay isn’t conservative. Listen or watch her latest man hating song. It’s way over the top liberal.

What's her latest man hating song this week?

[Guardian]

[drewpey]

21 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Why would any guy hit that knowing he's gonna be a follow-on hit song....

 

[ItnStln]

On 6/5/2020 at 2:02 PM, Guardian said:

 

Thanks, I haven't seen or heard this one yet.  It must have not made my Google Play Music playlist, luckily.

[skybert]

She’s the one I’d actually feel good voting for

[arg]

4 hours ago, skybert said:

She’s the one I’d actually feel good voting for

I would almost agree except for the fact shes got some crazy ideas. 

[brickhistory]

President announced a 30% cut to US troops stationed in Germany.

Geopolitically, I agree.  If Germany literally refuses to live up to it's agreement for all of 2% GDP towards defense, why should we spend so much of our national treasure doing so for them?

Personally, bummer.  One of the few good deals about being in the military.

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

President announced a 30% cut to US troops stationed in Germany.

Geopolitically, I agree.  If Germany literally refuses to live up to it's agreement for all of 2% GDP towards defense, why should we spend so much of our national treasure doing so for them?

Personally, bummer.  One of the few good deals about being in the military.

Troops in Germany has long since evolved beyond us defending Germany instead of the Germans. US troops in Germany means a forward-yet-permanent presence that covers basically all of Europe and also serves as a staging ground for fun side-quests in African and the ME.

I can see the logic of perhaps diversifying beyond megabases in Germany to places like Poland, but an overall reduction of troops in Europe doesn't really make sense to me based on my views on our geopolitical threats.

[nsplayr]

22 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

The longer I look at the data, the more I think this could be the greatest opportunity for an independent to run in our nation's history. People are getting pissed at the system in general. Protesters for obvious reasons, and everyone else for the ineptitude behind COVID-19 response and not handling the riots.

Maybe the Russians can convince Tulsi Gabbard to run, since she apparently works for them?

Mike Bloomberg, known for data-driven analysis, as well as Howard Schultz, Justin Amash, Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, etc. would all disagree. There is little appetite for a third-party or independent run this cycle due to President Trump's highly polarizing nature.

If you support Trump, you're going to vote for Trump. If you oppose Trump, you're going to vote for the person most likely to beat him (Biden). There aren't very many people undecided on Trump. Honestly the same can be said for almost every modern US Presidential Election but the effect is especially strong in 2020.

I'm also consistently surprised by the level of support for Tulsi Gabbard on these boards. She's a random soon-to-be former Democratic Representative back-bencher with an odd assortment of policy views and a very troubling level of accommodation and support for Assad in Syria. She never polled much above 1% in the Democratic primary, she's not very conservative, has little governing experience...honestly other than being hot I see absolutely nothing that is appealing about her at all.

I do appreciate that she's a servicemember I guess, more veterans & reservists/Guardsmen should serve in elected office.

Edited June 7, 2020 by nsplayr

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Mike Bloomberg, known for data-driven analysis, as well as Howard Schultz, Justin Amash, Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, etc. would all disagree. There is little appetite for a third-party or independent run this cycle due to President Trump's highly polarizing nature.

If you support Trump, you're going to vote for Trump. If you oppose Trump, you're going to vote for the person most likely to beat him (Biden). There aren't very many people undecided on Trump. Honestly the same can be said for almost every modern US Presidential Election but the effect is especially strong in 2020.

I'm also consistently surprised by the level of support for Tulsi Gabbard on these boards. She's a random soon-to-be former Democratic Representative back-bencher with an odd assortment of policy views and a very troubling level of accommodation and support for Assad in Syria. She never polled much above 1% in the Democratic primary, she's not very conservative, has little governing experience...honestly other than being hot I see absolutely nothing that is appealing about her at all.

I do appreciate that she's a servicemember I guess, more veterans & reservists/Guardsmen should serve in elected office.

She's female, "did two tours in Iraq", isn't hard leaning either way, and was on Rogan 🙂