What's new
By:
Filters

2020 Presidential election

fishonjazz said:
The EC just encourages so so many people to stay home and not vote. That's my biggest problem with the EC.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
My question is, why are Ohio, Michigan and Florida more qualified to essentially decide the election than California, Texas and New York (and some others). At least we could say that the latter decides the election because more people live there.

I'm not sure if my point is salient here. Just a thought.

I think it's kinda lame that my vote in Utah is worth like 3 California person votes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
Stoked said:
I will disagree with you here. I think you are missing an important aspect of comparing a popular state vote to a popular country vote. Most states have 1 - 3 major population centers. There’s enough time to campaign every where. In a country wide vote that’s not the case.

You hit LA, NYC, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Denver, Las Vegas, S.F, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, SLC, KC, Baltimore, DC... and on and on ... no time to hit small pop areas. Hell even medium pop centers would see less love I think. It’s just buying the most bang for your buck in the time you have. We some limiting of that now because each candidate can ignore large parts of the country.
Click to expand...
The election cycle for the presidential is much longer than that for governorships.

I just don't buy this fear that it will lead to a total disregard for rural voters, I mean in 2016 Bernie made a stop in Laramie WY of all places, as did Obama in 2008, it's not like either had any shot of getting our electoral college votes and they'd actually have more reason to visit under a popular vote election.
 
Zombie said:
The election cycle for the presidential is much longer than that for governorships.

I just don't buy this fear that it will lead to a total disregard for rural voters, I mean in 2016 Bernie made a stop in Laramie WY of all places, as did Obama in 2008, it's not like either had any shot of getting our electoral college votes and they'd actually have more reason to visit under a popular vote election.
Click to expand...

I don’t think they will be disregarded. I just don’t think we see any meaningful time spent in said areas in a popular vote election. Someone can easily speak to them and address their concerns without being on site.
 
Stoked said:
I don’t think they will be disregarded. I just don’t think we see any meaningful time spent in said areas in a popular vote election.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's a good reason for why they wouldn't. Rural voters are a minority sure, but they still comprise about 20% of the electorate. That's more than enough to give any candidate a reason to spend meaningful time on them. If rural voters feel they're being ignored they'll take notice, and the candidate will pay a price.
It just seems like a really weak argument against the EC.
 
Zombie said:
I don't think there's a good reason for why they wouldn't. Rural voters are a minority sure, but they still comprise about 20% of the electorate. That's more than enough to give any candidate a reason to spend meaningful time on them. If rural voters feel they're being ignored they'll take notice, and the candidate will pay a price.
It just seems like a really weak argument against the EC.
Click to expand...

I agree it is a weak argument against the EC. I also think that you’re wrong. The candidate will spend their time in major pop areas. We will see surrogates and electronic out reach in rural areas though.

All I’m saying. We just disagree on that point. But until it happens we will never really know lol.
 
Stoked said:
I agree it is a weak argument against the EC. I also think that you’re wrong. The candidate will spend their time in major pop areas. We will see surrogates and electronic out reach in rural areas though.

All I’m saying. We just disagree on that point. But until it happens we will never really know lol.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, agree to disagree.
 
Catchall said:
Sanders polled #2 in NH this month. He's not a laggard in the Dem race, and he still has a very strong base of support.

* I'm not copying and pasting right-wing non-sense. Show me where I have. The interview with The Hill's John Solomon I posted this week isn't right-wing nonsense. It would only look that way if you're used to consuming left-wing nonsense. The Justice Department reports on the origins of the FBI's Russia probe will make the Democrats and everyone crowing about Trump-Russia collusion look bad. So go ahead and brace yourself for it.
* I have never talked about climate change on this board. Show me where I have.
* Trump isn't a socialist. He's a narcissistic bully, but socialism is based on centralizing and expanding state power. Trump was elected in 2016 as the lesser of two evils, where the other evil was Hillary. That was a good decision, in my opinion. Bernie Sanders proudly calls himself a "democratic-socialist," whatever that's supposed to mean.
* I'm not worshipping Trump, but I'm telling you objectively, he's still likely to get re-elected.

You're welcome to your concerns, and clearly you like to vent them endlessly on this board. When Utah votes red again in this next election, you'll see if the majority of people on this board and elsewhere really agree with you.
Click to expand...

#1 Solving climate change is going to require some amount of government intervention to spur green energy investment, regulate industry, and change behavior. Believing otherwise is just silly. The “free market” isn’t going to mitigate the damages associated with climate change.

#2 Sanders has been declining in the polls as Warren has surged. He’s not making gains in key demographic areas; minorities and women. He’s still a long shot. If you’re worried about his socialism you should be terrified of Donald’s very real socialism that he’s enacting right now.

#3 You’re playing the game that republicans always do when they’ve run out of ideas: Try and scare everyone of “socialism.” It’s gotten old. And thankfully, after Donald’s regime, you’ve all been exposed as the hypocritical partisans that you are. If you really had principles of free market and small government, you would’ve been up in arms, not cheerleading, Donald trump all this time.
 
fishonjazz said:
You seem to think socialism is more than it is. Like an all or nothing thing.
We use socialist ideas currently in this country all the time. And we like it.
I like not having to fix my own roads or have a bill if a fireman comes and puts out a fire at my house.
I like that my daughter will go to school pretty much for free.
These are good things. They are also things which would be considered socialist ideas if they didn't already exist and were to be proposed by the left and be instantly shot down by the right.
Thank God they are already implemented

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Lately, the Republican types have been whining incessantly about socialism. The funny thing is, what were those handouts to fridge companies in Indiana when Donald was first elected? What are those bailouts to farmers now that Donald’s trade war is failing? What is enacting tariffs and then subsidizing failing businesses with public funds? Who funds the military when we increase their spending by hundreds of billions of dollars?
 
Lol! The robot is broken! It just keeps repeating the same lines!

“New York Times!”
“Socialism!”
“Illegals!”
“MAGA!”
“Charlie Kirk!”
“AOC! Omar! Muslims!”
“Liberals!”
“Be angry and afraid! Always be angry and afraid!”

 
One more reason why I think the EC should be abolished? I think it divides us out into red and blue states. I think it increases our tribalism. I think abolishing the EC would force politicians to chase after voters, not states. This would only weaken the tribalistic stranglehold we sometimes place on our own states.
 
The Thriller said:
One more reason why I think the EC should be abolished? I think it divides us out into red and blue states. I think it increases our tribalism. I think abolishing the EC would force politicians to chase after voters, not states. This would only weaken the tribalistic stranglehold we sometimes place on our own states.
Click to expand...
Want another reason? Because it's stupid

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Want another reason? Because it's stupid

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
Not if it does what it was designed to do; keep people like Donald Trump - lowly, unintelligent demagogues with a talent for appealing to the worst in people - from taking office. If it won’t do that, there is literally no point.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Not if it does what it was designed to do; keep people like Donald Trump - lowly, unintelligent demagogues with a talent for appealing to the worst in people - from taking office. If it won’t do that, there is literally no point.
Click to expand...

The EC hasn’t been doing this for a while now. It gave us Bush back in 2000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top