What's new
By:
Filters

2020 Presidential election

After watching the 3rd debate I feel pretty sure that Mayor Pete is kind of hanging back a little. On purpose.

There are a lot of ways that he could be viewed as a solution to the distinction between the Warren-Sanders and Biden images of the party. But it would be smart to let that distinction ripen further, for now.

And, I feel like he has verve, argumentation-wise, that he is keeping in the corral for the right time, when the field thins out a bit. I believe he has the fund-raising to get to the top-5. That’ll be his time to shoot for the head of the pack.
 
Warren is a better messenger than Bernie. I’m starting to believe that, while she and Bernie are both likely to make it all the way to the convention, she’s most likely to emerge as the candidate.
 
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...icans-lose-popular-vote-win-electoral-college

In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidency despite receiving nearly 3 million fewer votes than Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. In 2000, George W. Bush pulled off a similar trick. According to a new study, these are not flukes. They are the kind of results we should expect from the Electoral College.

The study, by three economics researchers at the University of Texas, quantifies just how often the Electoral College will produce an “inversion” — that is, an election where one candidate wins the popular vote but the other walks away with the presidency. The numbers are simply astonishing.

In modern elections where one party prevails by just 2 points in the two-party popular vote, “inversions are expected in more than 30% of elections.” That number rises to 40 percent in elections with a 1 percentage-point margin.

Republicans, moreover, are far more likely to benefit from an inversion than Democrats. “In the modern period,” the study suggests, “Republicans should be expected to win 65% of Presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.”
 
I have nothing at all against Biden and would actually lean his direction but I sincerely think he is in early stages of dementia. Now he's saying that his tax credit will help put 720 million women back into the work force. I'm not saying this to be a jerk to the guy but it's no secret that he says some pretty questionable things.

And before "but but but Trump", the reason I don't like Trump is because he opens his mouth. This isn't about Trump though.
 
JazzyFresh said:
I have nothing at all against Biden and would actually lean his direction but I sincerely think he is in early stages of dementia. Now he's saying that his tax credit will help put 720 million women back into the work force. I'm not saying this to be a jerk to the guy but it's no secret that he says some pretty questionable things.

And before "but but but Trump", the reason I don't like Trump is because he opens his mouth. This isn't about Trump though.
Click to expand...

He needs to take it easy. He's had a distinguished career. When he's under pressure, it's like his mind freezes up. His poll numbers drop the more he makes public appearances.
 
Last edited:
Red said:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...icans-lose-popular-vote-win-electoral-college

In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidency despite receiving nearly 3 million fewer votes than Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. In 2000, George W. Bush pulled off a similar trick. According to a new study, these are not flukes. They are the kind of results we should expect from the Electoral College.

The study, by three economics researchers at the University of Texas, quantifies just how often the Electoral College will produce an “inversion” — that is, an election where one candidate wins the popular vote but the other walks away with the presidency. The numbers are simply astonishing.

In modern elections where one party prevails by just 2 points in the two-party popular vote, “inversions are expected in more than 30% of elections.” That number rises to 40 percent in elections with a 1 percentage-point margin.

Republicans, moreover, are far more likely to benefit from an inversion than Democrats. “In the modern period,” the study suggests, “Republicans should be expected to win 65% of Presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.”
Click to expand...

If Californians really turn out to vote, that drives the disparity. The Electoral College balances out the impact that New York and especially California have on the popular vote totals.
 
NAOS said:
Warren is a better messenger than Bernie. I’m starting to believe that, while she and Bernie are both likely to make it all the way to the convention, she’s most likely to emerge as the candidate.
Click to expand...

The energy of the Democrats really seems to be behind the left-wing of the party with Bernie and Warren. Harris, Buttigieg and Booker aren't taking off. Yang is having an impact, but his support would need to double or triple if he's going to really get in the race.

If support for Bernie and Liz can somehow coalesce, that would carry the nomination for one of them. However, the question will be, which one is willing to step aside for the other? Bernie isn't just going to go quietly, and he's actually gained some ground in the past couple of weeks. The other question is whether either of them can really carry a national election. I'll predict that answer is ultimately no, but time will tell.
 
Catchall said:
If Californians really turn out to vote, that drives the disparity. The Electoral College balances out the impact that New York and especially California have on the popular vote totals.
Click to expand...

You do realize no state is monolithic, especially the large ones?
 
One Brow said:
You do realize no state is monolithic, especially the large ones?
Click to expand...

I love how pro electoral college people think:

A. All citizens in populated states vote
B. All votes go for one party.
C. Because of this, votes from populated states should count 10x+ less than votes from less populated states. State size matters more than population size. The majority is now held hostage to the minority.
 
You get rid of the electoral college then candidates would just campaign in a handful of states.

The winner take all system has to change. Perhaps if you get a super-majority (60%?) then you win all the electoral votes, otherwise you get a proportional number of votes.

This creates more competition and in the long run it's better for the states. Candidates will no longer be able to ignore states that are deep red or deep blue.
 
candrew said:
You get rid of the electoral college then candidates would just campaign in a handful of states.
Click to expand...

I believe this already happens. I believe they call those states "swing States"

Why campaign in a state where you already know you will get all the electoral votes or you will get zero of them?

I mean why would a republican or Democrat campaign in Utah under the electoral college system? They already know the outcome of those electoral college votes.

Now if it went by popular vote then both candidates should campaign in Utah to get as many total votes as possible.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
NAOS said:
Warren is a better messenger than Bernie. I’m starting to believe that, while she and Bernie are both likely to make it all the way to the convention, she’s most likely to emerge as the candidate.
Click to expand...


Bernie is a ****ing kook, Warren is not the type of person you'd want to have a beer with and Biden is ancient. Most importantly none of them will come out on top of a fight with Trump. Mayor Pete would handle Trump and people might end up liking him.
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
I believe this already happens. I believe they call those states "swing States"

Why campaign in a state where you already know you will get all the electoral votes or you will get zero of them?

I mean why would a republican or Democrat campaign in Utah under the electoral college system? They already know the outcome of those electoral college votes.

Now if it went by popular vote then both candidates should campaign in Utah to get as many total votes as possible.

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


I'm kind of pissed I get no burn for my vote.
 
fishonjazz said:
I believe this already happens. I believe they call those states "swing States"

Why campaign in a state where you already know you will get all the electoral votes or you will get zero of them?

I mean why would a republican or Democrat campaign in Utah under the electoral college system? They already know the outcome of those electoral college votes.

Now if it went by popular vote then both candidates should campaign in Utah to get as many total votes as possible.

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

And it’s only getting worse. The 2020 election is completely and 100 percent dependent on what happens to the Great Lakes states. Whoever wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin will win the presidency. Swing states are becoming fewer in number and literally those are the only “swing states” that matter.
 
fishonjazz said:
I believe this already happens. I believe they call those states "swing States"

Why campaign in a state where you already know you will get all the electoral votes or you will get zero of them?
Click to expand...

As I said in my post you'd get rid of the winner take all component of the electoral college and make it proportional to the number of popular votes that you receive. This makes it more competitive and the smaller states keep some sort of representation.

More folks live in California than the 20 least populated states combined. There are probably a dozen counties in California that have more people than the entire state of Wyoming or Vermont - no one is going to spend time and money in those states without an electoral college system.
 
Here's the thing, even "deep red" Utah had nearly 30% of the population vote for Hillary last election. If a Democrat earns five percent more, or a Republican five percent less it's completely irrelevant under the electoral college. Under a national popular vote system this changes things. Now states like Utah actually matter, if a candidate can get a couple percentage points better across the Rocky Mountains for instance, or the south, it will add up to a difference that could swing the election.
 
candrew said:
More folks live in California than the 20 least populated states combined. There are probably a dozen counties in California that have more people than the entire state of Wyoming or Vermont - no one is going to spend time and money in those states without an electoral college system
Click to expand...
They aren't spending time in them now, for the same reason. There's nothing you could do, short of giving these states even more ridiculously outsized influence to change that.

If you stop considering "states" as the focal point of presidential elections and instead focus on individuals and communities, you'll see that this distinction between states like California, or Wyoming doesn't really matter. There are millions of people living outside LA or San Diego that have quite a bit in common with the your average Wyomingite, and the political messaging will speak to them both even if the candidates themselves don't end up doing a rally in Cheyenne or whatever.
 
candrew said:
As I said in my post you'd get rid of the winner take all component of the electoral college and make it proportional to the number of popular votes that you receive. This makes it more competitive and the smaller states keep some sort of representation.

More folks live in California than the 20 least populated states combined. There are probably a dozen counties in California that have more people than the entire state of Wyoming or Vermont - no one is going to spend time and money in those states without an electoral college system.
Click to expand...
Yes they would or at least they should. With the popular vote you can't win the state of California or a county in California. Each person and vote is an individual. All votes are equal. If you spend all your time and money in California only to win votes from 49% of the state then you sure as **** are gonna need all the votes you can get from the places with low population.

Plus the popular vote has the added benefit of getting more people to vote. (Though I'm sure some candidates prefer less voters)

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Zombie said:
Here's the thing, even "deep red" Utah had nearly 30% of the population vote for Hillary last election. If a Democrat earns five percent more, or a Republican five percent less it's completely irrelevant under the electoral college. Under a national popular vote system this changes things. Now states like Utah actually matter, if a candidate can get a couple percentage points better across the Rocky Mountains for instance, or the south, it will add up to a difference that could swing the election.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The arguments that get made in favor of the electoral college lack common sense.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top