What's new
By:

2020 Presidential election

JazzMan4Life said:
Candidates would still pay little attention to places like Utah because the opportunity to gain votes would be greater in places where there is a higher poplulation.
Click to expand...
I don't think the question is will they pay attention to places like Utah, but rather will they pay attention to rural and suburban issues. The kinds of issues people in Utah and the rest of the country care about.

I think the answer there is a pretty resounding yes.
 
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...

The Great Lake states, Iowa, Ohio, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida will be where this is decided. Each side has weakened the foothold of the other in couple states.

Not sure there will be enough swing to make states like Utah, Oklahoma and Idaho competitive.
 
Bernie is a kook? For my tastes, Warren is too establishment, but if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, she would probably be my second choice -- once again though the corporatocracy would be the winners.
 
Gameface said:
You keep pushing this and I think you're wrong, and since I generally like your posts it gets under my skin to hear you say this over and over.

You don't have to take Trump on on his terms. You don't have to be some big strong charismatic guy to stand toe to toe with him. You're giving him credit he doesn't deserve. He is none of the things you seem to ascribe to him. He's the emperor who has no clothes... it's his supporters who imagine the clothes onto him. It's his supporters who define his strengths, which are largely a ****ing illusion.

Warren is going to do really well in the general. Warren is going to be the next President.

I'll take any number of $20 bets people want to throw my way. Warren is going to be our next President.
Click to expand...

I agree that Warren is the best choice between her and Biden and Bernie. But I don't see anyone beyond hard core supporters getting excited about her. Unfortunately our dumbed-down nation now votes like they're voting for their favorite TV show. Trump is like TMZ and TMZ's garbage is more popular than 60 minutes.

IF Trump makes it to the election it's going to take someone who is either more interesting(not likely unless Oprah enters) or someone who can stand toe-to-toe and put Trump in uncomfortable positions/make him look like the fool he is. I see Pete as that guy more than anyone else at this point. Pete is a very sharp dude.
 
str8line said:
I agree that Warren is the best choice between her and Biden and Bernie. But I don't see anyone beyond hard core supporters getting excited about her. Unfortunately our dumbed-down nation now votes like they're voting for their favorite TV show. Trump is like TMZ and TMZ's garbage is more popular than 60 minutes.

IF Trump makes it to the election it's going to take someone who is either more interesting(not likely unless Oprah enters) or someone who can stand toe-to-toe and put Trump in uncomfortable positions/make him look like the fool he is. I see Pete as that guy more than anyone else at this point. Pete is a very sharp dude.
Click to expand...
I think you're wrong.
 
candrew said:
You get rid of the electoral college then candidates would just campaign in a handful of states.
Click to expand...

1) That's what happens now.
2) Why would a vole in California matter more than a vote in North Dakota, under a popular vote?

candrew said:
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.
Click to expand...

How is that fundamentally different from a popular vote?
 
str8line said:
We'll see, it's still very early. Maybe she'll catch fire but I don't see it. She still trails 104-year-old Joe Biden. I like her though and agree with a lot of her policies.
Click to expand...
Not just on that she'll win or not, but on this idea that most the voters want a Reality TV type personality. I think that's what the stupidest of the stupid Trump voters want, I don't think that's what most people want. I think this election will be a big statement by Americans saying that is NOT what we want at all.

I think you're looking at the last election and making assumptions about why Trump won that aren't really things the other side needs to copy. The biggest thing the Dems need to do this time is not have Hillary Clinton be the other option. That's what got Trump elected, not his bombastic style or not having someone who could stand up to him and make him uncomfortable.
 
candrew said:
You get rid of the electoral college then candidates would just campaign in a handful of states.
Click to expand...
Have you heard of the Internet? It's this amazing thing that would let politicians campaign from whereever they are.

Oh, and, from this page...

Two-thirds (273 of 399) of the general-election campaign events in the 2016 presidential race were in just 6 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan).

94% of the 2016 events (375 of the 399) were in 12 states (the 11 states identified in early 2016 as "battleground" states by Politico and The Hill plus Arizona). This fact validates the statement by former presidential candidate and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin on September 2, 2015, that “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president. Twelve states are.”
Click to expand...
 
gandalfe said:
Have you heard of the Internet? It's this amazing thing that would let politicians campaign from whereever they are.

Oh, and, from this page...
Click to expand...

OMG doesn't anyone read on this ****ing site anymore?

Where did I say that's not the case now? Where did I say I'm for the status quo? What I'm saying is if you eliminate the electoral college completely you'll go from campaigning in about a dozen battleground states to campaigning in about four states - California, Florida, Texas and New York.

If have proportional electoral votes given to candidates based on the popular vote then the 35+ plus flyover states will still feel represented in the process and you'll avoid situations like 2000 and 2016

Also, put forth your realistic plan for getting rid of the Electoral College - do you know what it takes to override a Constitutional Amendment? Trust me - it's not going to happen in your lifetime.
 
candrew said:
OMG doesn't anyone read on this ****ing site anymore?

Where did I say that's not the case now? Where did I say I'm for the status quo? What I'm saying is if you eliminate the electoral college completely you'll go from campaigning in about a dozen battleground states to campaigning in about four states - California, Florida, Texas and New York.

If have proportional electoral votes given to candidates based on the popular vote then the 35+ plus flyover states will still feel represented in the process and you'll avoid situations like 2000 and 2016

Also, put forth your realistic plan for getting rid of the Electoral College - do you know what it takes to override a Constitutional Amendment? Trust me - it's not going to happen in your lifetime.
Click to expand...

Here's a question, how many cities do gubernatorial candidates visit in their states when running? Do they only campaign in their states most populated areas?


You know, we've amended the constitution like twenty seven times. Or, seventeen if you don't want to include the bill of rights.

It's hard, yeah, but it's not an impossible task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top