US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[mapuc]

The map in Platapus post made me wonder.

If USA had the same voting system as we have here in Denmark and in Sweden. USA would have been a divided country.

More than it is now.

I'm pretty sure it would.

Markus

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Are you suggesting that McCain did not have a say in picking his running mate?

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am sure he had a say but I am also sure that the RNC had a say.

Platapus' response pretty much sums up my own. Unless you really feel a candidate's party would allow/permit that candidate to have final say over their running mate, it is sure that Palin was a foist job on McCain by the GOP Far-Right and its Religious Right. Palin was a literal nobody with a bit of a dodgy background and was, at the time of her nomination, under investigation in Alaska for her actions as Governor of Alaska, hardly conditions for a ringing endorsement to assume a position that is literally "a heartbeat away from the Presidency". I rather suspect McCain's reluctance to give Palin the blame she deserves is due mainly to his basic humanity. I know an awful lot of people who also decided against McCain when they would have otherwise willingly voted for him after the curse that is Palin was placed. It should be noted Palin finished her elective political career resigning from the Governor's seat after legal and ethical investigations of her conduct in office were closing in on her. From all appearances, Palin seems to have made a Nixon sort of deal: I'll resign and you won't file charges...

I'm pretty sure Trump didn't even know very much about Pence when Pence's name came up on the list of VP possibles...

Originally Posted by JU_88

Oh come on Vienna, she's a 90's relic, with no message, a lousy track record, just another bland career politician.
Sure she won the popular vote, but she still lost, Despite campaign worth more than some countries. and against Mr orange of all people.
And god, she still harps on (insinuates) about how she lost to 'sexism', Jesus she must be a narcissist or a liar, because she cant be that clueless.

I'm not even American so I don't have a dog in the race, but if you're a Dem, you better pray she doesn't run again in 2020, because unless the sky falls in between now then, the out come will be the same as 2016.

Well, first of all, I ain't a DEM, or GOP, or any other pigeonhole that other hole place people; I'm an Independent and I vote based on what I can learn about a candidate or issue...

I'm not at all defending Clinton; don't like her, didn't vote for her. But your description, "she's a 90's relic, with no message, a lousy track record, just another bland career politician" makes a person really wonder why she got substantially more votes than Trump; by your definition, Trump should have taken the popular vote with extreme ease and we all know that he didn't and, most probably couldn't; to lose is one one thing; to lose to such a poor candidate speaks volumes about how poor and hollow Trump's 'victory' really was; he doesn't have the support of the American people (something I note no one has deemed to refute or comment on) and he hasn't had any majority support since the day of the inauguration...

Trump may have won the Electoral College vote, but even he knows the EC vote can be gamed, with the whole concept of 'winner-takes-all' and he has shown he is well aware of the humiliation of not also winning the popular vote. Trump's suggestions that he would have one the vote, but it was 'rigged' in some way, despite how absolutely ludicrous such claims are, shows Trump knows he ain't the belle of the ball; he's kind of like a guy who comes in second at a points based athletic event and ends up winning because the first place winner is penalized for some infraction; its a 'win', but not a clear, clean and absolute win, in a word: flawed. A flawed win by a deeply flawed man. He's kinda asterisked, like Barry Bonds (steroids) or Roger Maris (more at bats, longer season than Ruth)...

And god, Trump still harps on (insinuates) about how he lost to conspiracies to deny him the popular vote, Jesus he must be a narcissist or a liar, because he cant be that clueless.

Fixed that up for you, no charge...


...and, Jesus, Trump is a narcissist and a liar, and he is that clueless...








<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

...winning the popular vote.

The popular vote in a US presidential election is meaningless. Less than meaningless. It wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee. Since it doesn't amount to a hill of beans I wonder why people keep talking about it. No candidate campaigns to win the popular vote unless they are a little simple and don't understand how the Electoral College works. Or in Hillary's case to raise money. That time would have been better spent in Wisconsin. At best it shows how the more populous states can 'game' the popular vote but it still has zero effect on the election results.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

The popular vote in a US presidential election is meaningless. Less than meaningless. It wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee. Since it doesn't amount to a hill of beans I wonder why people keep talking about it. No candidate campaigns to win the popular vote unless they are a little simple and don't understand how the Electoral College works. Or in Hillary's case to raise money. That time would have been better spent in Wisconsin. At best it shows how the more populous states can 'game' the popular vote but it still has zero effect on the election results.

How did the 2016 election show the populous states were 'gaming' the election, specifically? Your reasoning seems a bit 'inside-out'...

The popular vote is meaningful since it is the only direct and personal metric of the mood and will of the voters. Te Electoral College and the machinations therein cannot negate that fact: the popular vote is one person, one vote and there is no finer measure on the vote; it is granular, without any sort of lumping together such as "winner-take-all"; the popular vote is the ultimate public opinion poll...

Remember, the GOP and Trump took a beating in the mid-terms; if Trump, and the GOP, by extension,, in actual fact and truth, represent the American voters and their will and mood, they would have retained the House and they would have not had to endure so many squeaky close races in they did win. Here in CA, the GOP now only holds only seven (7) out of a total of fifty-three (53) seats and has completely lost all representation in the GOP's greatest and traditional stronghold, Orange County; in fact, Orange County overwhelmingly voted in the 2016 Presidential Election for Clinton, the first time a DEM had won since the Great Depression. The Electoral College vote does not indicate such turnarounds; only the Popular vote gives the real facts...

Back some years ago, Schwarzenegger Was elected Governor and the CA-GOP, emboldened by their seeing great victory, set before the voters a slate of state proposition to advance their GOP agenda, in the belief they could piggy-back on Schwarzenegger's win; the voters solidly, and decisively, voted down the propositions, a defeat which furthered the continuing downfall of the CA-GOP. The same could very possibly hold true for the GOP on a national level; if they assume they can ride a Trump wave in 2020, they may very well find the actual voters may not embrace the GOP agenda nor Trump with the enthusiasm in their assumption; Trump failed to deliver in 2016, and given how things have been going for Trump of late, the GOP may not want to pin their hopes on someone who seems intent on digging his own very deep hole...









<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

How did the 2016 election show the populous states were 'gaming' the election, specifically? Your reasoning seems a bit 'inside-out'...

Wow. That was a joking reference to your claim that the EC can be 'gamed'. Lighten up.

The popular vote is meaningful since it is the only direct and personal metric of the mood and will of the voters. Te Electoral College and the machinations therein cannot negate that fact: the popular vote is one person, one vote and there is no finer measure on the vote; it is granular, without any sort of lumping together such as "winner-take-all"; the popular vote is the ultimate public opinion poll...

I disagree. When there is a Presidential election there is a popular vote of sorts. All 435 members of the House of Representatives are elected by popular vote in their districts. It is a pretty clear indication of the 'direct and personal metric of the mood and will of the voters.' And it has a direct and influential effect. The popular vote tally has none.

..the popular vote is the ultimate public opinion poll...

It has zero political authority.

Here in CA, the GOP now only holds only seven (7) out of a total of fifty-three (53) seats and has completely lost all representation in the GOP's greatest and traditional stronghold, Orange County ...

Can we say 'ballot harvesting'? This is a new practice made legal by California's State Democrats. In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a change to Section 3017 of the Election Code that allows any person to collect a mail-in ballot from voters and turn in the mail ballot to a polling place or the registrar’s office. Prior law restricted the practice to just relatives of or those living in the same household as the voter. How convenient. On election night most of those seats were red. Over the following days they all went blue. In Orange county alone the number of Election Day vote-by-mail drop offs was over 250,000. Yes it is legal but having thousands of ballots in an un-secure environment, for days on end, in the hands of partisan activists, well what could possibly go wrong? And since it is now legal you can bet that the GOP caught off guard by this tactic will be doing the same thing in 2020. Democrats say it was all about 'making every vote count'. Not every vote, just Democrat votes. Got to give credit to the Dems....there is always a new way to eliminate the political opposition.

I think California is a perfect example of why the EC is necessary for Presidential elections. Once a political party has an overwhelming majority, they take advantage of it. Under the current system the Presidency flips back and forth quite regularly. Eliminating the EC would probably ensure a permanent Democratic White House. And make no mistake that is the end game of all this talk about eliminating the EC.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by vienna

Platapus' response pretty much sums up my own. Unless you really feel a candidate's party wo he doesn't have the support of the American people (something I note no one has deemed to refute or comment on)


...and, Jesus, Trump is a narcissist and a liar, and he is that clueless...



<O>

Just a 98% approval rating among the GOP

Name one person running for POTUS that can beat Trump in 2020?

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Just a 98% approval rating among the GOP

Name one person running for POTUS that can beat Trump in 2020?

Outside of the GOP he's nothing but a bad joke! How do you know there isn't anyone who can beat Trump?You have no more idea how the election will go, just like everyone else. Geez, get over yourself,lol

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Wow. That was a joking reference to your claim that the EC can be 'gamed'. Lighten up.

....

Hey, it ain't my fault you're bad at telling a joke...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

I disagree. When there is a Presidential election there is a popular vote of sorts. All 435 members of the House of Representatives are elected by popular vote in their districts. It is a pretty clear indication of the 'direct and personal metric of the mood and will of the voters.' And it has a direct and influential effect. The popular vote tally has none.

...

...and I disagree with your disagreement (so, there! ). The House vote, in a Presidential election years is a good metric of the mood and will of the voters... in those districts. The best, and pretty much the only, metric of the national mood is the Presidential popular vote count, where all voters from all states and districts are tabulated together to give a full count, not just a piecemeal assessment; you see, no matter what Trump, his minions, or his Trumpettes use to try to spin their "alternate facts", the actual, backed by actual numbers truth is Trump was not at all the person the majority of all the voters in 2016 would have chosen; hell, he didn't even get enough votes to beat Clinton among the voters; I'd asy that definitively reflects the mood and will of the voters in 2016; and, using your assertion that the Hose elections are a metric of the mood and will of the voters, the fact that, after two years of Trump/GOP rule, the voters decisively expressed that will and mood by 'voting out the scoundrels' and giving the control over the legislative course (and the purse strings) of the next two years...


For the sake of argument, let's use the 2018 Mid-Terms as a metric of national mood. Other than the loss of some 40 or so seats by the GOP, let's look at the actual vote counts by party:

DEM: 60,727,598 votes representing 53.43% of the total vote, a net gain of 5.43% over the 2016 tally

GOP: 50,983,895 votes representing 44.84% of the total vote, a net loss of 4026% over the 2016 tally


Clinton beat Trump by about 3 million votes in 2016; in 2018 the DEMs beat the GOP in the House elections by 9,743,703 votes, or, roughly, three (3) times as many votes Clinton got in her win over Trump. Keep in mind there were about 10 million fewer votes cast for each party in the 2018 Mid-Terms; so the DEMs gained roughly 6 million voters; where did they come fro? The Independent/Third party votes only accounted for 1.73% of the Mid-Term vote, which was down from the 5.7% Independent/Third party vote in 2016, a net reduction of 3.97%. The indications are the DEMs gained not a few of the IND votes and that they gained a significant number of voters who had voted for Trump/GOP in 2016. Why the GOP losses and the DEM gains? Well, the only difference between 2016 and 2018 is two years of Trump mismanagement and the apparent mood of the American voters...

The will and mood seems to have been pretty clear,...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

It has zero political authority.

...

Then why do parties and politicians fret so much about the popular vote as a bellwether for the conduct of their future campaigns, platforms, expenditures, and just general strategies? A vote is a vote is a vote and it takes popular votes to win, even to win EC elections. The EC is not insular from the popular vote process: it is merely the flawed application of the popular vote process. If anything, the EC, standing alone has zero political authority other than as a game to be played by political parties, often to to the detriment and contravention of the voters. The EC is, by far, the most unreliable and inaccurate metric out there; I often use the case of Nixon's 1972 Election victory over McGovern as a prime example: Nixon got 60.7% of the popular vote (a GOP candidate who knew how to beat a flawed opponent), but he wound up with a whopping 96.8% of the EC vote, a disparity wit the popular vote of stunning proportions. I really don't think the GOP took that EC percentage as seriously as they did the popular vote totals, and I don't think the DEMs just decided to throw in the towl completely based on the EC vote, either...

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Just a 98% approval rating among the GOP

Name one person running for POTUS that can beat Trump in 2020?

Ya know, the whole 'percentage of the GOP' thing is getting really old; its kinda like going to Dallas and asking who the favorite football team is; and te results would be just as meaningless when the entire NFL fan opinion(s) is/are taken into account. Hey, I'm the most popular person in my home; however, full disclosure, I live alone...

Trump's approval rating, among voters overall, not just GOP, today is 41.8% and has been declining as of recent days; Trump's disapproval rating, among voters overall, is 53.2%, a net difference of 11.4%, a sizable gap that would give any political party pause for reflection. Considering Trump got 2.1% fewer votes than Clinton in 2016, an 11.4% deficit does not bode well. And we still don't know yet the results of the various investigations of Trump and his administration...

As far as who can beat Trump, its far, far too early to speculate; but, if I must insist I do speculate, I would say the one person who will definitely beat Trump is...




...Trump...









<O>

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by vienna

Clinton beat Trump by about 3 million votes in 2016

I'm kind of surprised that along with sixteen year olds and illegals the democrats are trying to make it legal for dead people to vote in 2020 also.

[JU_88]

Unless there is a war or something, I'm betting Trump will probably be re-elected in 2020.
8 year terms have been norm now for the past 3 presidents. and Trumps approval ratings are pretty much on par with Obama, Bush Jr and Clinton by the looks of it.
That and the fact the Dems are divided between the Liberal old guard and new more radical social justice types.

[Platapus]

The intent of the Electoral College is for the person to be elected president to garner the majority of the votes in the majority of the states, not just the majority of votes.

Citizens, voters, and sometimes even candidates may forget this.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

...

Can we say 'ballot harvesting'? This is a new practice made legal by California's State Democrats. In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a change to Section 3017 of the Election Code that allows any person to collect a mail-in ballot from voters and turn in the mail ballot to a polling place or the registrar’s office. Prior law restricted the practice to just relatives of or those living in the same household as the voter. How convenient. On election night most of those seats were red. Over the following days they all went blue. In Orange county alone the number of Election Day vote-by-mail drop offs was over 250,000. Yes it is legal but having thousands of ballots in an un-secure environment, for days on end, in the hands of partisan activists, well what could possibly go wrong? And since it is now legal you can bet that the GOP caught off guard by this tactic will be doing the same thing in 2020. Democrats say it was all about 'making every vote count'. Not every vote, just Democrat votes. Got to give credit to the Dems....there is always a new way to eliminate the political opposition.

I think California is a perfect example of why the EC is necessary for Presidential elections. Once a political party has an overwhelming majority, they take advantage of it. Under the current system the Presidency flips back and forth quite regularly. Eliminating the EC would probably ensure a permanent Democratic White House. And make no mistake that is the end game of all this talk about eliminating the EC.

Oh, you can't be serious (in case you're still bad at telling jokes )...

I had wanted to comment on the above earlier, but I was interrupted, so here goes: ballot harvesting is not a new or "California DEM"; it is a lawful practice in about 20 states, or 40% of the total states and has been around for some time; it has also been used by doth GOP and DEM parties in the lawful states. CA did not invent it, over night, or out of whole cloth. To say it is a CA 'invention' is a fraud foisted by those who, in defeat, are unwilling to accept responsibility for their defeat and are trying to "alternate facts" their way out of blame's way. The principal reason the CA-GOP has done so badly in the past in CA, and go shellacked in the CA Mid-Terms is the same as it has been for the last several elections: the CA-GOP runs on issues and fields candidates that do not reflect the mood and will of CA voters; add to this the persistent CA-GOP obstinance against bucking their National GOP overloads and dumping non-starter issues and candidates and the likelihood of even more erosion among the CA-GOP base is likely; already, in CA, the GOP is the smallest of the three groups of registered voters in the state, with the DEMs in second and the IND in first place (even the CA-DEMs have lost voters to the IND). Californians are a pretty independent lot when it comes to politics and don't really fasten too much too party strictures. Th fact the DEMs are in power is more a testimony to the DEMs ability to tap into the IND base than it is to any DEM party machinations...

Yet, the GOP, both state and local, while crying into their beers over yet another CA thumping, persist ing laming their woes, not on their own political ineptitude, but on imagined and false claims:

The New Republican Myth of California Voter Fraud --

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...ter-fraud.html


I don't know why, but the GOP seems to not understand that ballot harvesting, and other election tactics they blame for their failures, are as equally available to the GOP as they are to the DEMs; that they haven't chosen to take those advantages speaks more to their own ineptitude than it does to their claims of unfairness...

...or are there weepings and moanings and rending of clothes actually because they actually are inept: of all the states where ballot harvesting is legal, there has been no major and provable case of fraud connected with the practice, and the only one major and provable case of fraud associated with practice has been reported, in North Carolina, where, in one House District, the local GOP so fully botched up an illegal ballot harvesting operation that the district's election results have had to be voided and whole new district House seat elections must be held; way to screw up, GOP.; maybe they out to try hiring DEM consultants...


As far as eliminating the opposition...

I think California is a perfect example of why the EC is necessary for Presidential elections. Once a political party has an overwhelming majority, they take advantage of it. Under the current system the Presidency flips back and forth quite regularly. Eliminating the EC would probably ensure a permanent Democratic White House. And make no mistake that is the end game of all this talk about eliminating the EC.

Aside from the fact the GOP has been more than overtly trying to pass legislation in states they control to "eliminate the opposition" by legislating their opponents out of the election process, and by any means necessary or illegal, there is the other GOP myth that the abolishment of the EC is a fully DEM idea and is being pursued solely by the DEMs for political purposes; there is a very large number of voter from the GOP and, particularly, the Independent ranks, who have called for the end of the EC; for us independents, it is mainly because the IND vote very often is lost in the EC mix; Perot got 19% of the popular vote and didn't get a single EC vote, effectively making those of us who did vote for him disenfranchsed from the EC system; if tossing aside nearly one-fifth of the voters is not cause for concern, I really don't know what else is...

I would also like specifics on how eliminating the EC 'would probably ensure a permanent Democratic White House"; that's a pretty big claim to make with nothing to really, specifically back it up...







<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by em2nought

I'm kind of surprised that along with sixteen year olds and illegals the democrats are trying to make it legal for dead people to vote in 2020 also.

Got solid proof of the above or is that just more GOP gassing?...










<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Unless there is a war or something, I'm betting Trump will probably be re-elected in 2020.
8 year terms have been norm now for the past 3 presidents. and Trumps approval ratings are pretty much on par with Obama, Bush Jr and Clinton by the looks of it.
That and the fact the Dems are divided between the Liberal old guard and new more radical social justice types.

Yeah, but Obama, Bush Jr and Clinton didn't have major open criminal investigations of themselves in their first terms and the spectre of indictment(s) hovering over them when they were re-elected, which makes for a very significant difference...

...and, hey, the GOP isn't exactly a solid rock of loyalty either; just look at the defections on the Senate border "emergency" vote...

We independents do enjoy the luxury of not having to worry about piffiling trifles like party lines...








<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Hey, it ain't my fault you're bad at telling a joke...

And you are not the first person to say that. There's my wife, my kids and a long line of others.

The best, and pretty much the only, metric of the national mood is the Presidential popular vote count, where all voters from all states and districts are tabulated together to give a full count, not just a piecemeal assessment..

Well there are a few problems there. One is that politicians don't run to effect the national mood. It not even a statistic. The USA is a large and populous nation. I very much doubt that there is a national, one size fits all 'mood'. My guess is that the mood in California is different from that in West Virginia. And if there is it could change between elections. That is what polls are for I guess.

.you see, no matter what Trump, his minions, or his Trumpettes use to try to spin their "alternate facts", the actual, backed by actual numbers truth is Trump was not at all the person the majority of all the voters in 2016 would have chosen...

Six states — California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland — accounted for more than 22 million (about one-third) of Hillary’s votes in 2016. In those states, Hillary won by an average margin of nearly 2-to-1 — 65.6% to Trump’s 34.4% — but in the remaining 44 states, Trump’s vote total (51.3 million) easily exceeded Clinton’s total (43.6 million). Hillary's 2,864,974 margin out of 128,824,833 total votes cast for those two candidates is hardly an arbiter of the overall mood considering the fact that Clinton’s entire popular vote margin is less than her overall margin of victory in California (which she won by more than 4 million votes).

Why the GOP losses and the DEM gains? Well, the only difference between 2016 and 2018 is two years of Trump mismanagement and the apparent mood of the American voters...

Not really. Presidents as a rule are rebuffed in their first midterms. It's not that unusual.

If anything, the EC, standing alone has zero political authority other than as a game to be played by political parties, often to to the detriment and contravention of the voters. The EC is, by far, the most unreliable and inaccurate metric out there;

It may be inaccurate to the people who are disappointed by the results.