White men and women in 2020: They're not going back!
by beatgoeson (2024-02-27 20:22:44)

Men and women in suburbs are what made the difference in '20. I remember the the The linked study by pew, revealing that just 5-10% was huge for Biden. Do you really think they won't stick, given the idiocy practiced by Trump? A former president is winning primaries, but with very low turnout, even with a (sort of) favorite son/daughter candidate on the ballot. Others have pointed out, T is not expanding his base, and all the planning that he will do that is so is just whistling past the graveyard.




Because they can't jump? *
by enginerd194  (2024-02-28 07:07:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


Everybody but you knows that white dudes can hoop.
by EricCartman  (2024-02-28 12:04:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


Posts below should show they might not stick.
by NDBass  (2024-02-27 22:11:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I think the biggest threat is not Biden voters going back to Trump, but going to a third party or write-in candidate or abstaining completely.


The posters below are mostly not voting for either
by sprack  (2024-02-28 10:50:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

And a lot of them, maybe most, didn't vote for either the last time.

This board still leans right as it always has. But obviously most here have no use for Trump.

It's also obviously mostly male, almost all white, almost all urban or suburban, and entirely college-educated.


That seems to be the dominant sentiment here. To
by sorin69  (2024-02-28 07:15:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

my dismay but not surprise. You folks are my personal focus group. As I read the collectivity, you're right of center, small government Reaganites (and patriots and internationalists) at your core, which effectively has made you politically homeless since Trump hijacked your party -- or, to put it in a different way, brought out into the open the yahoos and nativists and single issue obsessives who have been the sine qua non of GOP national politics since...the Southern Strategy.


Yup *
by Barney68  (2024-02-28 10:37:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


2020 was a high turnout year with over 66% turnout
by Tex Francisco  (2024-02-27 21:34:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

By comparison, 2016 was closer to 60%. Trump will need lower turnout to win. He's not looking to flip 2020 Biden voters as much as he's hoping some just don't show up.


It was also mid-COVID with the mail in ballots in
by Nyirish08  (2024-02-28 08:58:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

swing states that had never had such high numbers of mail in ballots before.
Now it will be an option, but they won't show up at your door automatically, and a lot of people are going back to traditional voting. That may have an effect in some places.


Geez, can't imagine any lack of motivation though. *
by beatgoeson  (2024-02-27 22:27:26)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


doesn't it boil down to basically 5 or 6 states?
by jt  (2024-02-27 20:56:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Flipping 2 or 3 would win it for Trump?


I might be wrong; we discussed it on here a few months back but I forget the particulars.


It’s about 40,000 votes in three states
by gregmorrissey  (2024-02-27 22:54:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

2020 % Margins (Vote Margins)
Georgia 0.20% (11,779) --- 16 EC votes
Arizona 0.30% (10,457) --- 11 EC votes
Wisconsin 0.70% (20,682) --- 10 EC votes
Pennsylvania 1.20% (81,660) --- 19 EC votes
Nevada 2.40% (33,596) --- 6 EC votes
Michigan 3.00% (154,188) --- 15 EC votes

As it stands today, Trump is at 235 and Biden is at 226 (270 needed to win). Trump won North Carolina by 1.4% (74,483 votes) so technically it's in play, but if Trump loses North Carolina then he will lose everywhere else that matters too. Likewise, if Biden loses in Minnesota.


Trump winning combinations - needs 35 votes
With PA
GA, PA = 35
PA and any other 2 >= 35

Without PA
GA, MI + Any
GA, AZ, WI
MI, AZ, WI


Selling my Georgia vote for a Texas A&M ticket. *
by Inigomontoya  (2024-02-28 10:53:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


We need the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 08:01:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

All this EC stuff is a lot of nonsense. Surely it made sense as a compromise to get slave states on board, but it has outlived that usefulness.


Where do you recount in a close national popular election?
by TJK1998  (2024-02-28 15:23:34)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

You recount everywhere. Sounds like hell.

I think one, perhaps unintended, feature of the EC is that it limits the scope of challenges.


we need the popular people's front of Judea *
by jt  (2024-02-28 13:48:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


Splitters
by El Kabong  (2024-02-28 14:13:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.


Deep analysis as usual *
by airborneirish  (2024-02-28 10:57:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


If designing a system today, would you propose the EC?
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 11:21:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

What arguments, today, would you use to justify the voting power differential for individuals in different states?


So you’re saying after enjoying the benefits of the bargain
by airborneirish  (2024-02-28 14:50:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

For 250 years, the parties would hypothetically renegotiate and do what exactly? Wait we have a process for that. I wonder what it’s called.


Nonresponsive. If the EC did not exist, would you propose it
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 17:36:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

today over a popular vote? Why?

Yes, laws at any level can change. A useful observation! Indeed, that's exactly what the compact would do -- states would change their laws in order to apportion their EC votes, a power generally left to the states in the Constitution. So now that we agree, states can make laws and take actions... maybe you can try answering?


Give me Mandated Ranked Choice Voting
by rflor  (2024-02-29 11:31:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

If we're going to move to Popular vote, then I want the US 2-party system blown up.

The best way to do this is move to RCV across the board, for all candidates.

This *should* give third party candidates a reasonable shot and now the popular vote also incorporates the 50% Independent middle.

As someone downthread (maybe ElK? ) pointed out, are we ready to become the next EU?


I'd love RCV as well. *
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-29 15:24:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


While it is not a settled question there is strong case the
by wpkirish  (2024-02-28 15:08:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

proposal complies with the Constitution. States can decide how to award their electoral college votes which is why Nebraska and Maine award them by Congressional District. If that view prevails no amendment would be needed.


Try that and I will move South and join a Secession
by Raoul  (2024-02-28 15:49:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Movement. I won't accept faithless electors - not ad hoc as Trump wanted them when he didn't win, and not "legally" bound to how others outside my state vote as opposed to how my state voted.

That is a bridge too far. I don't want to be part of that version of the United States. And I will be in good company.

P.S. Porous borders + citizenship + this popular vote compact is quite the Democratic Party strategic plan.




I disagree with the term faithless electors given the fact
by wpkirish  (2024-02-28 18:10:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

they will be following the rules established by the State. My difficulty on this topic is there are two competing arguments. First, dont let CA or NY tell me how to live. Two, if NY OR CA change their rules for their state in a way I dont like I am out.

In my view something needs to give. The entire premise of the nation rests upon the acceptance of the winner as legitimate. If we cotinue to have popular vote winners who lose the the electoral college I am not certain how long we can sustain that.

We see it here in Illinois with the "Eastern Block" in the legislature who want to divide into two states because Chicago region controls everything and does not represent their values. However, they have far fewer representatives than the Chicago area because of course they have fewer residents.


What gives is you go to your country and I will go to mine
by Raoul  (2024-02-28 20:05:14)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I already live in your crooked shithole. But it isn't enough for you to control state and local - you want it all. And you want it with a radical change via no Amendment, just a 50+1 vote in each state. Completely unsurprising.


vote to remove "shit hole" from the board lexicon
by ravenium  (2024-02-28 23:58:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Positively trumpian language. Ffs, you're better than this.


Never even said I supported it simply pointed out there is
by wpkirish  (2024-02-28 22:18:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

A reasonable argument in support. Honestly have not given much thought to the idea so not certain where I would come down. I do think as a general matter more elections where the popular vote winner loses the election undermines faith in the process and that is a bad thing for the nation. It yes you know we well enough to know that I want to control the whole nation.

As for my crooked shithole you have the freedom to live in another state and still enjoy all the benefits of being a US Citizen to get away from me and my co-conspirators of course I don’t have the similar ability to move to another state and still not deal with EC and its impact on elections.


But live very differently
by El Kabong  (2024-02-28 18:15:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

People in Chicago want guns banned because there's a crime/gang (not to mention prosecution) problem up here.

So for that reason, should farmers south of 80 not be allowed to have AR's to kill gophers that could maim their cattle with their holes?


is there room for nuance?
by ravenium  (2024-02-29 00:18:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Even Canadian farmers have guns. They don't ask for or need semi autos with high capacity. They don't need Carl spacklers c4.

Pistols are a more tangled web. Good people usually want them because bad people want them and they feel threatened.


My anger boils over with this issue
by Raoul  (2024-02-28 20:06:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

This fuckers can go to fucking hell.


I would accept popular vote over EC compact
by El Kabong  (2024-02-28 16:51:08)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

As Raoul said, if the electors exist, I want them to vote the way the people in my state voted, not the way people in another state voted.


I would prefer a straight popular vote, without any
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 17:30:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

workarounds. Alas, I think this workaround is the most likely.


And those people in other states have different rules
by Raoul  (2024-02-28 17:01:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

on things like early voting, absentee voting, whether felons can vote, etc...

You need to Amend if want Popular Vote and then everyone has the same set of voting rules - for president at least. But right now it is 50 individual races with 50 sets of rules. Tying your electors to how the other 49 states voted is insanity and reduces the value of my vote, which was done in my state under the rules of my state.


Congress came pretty close to getting the EC
by AquinasDomer  (2024-02-28 16:41:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Changed to a popular vote in the wake of the 1968 election. It fell apart because of southern opposition in the senate after house approval by large margins.


That was just to get the Amendment process started
by Raoul  (2024-02-28 16:57:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

If it changes by the Amendment process, fine. That is not the compact.


I would prefer NY and CA govern themselves and not me *
by El Kabong  (2024-02-28 10:36:59)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


Would you feel differently in a world where the Republicans
by wpkirish  (2024-02-28 15:00:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

consitently won the popular vote but lost the electoral college because CA and NY gave the Dems an enormous advantage? What if I dont want Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi and a host of other states to "govern me"?


No
by El Kabong  (2024-02-28 17:29:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

The Constitution is set up as it is set up, and there's an established process to amend it.

If people want it changed, change it that way. Don't short-circuit things because reasons or gridlock or Trump or whatever.


I simply said there is a reasonable argument that a state
by wpkirish  (2024-02-28 22:08:32)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Has the constitutional authority to make the change. If enough states pass it someone will
Challenge and the Supreme Court will make a decision. If they uphold the change then it wasn’t short circuiting the process. If they rule it violates the Constitution it won’t take affect.


Don't you live in Illinois? And... why would a popular vote
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 11:24:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

mean that they're governing you as opposed to the "the president desired by the most voters" governs you?


We here in NY can't even govern ourselves
by mintirish  (2024-02-28 11:02:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I'd be happy to split NY into two states - NYC + Long Island vs the rest. Maybe the NYC people can keep Westchester too.


then you become North Alabama
by DBCooper  (2024-02-28 11:18:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I would hate to lose upstate NY. Its a beautiful place. But, boy do you think you are in the south the more north you drive away from NYC.


Funnily, north / north central Alabama is pretty nice.
by WilfordBrimley  (2024-02-29 11:22:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

If you took everything north of about Calera up through the border with Tennessee, it'd likely be in the top half of the country in things like median income, probably top 10 in growth, probably top 15 or so in innovation per capita, etc. Huntsville (especially), the southern half of Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Florence / Muscle Shoals, and Madison / Decatur are all nice places to live with a good bit going on. Anniston / Oxford is a shithole, to use the term above, but it's not much than a waystation to Atlanta or a place to sleep after a night at 'Dega for most people.

Central and south central Alabama are...tough. The old Black Belt towns are about as rough as it gets in the U.S. Driving to the Pandhandle beaches from Montgomery is bleak until you get near the coast. Only saving grace in that part of the state are Lake Martin (which is very, very nice - probably among the top handful of lake towns in the Southern U.S.) and Auburn.

On the coastal part, the Mobile side of the bay has some nice parts and some rough parts but overall, I would strongly prefer the Baldwin County side of the bay. Baldwin County, especially Fairhope, is very nice and is among the fastest-growing parts of the country. If I had cash to spare, I would buy property there right now. Gulf Shores and Orange Beach are a lot different than they were 20 years; much more bougie and upscale and trending even more that way.


It's like Pennsylvania
by sprack  (2024-02-28 12:02:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Pittsburgh in the west, Philly in the east, and Alabama in the middle.


Bless your heart. *
by sluredandstumbly  (2024-02-28 11:47:25)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


Your terms are acceptable
by mintirish  (2024-02-28 11:42:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

We can even name the place N. Alabama


With a popular vote, the entire nation would have a say.
by IrishJosh24  (2024-02-28 10:56:35)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

A Republican in CA, IL, or NY would have far more incentive to vote. Same for a Democrat in WY, UT, or OK.

In a real sense, with a popular vote, the entire nation would collectively decide who governs the nation. That approach makes sense to me. And you would get more of a say in that case, not less.

As it is now, the matter is decided state by state. In that system, whether your vote matters at all depends on where you live. And that's true in at least two ways. First, I think it's relatively safe to say a Republican's vote doesn't much matter in CA, IL, or NY. Same for a Democrat's vote in WY, UT, or OK. The result will be the same whether that voter votes or stays home. Second, the electoral college creates a relative weight problem that gives more power to certain states. For example, CA gets one vote in the electoral college for every 718,909 people. MT gets one for every 360,000. It's as though every vote in MT really counts for two CA votes.

I'm not convinced there is anything obviously superior about the electoral college. And I am not convinced, at all, that a popular vote would somehow mean CA and NY would govern the entire nation.


With a popular vote we would be a slightly better functionin
by airborneirish  (2024-02-28 10:58:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Version of the eu.


That's not at all how the EU works
by sprack  (2024-02-28 12:06:23)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Because they don't rule anything in the individual countries. The EU is subject to treaties among the members, currently the Treaty of Lisbon, ratified in 2009. They typically need to have unanimous consent to do anything with the force of law.

Since they're in the news, as just one example I invite you to compare the current governments of Sweden and Hungary.

There is absolutely no comparison to the President of the United States in any capacity in the EU. The President of the European Commission is a completely different position with a completely different purpose. It's an appointed position. The EU also has no military aspect whatsoever (it can provide military aid, as it has to Ukraine, but it has no military). And there is still no ratified European Constitution. If there ever is one (the last vote on one failed in 2006 when France and the Netherlands voted it down; there were other member states who hadn't voted yet), it's likely a very long way off.


Hold on, we need to wait for airborne's usual deep analysis.
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 12:48:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Like the others, I genuinely don't know what point he's trying to make. I get the sense he doesn't know what point he's trying to make either.


I'm not sure what this claim means.
by IrishJosh24  (2024-02-28 11:19:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Does the EU elect a chief executive that is anything at all like the President of the United States?

You think the manner of the presidential election controls how we function as a country?

Sorry, but you'll have to walk me through this one a bit more. I'll note that it seems like a very different point than the one El Kabong was making (and I was responding to).


Answer: no, not even close. See post immediately above *
by sprack  (2024-02-28 12:21:59)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


Well done. I remember this. What a pisser of a system, in
by sorin69  (2024-02-28 07:22:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

which most of us are spectators and the infamous swing states decide it all. And slivers of voters in those states.

For what it's worth, I'll repeat another number, indicative of the national polarization: Biden's 7 million margin in 2020 was from just two states: California's 5 million and New York's 2 million. The rest of the country was a wash.

Our national hazard isn't authoritarianism. It's paralysis and inaction. Hard to govern a federal system in which the majority of states are de facto one party states.


yes, that was the conversation, thanks *
by jt  (2024-02-28 01:08:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply


Yes JT, pretty sure you're right.:GA, PA, MI, OH,FL, WI
by beatgoeson  (2024-02-27 22:24:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

are typically cited. All that were tight last time seem to promise the same in '24. AZ too maybe. PA, GA, MI all have good reason, it seems,to expect a surge against Trump. MI, GA suffered apparent attempts to interfere from Trump, and it seems logical, that from Gov down will be dissuaded from Trump. Also PA has added legislature that would seem to create some sway toward Dems.

Finally, I just can't picture much voter enthusiasm for Trump. Just feel like in the quiet of contemplation (and we all do that in some way), enough people will be unable to accept Trump at a fitting choice. Biden has the benefit of a pretty good cabinet, my opine. Neither of these guys are out there as loose cannons, but one seems more loose than the other!