I'm sure he will win I would all my money on him.
Americans have the ilusion they live in a Democracy and have freedom. The system is well done for 99% believe on that buying the next gimmick or leasing a new car.
I dunno maybe flyover country doesn't want to be powerless and dictated to by the shit stained, electricity deprived inferno of homelessness that is Utopian California.
instead we have a few unpopulated areas speaking for the whole country, and from what I hear it's working out great for them!because then you have a few really populated areas speaking for the whole country. This means that those people would mostly care about things happening in their areas.
Bu-bu-but Resetera told me Trump can't win!!! That Trump was losing support even from his base!
The states that you're saying wouldn't be worth dropping pamphlets in the event of a popular vote system - do you think they get lots of candidate visits now?So what's the answer than? If we abolish the EC no state but Texas, California, New York, and Florida would ever see a presidential candidate. Why spend resources anywhere else but the 10 most populous states? I agree that the EC is flawed but presidential elections without them would make truly the fly over states not even worth dropping pamphlets. As someone from a small state I appreciate candidates coming to Vegas and listening and caring about our issues. It just wouldn't be the case if we didn't have the EC.
I think it's the wording (at least partly). The phrase "leaving office" is an active one, maybe to some people it suggests that it's an action that Trump himself has to take (and can therefore decide not to take). If the phrasing made it clear that it was a fully automatic process in which Trump had no say, it'd presumably be easier for people to grasp.I'll never understand why people think this. If he loses it's not his choice if he leaves or not. He will have to leave or be arrested. Even if he somehow was able to delay the inauguration of the next president he still wouldn't remain president. It would go the speaker of the house who would have Trump arrested or shot.
Experts have been predicting for years that Texas would blue due to the growing Hispanic population. If this did happen, the Republicans would be pretty screwed.
Man, I'm scared shitless honestly. The electoral college has completely fucked us.
because then you have a few really populated areas speaking for the whole country. This means that those people would mostly care about things happening in their areas.
It's not areas that speak. It's people.because then you have a few really populated areas speaking for the whole country. This means that those people would mostly care about things happening in their areas.
But now you have sparsely populated areas having a disproportionately large amount of say so and it doesn't work for anyone.
I think they can and should but people forget US elections is like 50 countries voting for a president. In that context the EC.system makes sense.
It doesnt matter if you even out the states ev. Its inherently undemocratic because its a winner take all.
You can lose a state by one vote and get nothing, you can win a state by 99% and you dont get extra.
The system is working as intended, my vote in oklahoma is meaningless, only a handful of swing states matter.
Essentially, it's easier* for an individual's vote to sway one of 51 smaller elections and have that one election sway the overall outcome than it is for an individual's vote to sway a single giant election.
As a practical example, 537 voters in Florida came closer to swaying the ultimate outcome of the 2000 presidential election than any voter ever would have hoped to come in a straight popular vote.
It's still statistically impossible.
You need a constitutional amendment for that. With how much the GOP controls the senate, it's practically impossible. If the Electoral college is taken out, there will never be a Republican president ever again.
Why does that make it more miserable?God dammit next gen is 2020 as well. It is going to be an absolutely miserable year
not really though because as one example .. those places are major farm lands and the such. If you left it up the cities ... they don't care about farmers until the food supply gets low. They won't care about the steel workers until the building materials run out.
thetes a lot more to than just the hot topics in the headlines.
Of course it's a problem... the whole idea of basing an argument for or against a voting system where there are millions of people voting on the myth of vote efficacy is ludicrous, and I'm not using "the power of your vote is greater with the EC than without it" as an argument for the EC. I only bring it up as a counter to the feeling that your individual vote doesn't matter in the EC... statistically, it matters more with the EC, but to be quite clear... your individual vote doesn't matter under any voting system.But don't you see that is exactly the problem?
I get what you are saying but to be honest I'd still feel like my vote would count more in a general popular vote. Is it one of 300 million? Yes. But the point is everyones vote is equal and everyones vote is counted. You can say "I voted for Hilary Clinton and I was part of the x amount of votes that made her win."
Not everyone can say that with our current system. If I lived in Kansas, my vote for Hilary would not matter because the state went red. I get that it was counted within Kansas, but realistically I had no chance of turning that state blue. And as soon as the state turned red my vote is essentially declared null and void.
On the flipside, I have a friend who was honestly just too lazy to go and vote in 2016. I would want to get mad at him for not doing him part but why would I? He would have voted in Massachusetts if he did vote. That state was gonna go blue either way. I honestly don't have a case if I got mad at him for ruining the election. I know people that voted for Jill Stein in Mass as well. Mass isn't anywhere close to being a swing state so fuck it why not a protest vote.
The current system means that votes in certain states carry more weight than others. If you are not in those states you honestly feel disenfranchised. ESPECIALLY if you are blue living in red and vice versa.
In a popular vote, the person voting in Florida or PA, or WI might not feel as though their vote holds as much power. But the people living in Washington, Mass, Kansas or Alabama feel like their vote actually means something now.
Americans have hilarious short term memory. Ivanka could run and people will have all but forgot any of the terrible things Trump has done. Matter of fact media will help deify him, and use softened words to describe his Presidency. America has done it time and time again.
The previous forum told me Trump couldn't win the Republican candicacy. When he did they told me it was an actual good thing because he would never win the presidential elections.
So yeah I am pretty much convinced there is a big chance the US is stuck with that cunt for another 4 years. Although it goes without saying that I will be overjoyed if I am wrong.
No it's not. None of his legislative accomplishments, as limited as they are, are unexpected or even outside what a regular republican might accomplish given the house and senate Trump had for a bit there. His legal trouble is also not that crazy since even during the primary there was speculation.
Russian Interference
Ukraine President phone call
Massive corruption(ProPublica)
You're looking at things too narrowly. It's not just laws, but democratic norms he's been pushing against.
Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/jeff-sessions-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html
And it doesn't happen in just 2 years, lol.
Read "How Democracies Die". A lot of authoritarians started out like that(anti-media, threats for political opponents, condoning violence) but it was dismissed because "it was just words."
Then years later, they and their political allies started to act on those words.
Ex:Evo Morales, Chavez, Orban.
By winning the popular vote in enough states for it not to matter, it's incredibly pointless when a president like Trump could win with a 5 million vote deficit because of a document drafted when we only had 13 states.
Except that Trump isn't like most other Republican/GOP presidents who are so corrupt & obnoxious like Trump is, not even Richard Nixon (even though he was bad, but not obnoxious in personality). Trump has taken things to a whole another level than just Watergate with Richard Nixon.
This isn't the Richard Nixon era in which neither the internet or social media hadn't existed. Trump cultists can't just easily retract back & say something like, "Well, I've never supported Trump," etc. when everything is now out of the open on the internet & social media for everyone to see (especially when they've been exposed on National TV committing crimes as well as racism "because Trump said so"). Not like Richard Nixon supporters could get away with saying that they"ve never supported him when they only have media & newspapers.
The Trump brand name? It's been heavily tarnished thanks to Donald himself. No sane individual would want to vote for another Trump. Everything that Trump has said & done, will remain on the internet (through Google) & on social media, plus will be written in history books.
Explain this logic. He was unlikely before but won so since he's unlikely again that means he'll win again?
It's pretty simple. A lot of people underestimated his support last time. A lot of people are underestimating his support this time.
It's pretty simple. A lot of people underestimated his support last time. A lot of people are underestimating his support this time.
It's pretty simple. A lot of people underestimated his support last time. A lot of people are underestimating his support this time.
The reasoning is they must be underestimating him this time because they underestimated him last time? That doesn't make any sense.
What the hell are you on about? Do you just post for the sake of arguing semantics? Seems so.
The point is, I see the same dismissiveness and underestimation of Trump as I did last time. If the slightest thing goes wrong from him (the Bevin loss), people extrapolate from that that the end is night. They hear and see what they want to hear and see, which was precisely the issue last time. Republicans won 13 out of the 15 races on Election Day, and our biggest scalp was Bevin... once the least popular governor in the US.
Too many people are missing the forest for the trees.
So are you implying that all those people that supported Trump stayed home during the 2018 Blue Wave?
Not to mention the election just now where a Dem won in Kentucky where Trump campaigned right before?
not really though because as one example .. those places are major farm lands and the such. If you left it up the cities ... they don't care about farmers until the food supply gets low. They won't care about the steel workers until the building materials run out.
thetes a lot more to than just the hot topics in the headlines.
The Kentucky governor result is a red herring and people aren't reading into it. Kentucky typically favours Democrats for governor. The Republican who lost (Matt Bevin) is only the second Republican governor since 1971. The Republicans also easily won every other race in the state last week. The governor election was a vote on Bevin, who many Kentuckians hates. He was at one point the least popular governor in the US.
Do not read into the Bevin loss.
Nothing you're arguing is causal. It's poor reasoning. People thinking event A was unlikely in the past and it happening has zero impact on the quality of analysis regarding the probability of event B. Nothing about the first scenario suggests the second must be or is likely wrong or right or anything. It just doesn't make any sense logically.
My argument is that people are underestimating Trump, and the evidence is there. Many people seem to presume Trump has no chance. Yet, recently the NYT polled the six biggest swing states and Trump is competitive in every state regardless of the opponent. He's even winning in some states.
It's much closer than many people think.
Yeah but...it's Kentucky. Rs winning every other election there is expected, which is why Bevin was a surprise.
The point to read into is that Trump is losing support in the states that helped cinch his victory in 2016, MI, WI, and PA. It's most likely it'll come down to those again and so far it isn't looking like he's exactly gaining ground there since then.
My argument is that people are underestimating Trump, and the evidence is there. Many people seem to presume Trump has no chance. Yet, recently the NYT polled the six biggest swing states and Trump is competitive in every state regardless of the opponent. He's even winning in some states.
It's much closer than many people think.
That's still just one poll, and before that he was losing with every candidate. While it's probably not going to be a blowout he definetly does not have more support than he did in 2016.
Especially with impeachment on the air throughout the election.
He was only losing against every other candidate in national polls, not state polls. When you poll swing states, he's either competitive or winning. And they are the states that won him the election last time and will win it for him again.
I don't agree with your point that he doesn't have the same level of support as last time. You may be right, but I don't see evidence of it. His base is more raucous than ever, he has complete support from the GOP, and he's raising obscene amounts of cash. He certainly didn't have those last two factors last time. He's going to be very tough to beat.
You're right. Anecdotal, but I live in Indiana and waited three hours to vote in 2018, in a building full of Republican voters. Trump's base was incredibly energized last fall and they'll be just as energized next year. Fortunately, a lot of the country woke up after 2016 and gave Dems many victories in 2018. We just need to get the left energized and excited over the next 12 months. If we can accomplish that, we'll win. I think.Did these people just not vote in 2018? Or maybe they were outnumbered? I think the latter is more likely.
The 2018 Blue Wave is the evidence against it.
We can't keep bringing up his base because his base is small and they're always motivated to vote. He can't win with just his base though, as 2018 proves when people are energized.
Did these people just not vote in 2018? Or maybe they were outnumbered? I think the latter is more likely.
The main issue is getting our side out to vote. There's more of us than them.
You can fix the EC without a constitutional amendment. The easiest way would be to increase house representatives.Don't know if this is the right word for it, but the EC should be proportionate: you get 40% of a state's vote, you get 40% of that state's EC. Would already be way more fair than the current shitshow as it wouldn't ignore people who voted for the candidate which lost in their state.