Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official 2020 Election General***


hagmania

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Arizona and Nevada were indeed battleground states in 2016.

It's true that the names of battleground states may gradually shift over time, but that doesn't change the fact that the Electoral College allows Presidential candidates to practically ignore deep red or deep blue states. No matter the system, Idaho will be ignored by candidates.

ok, I'm not the junkie some of you are.  My point is like you said, over time, battle ground states will change.     Not sure there is much you can do about the deep blue or red ones, but I think CA went more red this time, and ID went more blue.     It should be up to the candidates to figure out each election where things are changing and maybe put more of their efforts in those places.  That concept right there is good for all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I didn't.  But I will ignore ALL of your posts.  :bye:

With all due respect, it's better that I don't engage with trolls and stalkers.

Sure you dod...it was a clear example of  the flaws in the thinking of that time.

And now instead of actually addressing my post, you have chosen unsubstantiated and bogus personal attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not opposed to the EC.

That being said, we always hear about how the Democratic Party has forgotten about part of America.  Why do we never hear the opposite?  The Republican Party has no real interest in appealing to the largest urban centers in the country.  They have a distinct EC strategy....but as those urban centers expand out; both in their respective states and when urban minded viewers move away from their centers to other states (NC/Georgia/Texas/Arizona), that strategy is going to become less and less reliable.  

The most popular Republican candidate since Reagan lost the popular vote( and narrowly won the EC Vote) to a very unlikeable candidate in 2016.  The Republicans lost in 2018....and the most popular Republican candidate since Reagan lost the election to one of the most "vanilla" of candidates in 2020.

IF the DNC managed to consistently get a candidate who generates even a 6,7 or 8 (out of 10) enthusiasm...Republicans will never sniff the White House again.  If I'm a Republican that bothers me....and what would even bother me more is that I'm sure the D's are seeing Texas as vulnerable.  Once TX goes reliably purple.....it's over Federally for the Republicans. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

So is 3/5s of a person. The US Constitution is not the be all, end all. 

Speaking of which:

https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

”At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.”

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:
4 hours ago, kwille said:

Will our current guy even attend the inauguration?

I think he should but won't. But that precedent was set in the last inauguration when most of the Dem members of Congress didn't attend.

This is incorrect.

There were around 70 Democratic members of Congress who declined to attend Trump's inauguration. That's not "most." Heck, it's not even half.

Also, it wasn't a precedent. There were at least 20 Republicans who skipped Obama's inauguration. And the record for most absences is believed to be held by Richard Nixon, when 80+ members of Congress skipped his inauguration.

I would also argue that it's disingenuous to use the petty acts of Congressmen (and women) to justify the petty acts of the President. If you're unwilling to see a difference there, then you're wearing partisan blinders, IMO.

The last sitting president to skip town during the transfer of power was Andrew Johnson in 1869. If Trump wants to put himself into Johnson's company, by all means, it would be a good match.

Edited by Joe Summer
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:
14 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

This is a byproduct of the Electoral College, by the way.

I'm a little punchy today....what do you mean by that? 

The Electoral College caused Democrats to ignore the very people who think the Electoral College is a good idea.

If the EC didn't exist, Democrats would have to try to earn the vote of every citizen. But as it stands now, the Democrats only have to try to earn the votes of the ~25 most populous states.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:

I think he should but won't. But that precedent was set in the last inauguration when most of the Dem members of Congress didn't attend.

Actually it was set with John Adams in 1801.

I don't know why it's so important for so many that trump concede or attend an inauguration. It doesn't matter to me in the least. I'd much rather he work on a stimulus bill or at least go through the motions that he actually cares about the quarter of a million people that have died of covid so far...... instead of golfing. That's a much bigger stain on the Whitehouse than any of the "hurt feelings" nonsense whether he attends or claps so smiles at an inauguration. Coasting down the stretch when your country is in crisis only proves he was terribly unequipped for the job in the first place. Not pointing my finger at you Pack because you didn't vote for him, but it's a shame so many feel the need to defend him even today after he's been completely exposed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The founding fathers didn't even think the Electoral College was a great idea at the time. It was a last-minute compromise to end a stalemate between those who wanted to use a popular vote to choose the President and those who wanted Congress to do it. And our politics have changed so much that most of the points they were debating are now irrelevant. But we hold it up as this brilliant thing they came up with.

If we didn't already have the EC, and someone suggested it today, it would seem ridiculous. All the states elect governors via popular vote, but I don't see arguments that's a flawed method, even though the same concerns about big cities dominating the campaigns should apply.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

The Electoral College caused Democrats to ignore the very people who think the Electoral College is a good idea.

If the EC didn't exist, Democrats would have to try to earn the vote of every citizen. But as it stands now, the Democrats only have to try to earn the votes of the ~25 most populous states.

Seems to me that's being generous. Really isn't it about half a dozen states each presidential cycle? That's all that REALLY matters.

Maybe I sound bitter because my entire life I've never once cast a vote that mattered all because of the electoral college.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spartans Rule said:

The founding fathers didn't even think the Electoral College was a great idea at the time. It was a last-minute compromise to end a stalemate between those who wanted to use a popular vote to choose the President and those who wanted Congress to do it. And our politics have changed so much that most of the points they were debating are now irrelevant. But we hold it up as this brilliant thing they came up with.

If we didn't already have the EC, and someone suggested it today, it would seem ridiculous. All the states elect governors via popular vote, but I don't see arguments that's a flawed method, even though the same concerns about big cities dominating the campaigns should apply.

Great post, but please don't say this ever again. It may give them ideas.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

That's fine.  The Moral of the story is that LA, NY and Chicago would be deciding the President every election, ignoring every other city, county, village or state in the country.  Because we all know that people in Idaho have the same values as those in LA, NY and Chicago.

no, the people who live in those cities would decide, right?  that’s why idaho, with a population of 7 has the same number of senators as ny, tx, ca.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

That's fine.  The Moral of the story is that LA, NY and Chicago would be deciding the President every election, ignoring every other city, county, village or state in the country.  Because we all know that people in Idaho have the same values as those in LA, NY and Chicago.

Well, I think LA/NY/CHI represent less than 5% of the population so I'd say no..... they probably wouldn't be deciding the president every election.

The way it's setup right now with the electoral college actually CREATES a scenario where a relatively small percentage of the country actually decides the election.

Is that the point that you were trying to make? You are against the electoral college because of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, timschochet said:

The fallacy of your argument is your belief that without the EC all citizens would have equal weight. You’re ignoring how candidates are chosen in the first place. Should we also have one national primary? And if we did, what’s the stop the ones with the most money and fame from being nominated 100% of the time? 

We should get rid of primaries completely. Have a general election with ranked-choice voting. No formal recognition of parties.

  • Like 2
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Huh?  It is LITERALLY ensconced in the US Constitution: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx#overview and was established upon the founding of this country.  Can't get more Democratic than that. 

Lots of undemocratic things are literally in the US Constitution.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

We should get rid of primaries completely. Have a general election with ranked-choice voting. No formal recognition of parties.

Pffft. More like a 128 candidate single elimination bracket system. We are already living through "November Madness" by any other name.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Summer said:

The Electoral College caused Democrats to ignore the very people who think the Electoral College is a good idea.

If the EC didn't exist, Democrats would have to try to earn the vote of every citizen. But as it stands now, the Democrats only have to try to earn the votes of the ~25 most populous states.

Help me with the math.  Biden won the popularvote by a huge margin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Help me with the math.  Biden won the popularvote by a huge margin

If you win the 25 most populous states you do win the popular vote by fairly big margin. 

I actually thought Biden would win the popular vote by a much larger margin than he actually did. Kind of shocked honestly, and I'm even a polling skeptic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Encyclopedia Brown said:

Rudy has responded to the loss in Pennsylvania.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnZEdLtXYAQqo2h?format=jpg&name=large

 

Wouldn’t it be great if the SCOTUS refused to hear any of these cases because they were beach slapped in all the lower court rulings? The case was effectively shut down with prejudice for lack of evidence. Can the legal types chime in on what grounds Team Trump can cite fault with the judge’s ruling? No sane judge is going to toss 682,000 votes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thunderlips said:

Wouldn'y a simpler resolution to the EC/Popular "problem" be that states give their EC votes based on the proportional percentage of their popular vote?.... Or would that make in pretty much impossible ( in years in which there is a viable Third Party)  for any candidate to reach 270?

If the proportions are carried out to unlimited decimal points, wouldn't that be identical to a popular vote?  If they aren't, it would be popular vote with rounding errors, which sounds like a bad idea.

Edited by Rich Conway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Encyclopedia Brown said:

Rudy has responded to the loss in Pennsylvania.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnZEdLtXYAQqo2h?format=jpg&name=large

 

Oh Rudy!  Poor old Rudy.  This is how you’ll go down in the history books.  So sad. So pathetic. :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

What would the correct ratio have been?

They probably should have allocated congressional seats and EC votes based on the number of eligible voters. So women, children, and slaves count for 0.

Also, not terribly democratic, but that definition evolves over time. 

Edited by The Z Machine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

Wouldn’t it be great if the SCOTUS refused to hear any of these cases because they were beach slapped in all the lower court rulings? The case was effectively shut down with prejudice for lack of evidence. Can the legal types chime in on what grounds Team Trump can cite fault with the judge’s ruling? No sane judge is going to toss 682,000 votes. 

There are no grounds. None of these will see scotus. Their next appeal will be tossed quickly and then it will not be taken up after. 

Edited by Capella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

They probably should have allocated congressional seats and EC votes based on the number of eligible voters. So women, children, and slaves count for 0.

Also, not terribly democratic, but that definition evolves over time. 

If you think three-fifths was too high rather than too low, I agree.

When most people complain about the three-fifths provision, they make it sound like it was offensively low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

If you think three-fifths was too high rather than too low, I agree.

When most people complain about the three-fifths provision, they make it sound like it was offensively low.

I think most people who feel that way are simply reacting to the idea that the fractional allocation signifies that the slaves are "less than fully human."   I don't think many of these people have really thought about why the clause exists, nor the implications of eliminating or adjusting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

I'm not sure about WH, but he's absolutely my favorite Fetterman. 

Current Dem power brokers would be well served to at least give a listen to what he's got to say about appealing a little more to some of the citizens of the "Braddocks" or "McKeesports" all over the country (They probably won't though...and that's probably stupid.)

Edited by 5-ish Finkle
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...