President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Random said:
Exactly, they were not battleground states. So California, Idaho, and New York all got about the same amount of attention from the Presidential candidates. None really. Not compared to New Hampshire, Iowa, or Florida.
Click to expand...

My comment wasn't about he attention they get, it's about whether or not their opinion and collective voice would have any reasonable possibility of influencing an outcome.

Right now, The Big Blues (CA, NY) aren't battlegrounds because they almost always vote blue. Their vote can effectively be assumed as given. Most of the interior aren't battlegrounds because they usually go red, and can be predicted pretty well. The battlegrounds are the swing states - the ones that have a moderate number of ec votes AND who are not strongly red or blue. They can be swayed to one side or the other in terms of electoral votes.

Let's think about what would happen if we made it popular only. T popular vote in swing states ends up being close to 50/50, no matter what (that's why they're "swing"). So they'd be an even split. Most other states run within a 10 point spread, and the direction is often (not always) known. Then there are ones like NY and CA that have very large populations, and usually go very strongly blue. CA had nearly a 30 point spread in favor of Clinton, amounting to 2.5 millions votes. NY had a 21 point spread, amounting to 1.5 million votes. That's +4 million votes to Clinton, which is significantly higher than the spread in popular votes across the entire country.

If this were a purely popular vote, the election would have been won exclusively by two states. Two states whose bulk of votes are coming from very densely populated cities. Two cities that are materially different from the entire rest of the country in terms of culture, behavior, demographic mix, income, and belief.

Those two states effectively disenfranchise the entire rest of the country.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It's also possible that it's either the version or some particular administrative setting that IT has in place.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are looking in the right spot for the box. I've been using Chrome and posting for years and I just discovered it....like 2 days ago.:cheerleader5:cheerleader5
 
Emily's Cat said:
My comment wasn't about he attention they get, it's about whether or not their opinion and collective voice would have any reasonable possibility of influencing an outcome.

Right now, The Big Blues (CA, NY) aren't battlegrounds because they almost always vote blue. Their vote can effectively be assumed as given. Most of the interior aren't battlegrounds because they usually go red, and can be predicted pretty well. The battlegrounds are the swing states - the ones that have a moderate number of ec votes AND who are not strongly red or blue. They can be swayed to one side or the other in terms of electoral votes.

Let's think about what would happen if we made it popular only. T popular vote in swing states ends up being close to 50/50, no matter what (that's why they're "swing"). So they'd be an even split. Most other states run within a 10 point spread, and the direction is often (not always) known. Then there are ones like NY and CA that have very large populations, and usually go very strongly blue. CA had nearly a 30 point spread in favor of Clinton, amounting to 2.5 millions votes. NY had a 21 point spread, amounting to 1.5 million votes. That's +4 million votes to Clinton, which is significantly higher than the spread in popular votes across the entire country.

If this were a purely popular vote, the election would have been won exclusively by two states. Two states whose bulk of votes are coming from very densely populated cities. Two cities that are materially different from the entire rest of the country in terms of culture, behavior, demographic mix, income, and belief.

Those two states effectively disenfranchise the entire rest of the country.
Click to expand...

Why is it a good thing for those cities to be disenfranchised by the EC? Those small states are materially different from most of the population of the country in terms of culture, behavior, demographic mix, income and belief.
 
uke2se said:
Pretty much this, although I'd say Sarah Palin made the McCain ticket unqualified. Romney is a better example.
Click to expand...

I agree that Palin sunk that boat. I know many people who were undecided between two good candidates, leaning slightly toward McCain... who pretty much jumped ship when he brought Palin on as running mate.

That's a bit of a contrast to this year. I know lots of people (myself included) who were undecided between what they viewed as two bad candidates.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
That said, I agree that with each swing the pendulum's "resting point" is just a tad more liberal. Which is either a real, desireable state or is setting the stage for a major reset one day. I'm not sure which.
Click to expand...

I think that's a reflection of social evolution more than necessarily an ideological win.

In my opinion, "liberal" generally represents forward progress, change, disruption. But "conservative" isn't the opposite of that, most of the time. It's not about backward progress, it's about status quo. In my view, the liberal perspective tends to err by moving too far, too fast, without diligent consideration of the potential outcomes. The conservative side, in my view, tends to err by moving too little, too late, with too much concern for the potential outcome. Liberals see opportunity and ignore risk; conservatives see risk and ignore opportunity. It's all risk appetites writ large on the face of the species.

Now, if we take that perspective as a reasonably true representative of reality, then forward progress is inevitable. It's just maths at work. If one object wants to stand still, and the other object wants to move forward, the net result will always be a forward motion... it will simply be slower than the liberal side wants, and faster than the conservative side wants.

There is no going back, not really. There might be occasional small steps back for a very short period of time... but you really can't unlearn things, and you can't unsee that video, and you can't turn back the clock. Progress marches ever onward.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think you are looking in the right spot for the box. I've been using Chrome and posting for years and I just discovered it....like 2 days ago.:cheerleader5:cheerleader5
Click to expand...

Is it not in the same location as it is in IE? Because I found it in IE no problem, right up at the very top. It just doesn't exist in chrome for me. I think there's a high likelihood it has something to do with my employer's network configuration or security settings or some other appropriate technical jargon that I don't actually understand, but can still spell...
 
Spindrift said:
Why is it a good thing for those cities to be disenfranchised by the EC? Those small states are materially different from most of the population of the country in terms of culture, behavior, demographic mix, income and belief.
Click to expand...

One situation (EC) allows for the small states to have at least some voice. The big states still get a very big voice, but they are muted somewhat.

The other situation (popular vote alone) lets the big states, with the big voices, have the only voice that matters and makes sure that the small states can't be heard.

Seriously, it's not like CA and NY have no influence here, they exert a remarkable amount of influence in politics. But they don't have a stranglehold on it. Do away with the EC and they will.


ETA: Your comment here is essentially saying "it's not fair that the biggest states don't get to make all the decisions! It's not fair that they have to listen to those other smaller states at least a little bit!"
 
Spindrift said:
Why is it a good thing for those cities to be disenfranchised by the EC? Those small states are materially different from most of the population of the country in terms of culture, behavior, demographic mix, income and belief.
Click to expand...

Lol, CA and NY aren't disenfranchised by the EC. They still have by far the largest voices, they're just muted a little bit. And those small states aren't materially different from the rest of the country, unless you're considering LA, SF, and NYC to be "the rest of the country".

One situation (EC) allows for the small states to have at least some voice. The big states still get a very big voice, but they are muted somewhat.

The other situation (popular vote alone) lets the big states, with the big voices, have the only voice that matters and makes sure that the small states can't be heard.

Seriously, it's not like CA and NY have no influence here, they exert a remarkable amount of influence in politics. But they don't have a stranglehold on it. Do away with the EC and they will.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Okay, but you do understand that I'm using "voice" euphemistically, and that it is referring to the collective preferences, concerns, and choices of the citizens of that state, right?

Assuming that you understand this is how it's being used, what is your point?
Click to expand...

That the US is electing a national leader for the people of the US. The states have their own governments. The POTUS is a national leader, and the popular vote is the only legitimate mandate.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I agree that Palin sunk that boat. I know many people who were undecided between two good candidates, leaning slightly toward McCain... who pretty much jumped ship when he brought Palin on as running mate.

That's a bit of a contrast to this year. I know lots of people (myself included) who were undecided between what they viewed as two bad candidates.
Click to expand...
Trump and Palin have a very similar way of speaking, as well as a similar depth of knowledge. Heck, they also have beauty contests in common! I wonder if anyone who jumped ship because of Palin actually voted for Trump.
 
wareyin said:
Trump and Palin have a very similar way of speaking, as well as a similar depth of knowledge. Heck, they also have beauty contests in common! I wonder if anyone who jumped ship because of Palin actually voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

Well, there will be that small cohort of people who jumped ship because of Palin, not because of her stupidity, but because of her gender. That cohort may have voted for Trump.
 
Travis said:
The idea that gun owners are going to save us from tyranny is laughable. They will be the tip of the spear. They will self organize and be the ones kicking in doors and dragging out Muslims, Hispanics, homosexuals and other "undesirables" then transporting them to detention areas where who knows what happens to them.

When the **** hits the fan they will be America's Gestapo.



Conservatives seem to think that if other nations don't fear America they must hate us.

Which I guess explains why conservatives tend to abuse their children. They just don't understand the difference between "respect" and "fear."
Click to expand...


Over the top hyperbole and painting with a broad brush much?
 
I will proably take a break for a while. I think AMerica is in for some "interesting times". but saying we are on the verge of becoming the Fourth Reich is really over the top.
What is REALLY scaring me is I am seeing a sort of Left Wing Tea Party form....hard core ideologues who see anybody opposing them as "EVIL".
I will come back when the grieving process of over and people have calmed down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom