[Continuation] The Trump Presidency (XXX)

[Bob001]

.....
In 2020 with a swing of about 120,000 votes in four states -- Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- trump would have won the Electoral College vote which is based on the number of states the candidate wins, not the total popular vote. With those 120,000 votes in those four states trump could still have lost the popular vote by almost 7 million yet he'd be president right now.
....

It's worse than that. In 2020, if Trump had won just about 43,000 more votes in three states, he would have thrown the election into the House, where the Repubs would have elected him. If he had won about 65,000 votes in four states, he would have won.

If Trump picked up the right mix of 42,921 votes in Arizona (10,457), Georgia (11,779), and Wisconsin (20,682), the Electoral College would have been tied at 269 all. The House would have then decided the election. Republicans will hold the majority of state delegations in the new Congress, and they undoubtedly would have chosen Trump. If Trump had also picked up the one electoral vote in Nebraska’s Second Congressional District, which he lost to Biden by 22,091 votes, he would have won the Electoral College outright.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers

 

[Stacyhs]

> Snip<
It's also worthy of note that support among Democrats would very likely drop in a similar situation with a Democratic Party candidate, of course. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party attract distinctly different sorts of people from the start, after all.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Trebuchet]

Well, if Republican voters are around 50% of all voters...

They aren't, not even close...

...54% of those is very far from a winning number.

Hans

...but our electoral system particularly for the Senate and Presidency is massively unfair.

 

[newyorkguy]

I saw reference to this on another message board I use. Back in 2012 early election results had Mitt Romney leading the popular vote versus Barack Obama but Obama was projected to be the winner by electoral votes. As it turned out, Obama not only won the popular vote by 5 million votes, he trounced Romney in the Electoral College 332-206.

But on Election night 2012, when it looked like Romney might win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College, here's what 'citizen' donald trump was tweeting.

The real estate mogul and host of reality show “The Apprentice” has been an outspoken supporter of Mitt Romney. He used Twitter to object vehemently to the Electoral College system that he predicted would give the win to Obama and the popular vote to the GOP challenger. Trump called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy … a total sham and a travesty.” But either Trump or his team was deleting his tweets as fast as he sent them, including two that called for a “revolution.” One read: “We should have a revolution in this country!” Another said: “More votes equals a loss…revolution!” The Hill news link from November 7, 2012.

Very ironic in light of later events. Of course, it also illustrates how totally dishonest trump is and that he's always played the ignorant loudmouth.

He was still singing the same tune in 2016 after losing the popular vote by almost 3 million votes but winning the presidency by virtue of the Electoral College. In a 60 Minutes interview, trump told Lesley Stahl he had not changed his mind about the Electoral College.

"I'm not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There's a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play." 60 Minutes news link

 

[Delvo]

How would that Obama-Romney result have worked out even in theory? The usual explanation of how it's even a possibility is that rural states have more voting power per capita so it skews toward the side that's favored in rural states, but the Democrat being the more favored candidate in rural states would be... unexpected.

 

[Random]

The closest we have come to the Republican Popular Majority/Democratic Electoral Majority scenario in recent years was the 2000 Bush-Gore election. In that, team Bush had a full-court press PR campaign ready to go where they would appeal to the individual members of the Electoral College to vote for the popular majority winner.

This plan was shelved for some reason...

 

[newyorkguy]

In 2016 donald trump told Lesley Stahl:

"I'm not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There's a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play."

But as recently as his Tuesday post-arraignment appearance at Mar-a-Lago trump repeated his claim that the 2020 election "was stolen." Note, trump has never claimed he won the popular vote, that the popular vote was stolen from him. It's all about Arizona and Georgia and the electoral votes. Back in November 2016 trump told 60 Minutes that, "I'm not going to change my mind just because I won." He should've added, "I'll only change my mind if I lose."

 

[Delvo]

He's claimed he got more votes lots of times. He and his babysitters just focused their efforts to steal the election on the shortest route they could see to doing that.

 

[newyorkguy]

He's claimed he got more votes lots of times...

Did trump claim he'd actually won the popular vote? I recall his saying Biden's total was inflated by widespread voter fraud but I thought trump stopped short of claiming victory in the popular vote.

It's pretty clear most of his staff didn't think trump came anywhere close to winning the popular vote and they told him so. In fact trump himself clearly knew it. From The Guardian:

Donald Trump privately admitted to losing the 2020 election even as he worked to undermine and change the results, according to two top aides who testified before the January 6 committee. During the ninth and possibly final hearing, the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection shared new testimony from Alyssa Farah, a former White House aide, who said that a week after the election was called in favor of Biden, Trump was watching Biden on the television in the Oval Office, and said: “‘Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?’” Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, shared that Trump told Meadows: “I don’t want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out.” The Guardian news link

 

[alfaniner]

The FPDJT often claims that he got more votes in 2020 than any other Republican Presidential candidate in history. I believe this is true. But more people in total voted. And President Biden got more.

 

[newyorkguy]

trump got more votes than any other Republican presidential candidate but the turnout was the largest in US history. trump could probably take credit for the huge turnout. People were determined to get him out of office. My wife and I were online for over two hours -- the next longest wait was about ten minutes in 2008 when Obama was running for his first term (I voted for him) -- lined up with a couple hundred other people. Nobody said much but we knew why we were there. To get trump the hell out of the White House.

trump is on record as saying a number of times that the president should be the candidate who wins the most votes. Period. But after he lost in 2020 he tried to force a win in the Electoral College by unethical and illegal means. This illustrates the transactional nature of trump. What he says means nothing and trump will say anything.

 

[Tero]

They aren't, not even close...


...but our electoral system particularly for the Senate and Presidency is massively unfair.

And yet, they can't gerrymander the senate and the president is one of the few elections we have legal words for in the constitution.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet, they can't gerrymander the senate and the president is one of the few elections we have legal words for in the constitution.

The Senate is permanently gerrymandered unless the Constitution is amended. States with lower population numbers have greater voting power than states with higher population numbers.

 

[Tero]

The Senate is permanently gerrymandered unless the Constitution is amended. States with lower population numbers have greater voting power than states with higher population numbers.

What I meant was that if a state is 51% democrats, it's hard for republicans to grab it. But turnout and voting tricks then come into play. Lots of trouble for mail in votes etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What I meant was that if a state is 51% democrats, it's hard for republicans to grab it. But turnout and voting tricks then come into play. Lots of trouble for mail in votes etc.

I knew what you meant. I was correcting the misconception that somehow the Senate isn't gerrymandered.

 

[The Don]

What I meant was that if a state is 51% democrats, it's hard for republicans to grab it. But turnout and voting tricks then come into play. Lots of trouble for mail in votes etc.

I guess it depends on how effective the Republicans are at gerrymandering at a state level and hence whether they control the electoral process.

The 49% of Republicans could end up with 60%+ of state representatives and hence ensure that as few as possible of the 51% Democrats are actually able to cast their vote.

 

[Aridas]

I guess it depends on how effective the Republicans are at gerrymandering at a state level and hence whether they control the electoral process.

The 49% of Republicans could end up with 60%+ of state representatives and hence ensure that as few as possible of the 51% Democrats are actually able to cast their vote.

I think that Skeptic Ginger was more referring to, for example, the difference in the weight of a voter from California compared to a voter from Wyoming, in this case? States with dramatically lower populations still have the same power in the Senate as higher population ones.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think that Skeptic Ginger was more referring to, for example, the difference in the weight of a voter from California compared to a voter from Wyoming, in this case? States with dramatically lower populations still have the same power in the Senate as higher population ones.

Which is exactly the way gerrymandering works. I find it annoying when that isn't recognized.

 

[Aridas]

Which is exactly the way gerrymandering works. I find it annoying when that isn't recognized.

At a fundamental level, yeah. One can easily argue that gerrymandering refers more specifically to a particular means to achieve that end, though. In particular, manipulating electoral boundaries to crack and pack the voters to gain advantage in the end. That wouldn't actually apply to the example you're using where the borders are not being manipulated, but the same fundamental issue with votes having different amounts of power is still in play.

 

[Bob001]

I knew what you meant. I was correcting the misconception that somehow the Senate isn't gerrymandered.

I get your point, but I don't think "gerrymandered" is the right word. Congressional districts are redrawn after every census, and gerrymandering means deliberately drawing the boundaries to benefit one party, even when it conflicts with city lines, geographic features or other common-sense considerations. But each Representative is supposed to serve roughly the same number of voters. The Senate was created with two Senators for every state, large or small. It was never based on population, and it's never reconsidered. It gives more weight to Senators from the small states, but doesn't necessarily favor one party. The smallest state, Wyoming, has two Repub senators; the second smallest, Vermont, has a Democrat and an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At a fundamental level, yeah. One can easily argue that gerrymandering refers more specifically to a particular means to achieve that end, though. In particular, manipulating electoral boundaries to crack and pack the voters to gain advantage in the end. That wouldn't actually apply to the example you're using where the borders are not being manipulated, but the same fundamental issue with votes having different amounts of power is still in play.

So the complaint is about the means but not the ends?

What should the discussion be about then?

 

[Aridas]

So the complaint is about the means but not the ends?

What should the discussion be about then?

To poke this back a little for review purposes, it was noted that -

...but our electoral system particularly for the Senate and Presidency is massively unfair.

Which led to -

And yet, they can't gerrymander the senate and the president is one of the few elections we have legal words for in the constitution.

Which led to -

The Senate is permanently gerrymandered unless the Constitution is amended. States with lower population numbers have greater voting power than states with higher population numbers.

So, it was noted that the electoral system in place is deeply flawed, Tero made a nearly meaningless softening point (I can't really see that as a counter) to that observation, and you both made an incorrect counter to Tero and correctly poked at at least part of why the system is so deeply flawed. If you wanted to go further on the tangent, might I recommend focusing more on why the system is so flawed directly? The correction about the meaning and usage of gerrymandering is a relatively minor thing. Still, there's may not be much point in trying to argue that our electoral system is deeply flawed here due to how manifestly flawed it is, unless someone actually seriously tries to oppose that.

When it comes to how the GOP's messing with things, though, at that level, rather than gerrymandering, it's probably more based on, for example, shameless imagecrafting, focusing on taking advantage of biases, scapegoating, and controlling the information that actually reaches far too much of the population. Those are other ways to mess with things than gerrymandering.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To poke this back a little for review purposes, it was noted that -

Which led to -

Which led to -

So, it was noted that the electoral system in place is deeply flawed, Tero made a nearly meaningless softening point (I can't really see that as a counter) to that observation, and you both made an incorrect counter to Tero and correctly poked at at least part of why the system is so deeply flawed. If you wanted to go further on the tangent, might I recommend focusing more on why the system is so flawed directly? The correction about the meaning and usage of gerrymandering is a relatively minor thing. Still, there's may not be much point in trying to argue that our electoral system is deeply flawed here due to how manifestly flawed it is, unless someone actually seriously tries to oppose that.

When it comes to how the GOP's messing with things, though, at that level, rather than gerrymandering, it's probably more based on, for example, shameless imagecrafting, focusing on taking advantage of biases, scapegoating, and controlling the information that actually reaches far too much of the population. Those are other ways to mess with things than gerrymandering.

This argument does not sway me at all. It's the "and yet" that is the problem. And yet the Constitution has built-in gerrymandering.

Parse that together:

...but our electoral system particularly for the Senate and Presidency is massively unfair.

And yet, they can't gerrymander the senate and the president is one of the few elections we have legal words for in the constitution.​

What does that even mean? The EC is massively unfair but they can't gerrymander it? There are meaningless words in the Constitution that prevent gerrymandering?

Is the issue then the luck of the draw that the Constitution gives the GOP minority greater power than the Democratic majority?

OMG!

 

[Aridas]

This argument does not sway me at all. It's the "and yet" that is the problem. And yet the Constitution has built-in gerrymandering.

Are you really insisting on doubling down on your error? Look up what gerrymandering actually is and why it's called that! It doesn't properly apply here! Moving on.

Parse that together:

...but our electoral system particularly for the Senate and Presidency is massively unfair.

And yet, they can't gerrymander the senate and the president is one of the few elections we have legal words for in the constitution.​

What does that even mean? The EC is massively unfair but they can't gerrymander it? There are meaningless words in the Constitution that prevent gerrymandering?

As specifically noted in the previous post, Tero's point is nearly meaningless. What does it actually mean? It means that Republicans can't employ that particular method of rigging things. It means that there are some rules that they'll have a harder time getting around when it comes to trying to cheat Presidents onto us. No need to get outraged about such a trivial thing that doesn't even remotely counter what it responded to, regardless of how it may have been intended.

Is the issue then the luck of the draw that the Constitution gives the GOP minority greater power than the Democratic majority?

OMG!

The issues are far more along the lines of the examples that I poked at, either way. Luck of the draw doesn't seem to have been invoked at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you really insisting on doubling down on your error? Look up what gerrymandering actually is and why it's called that! It doesn't properly apply here! Moving on....

"My error"?

I think this discussion has gone as far as it can go under the circumstances.

Back to the thread topic: The Trump Presidency

 

[Aridas]

"My error"?

Yes.

I think this discussion has gone as far as it can go under the circumstances.

Back to the thread topic: The Trump Presidency

Seems like it.

 

[newyorkguy]

trump's 'other' Easter message on TruthSocial has heads spinning. What the actual hell?

[IMGW=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1457&pictureid=13412[/IMGW]

Some Twitter reactions:

• "What a deranged psychopath."
• "An exceedingly stable genius"
• "Two words. Gag Order"
• "Those easter egg hunts at Maralago must be wild!"
• "Another indictment must be close..."
• "Trump is a danger to the entire world."

Previously trump has stated the US is on the brink of WWIII, trump has a plan to avoid it and we need to get him back in the White House so he can put his plan into action. Is his Easter post related?

 

[Norman Alexander]

The "REAL Donald Trump" would have written it as "WROLD WAR3!!!". So this was written for him.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

From Politico:

“Donald Trump argued late Tuesday that his historic indictment by a Manhattan grand jury requires a delay in another legal matter he faces: the defamation lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump defamed her when he denied and derided her claim that he raped her decades ago.

The former president is slated to defend against those allegations in a civil trial on April 25, but his lawyer Joe Tacopina is urging U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan to postpone it for four weeks, contending that the surge in media coverage of Trump’s indictment has tainted potential jurors in the civil case.”

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's the Mr. Burns' Diseases Theory of Crime:
if you commit too many, there won't be time to have trials for any of them.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's just the "delay, delay, delay" tactic Trump always uses.

 

[Segnosaur]

From: The Guardian
World Bank staff were apparently told to give preferential treatment to the son of a high-ranking Trump administration official...colleagues were encouraged by a senior manager to curry favour with the son of David Malpass, who is now president of the World Bank but at the time was serving in the US Treasury under Donald Trump.

So tell me again how Hunter Biden is so much of a scandal for Biden...

 

[Stacyhs]

From: The Guardian
World Bank staff were apparently told to give preferential treatment to the son of a high-ranking Trump administration official...colleagues were encouraged by a senior manager to curry favour with the son of David Malpass, who is now president of the World Bank but at the time was serving in the US Treasury under Donald Trump.

So tell me again how Hunter Biden is so much of a scandal for Biden...

Silly; you forgot one major criterion: It's only bad if Democrats do it.

 

[acbytesla]

From Politico:

“Donald Trump argued late Tuesday that his historic indictment by a Manhattan grand jury requires a delay in another legal matter he faces: the defamation lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump defamed her when he denied and derided her claim that he raped her decades ago.

The former president is slated to defend against those allegations in a civil trial on April 25, but his lawyer Joe Tacopina is urging U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan to postpone it for four weeks, contending that the surge in media coverage of Trump’s indictment has tainted potential jurors in the civil case.”

Kaplan will say no. He isn’t putting up with Trump’s delay tactics. I would be shocked if he gave Trump a continuance.

 

[Segnosaur]

Looks like Trump has launched a second set of NFT digital trading cards. (For anyone who held any cards from his first series, the announcement of the second series caused the value to drop by about half )

Looks like he is desperate to raise money for some reason.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

 

[TofuFighter]

Kaplan will say no. He isn’t putting up with Trump’s delay tactics. I would be shocked if he gave Trump a continuance.

Kaplan essentially said that trump was the reason for the surge in media coverage by way of his public announcements so he could not use that as a reason to delay the trial.

Tacopina is apparently supposed to advise Kaplan by tomorrow whether his client will be attending the rape trial in person. Clearly I don't understand US law because the notion that a defendant in a rape matter can choose whether or not to show up at court really puzzles me.

 

[Segnosaur]

Tacopina is apparently supposed to advise Kaplan by tomorrow whether his client will be attending the rape trial in person. Clearly I don't understand US law because the notion that a defendant in a rape matter can choose whether or not to show up at court really puzzles me.

Well it is a civil trial so it's not like they would be taking Trump into custody with a guilty verdict.

Plus, I wonder if it would be easier for a plaintiff if they don't have to actually see their attacker in the court room?


Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

 

[eerok]

C'mon, this has to be a joke.

Trump NFT: second series, same at the first. A little bit louder. A little bit worse. (reddit.com)

Pretty funny in any case.

 

[Trebuchet]

C'mon, this has to be a joke.

Trump NFT: second series, same at the first. A little bit louder. A little bit worse. (reddit.com)

Pretty funny in any case.

Three of the eight depict him with a crown. Exactly how he sees himself.

 

[slyjoe]

C'mon, this has to be a joke.

Trump NFT: second series, same at the first. A little bit louder. A little bit worse. (reddit.com)

Pretty funny in any case.

I like the period-accurate flag for crossing the Delaware.