Presidential Election 2020 Biden vs. Trump

Poll
6 votes (33.33%)
9 votes (50%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
3 votes (16.66%)

18 members have voted

July 11th, 2020 at 7:29:50 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: RonC
That could happen, but going short of the amendment process leaves it open to change. Enough states COULD adopt a mandate to vote the national vote result BUT keeping it as just a state law as opposed to an actual constitutional amendment means that it can be reversed a lot more easily...no state by state vote needed; just one state at a time.

The ignored minority created by a the largest cities and states controlling the whole agenda would lead to backlash in the states they control and the reversal of an anti-American policy such as the undermining of the EC. The EC was created for valid reasons hundreds of years ago and those reasons still exist--to keep one area or another from having too much control over the other areas. Yes, there were other things that may not be as nice as part of the process but the process got us to a place where no relatively small group of states can control the entire government unless they are more widely backed in getting there.

I don't think, and I certainly pray, that the EC goes nowhere.


I agree with that, just as easily as the states could agree to be bound by national popular vote, the agreement could also be rescinded by a state, or states.

I can't pretend to be in the mind of the Framers, but if they intended for Electors to be strictly bound to the popular vote of individual states, then they should have probably just said that when they drafted the Constitution. I don't believe Faithless Electors have changed a result, to date, but in the states in which such is permitted, an individual Elector could simply choose to bind himself/herself to national popular vote.

I also think that the EC arguably served a purpose once upon a time when it would not have been prudent to travel throughout rural areas to get the message out there. They didn't want urban centers dominating the elections...but my personal opinion is that was for a totally different reason. My opinion of the reason was simply that they didn't want BOTH/ALL major candidates pandering towards urban centers because that's where the most voters are located, in terms of efficiency of getting the message out. With the means of mass communication we have these days, and again in my opinion, that particular concern is either no longer relevant at all or no longer as relevant.

That said, if a person is a Republican, I do see the problem. It largely remains a rural v. urban affair, but the main reason that's even such a problem is because the Federal Government does a lot of stuff it ought not be doing. It's also that the far left Democrats/Socialists can't get the things they want enacted successfully without doing it by way of the Federal Government, because enacted extremely far left social/economic/welfare policies on the state level would result in mass exoduses of the money from the states in question.

Even with that, I still think the will of the nation (as a whole) should be done as relates the POTUS. The way I would effectuate such a thing, if I could unilaterally decide it, is to have a series of runoff elections until a particular candidate achieves a simple majority of the popular vote. You would remove nominees from the field until left with only two, unless someone wins a simple majority before that.

I also want to point out that I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican. For my part, I would be opposed to the Electoral College regardless of what party it has most recently benefitted. I'm also voting for neither Biden or Trump because I want them both to lose, even though that won't happen. I'm not a fan of the notion of voting AGAINST a specific individual by way of voting FOR a different one. Some people favor ranked choice voting for POTUS (and other offices), but I don't like that either. For me, it's quite simple: Vote for the candidate who I want to win. My runoff method would accomplish the same thing because, if my candidate was knocked out of it, then I would have to choose someone else in a later round, so I'm always voting for the person I want to win amongst my choices.

The candidate I am voting for will not win absent somehow (doubtful) coming in third place in Electoral votes and getting the nod as a compromise winner. My second choice for how I would like it to play out is Biden POTUS, but Republicans retain the Senate. It looks like neither Ohio or Pennsylvania have a US Senate election this time around, so I'd have no influence over that if I wanted to. If either state did, then based on the fact that I think Biden will win (subject to change) I would just automatically vote for the Republican running for Senate. The House is pretty safe, so if I thought Trump would win POTUS, then I'd just vote for whatever Senate candidate that I want to win and would look more into it.

To the last part of what you said, the consolidation into an almost two-party exclusive system, in my opinion, follows as a natural result of the fact that there's an Electoral College in the first place. I think all of the problems started there, not that changing the EC now would change that...but it at least could.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
July 11th, 2020 at 7:37:19 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
One other thing, Republicans shouldn't blame the urban centers for their failings as relates the fact that a first-term candidate has not won the National Popular vote since 1988...you should blame the Christian Conservatives for that one. If the Republicans had shown an ability to be willing to yield some personal liberties (gay marriage, gay adoption, gay rights, transexual rights, etc.) and come off of it a bit as relates victimless crimes, then they wouldn't be in the national popular vote mess in which they find themselves.

They wanted to be unyielding and the current state of affairs is what they got for their efforts. We can only hope the same happens to the Democrats, sooner or later, preferably sooner.

I admit that I was quite young in 1988, but New York and California still existed then, didn't they?
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
July 11th, 2020 at 7:56:29 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Mission146
One other thing, Republicans shouldn't blame the urban centers for their failings as relates the fact that a first-term candidate has not won the National Popular vote since 1988...you should blame the Christian Conservatives for that one. If the Republicans had shown an ability to be willing to yield some personal liberties (gay marriage, gay adoption, gay rights, transexual rights, etc.) and come off of it a bit as relates victimless crimes, then they wouldn't be in the national popular vote mess in which they find themselves.


I do not buy that on the social issues thing. Gay marriage was never a huge winner with voters. That is why they had to get SCOTUS to do the dirty work for them. People do not want boys and men in the ladies room or males "identifying" as and competing in female sports. They do not want the abortion culture.

The social issues found their home in the Democrat Party and the party moved further and further left. Democrat candidates pre-Obama would hide their real views, because they knew they would not come near getting elected if they said what they really want.

The "national popular vote mess" you claim is largely just because of the huge margins the Democrats have in CA and a few other places. And this is what the EC was made to prevent, one large place controlling the vote. In the 1700s it was NYC/PHI. Today it is CA.
The President is a fink.
July 11th, 2020 at 8:59:01 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: AZDuffman
I do not buy that on the social issues thing. Gay marriage was never a huge winner with voters. That is why they had to get SCOTUS to do the dirty work for them. People do not want boys and men in the ladies room or males "identifying" as and competing in female sports. They do not want the abortion culture.

The social issues found their home in the Democrat Party and the party moved further and further left. Democrat candidates pre-Obama would hide their real views, because they knew they would not come near getting elected if they said what they really want.

The "national popular vote mess" you claim is largely just because of the huge margins the Democrats have in CA and a few other places. And this is what the EC was made to prevent, one large place controlling the vote. In the 1700s it was NYC/PHI. Today it is CA.


Gay marriage crossed 50% approval nearly a decade ago and stands pretty damn near 70% popular approval present day. Your so-called, "Moral majority," sometimes likes to believe that it's still THE majority and you have churches and those affiliated often gripe about gay marriage. From what I can tell, those who are more likely to take social actions against homosexuals are mostly Christian Republicans vis-a-vis denial of service, actively speaking out and other things. I'm not saying they don't have the right to do that...I'm just saying it's not getting Democrats or Independents on the Republicans' side anytime soon. Adapt or die.

The same thing can be said when it comes to any blanket issue, or the concept of wanting to lump, 'Liberals,' altogether in the same box, in general. Both parties have an ideological purity problem to the extent that many (maybe not most...yet) rank-and-file voters tend to believe everyone in the party should be lockstep on everything; the Republicans compound that problem with the fact that there are fewer of them than there are Democrats.

Marijuana crossed 50% at around the same time and is currently in the high-60's. Once again, guess who's most likely to be opposed? Religious Conservatives.

The problem that the Republicans have is that there are two competing factions. Back when it was mainly the party of fiscal Conservatism, or at least did a really good job pretending to be, it was kind of like some religious folks aligned with fiscal Conservatism while those mainly concerned with fiscal Conservatism yielded to the moral preferences of the religions. There are MANY religious people who are simultaneously poor, and vote against their own financial interests when they vote Republican, but they're willing to make that concession. If you think fiscal Conservatism still exists in the Republican party, even though it basically doesn't, then you need the religious people to vote against their own financial interests.

Abortion-NEVER LEGAL is, like, one in five...but do you know what party gets associated with that? Again, more religious idiots not doing you guys any favors on that one.

Interestingly enough, more people think that abortion is ALWAYS morally wrong than those who think it is ALWAYS morally right, though not a simple majority in either case. What does that say? It says that many people conclude, "It wouldn't be my choice, but it's neither for me or for the Government to make this decision for other people, particularly not in the early stages of pregnancy."

Of course, the religious idiots TOTALLY conflict with themselves on that one. Many of them are 100% pro-life and would outlaw abortion, but are also no great fans of Government safety nets. Hmmm....let's think about this one for a second. Okay, so you want people to have kids, but you don't want the babies to have economic safety nets. Lot of F'n sense that makes. I think more fiscally-minded Conservatives would at least be logical enough to conclude that abortion does save a ton of money.

I'm not claiming anything; it just is what it is. You guys could win the National Popular vote for first-term Presidents before...California and New York existed at all relevant times, so what happened? Let's see:

1.) You never had minorities, at least, not at any extremely recent time.

2.) You lost a ton of women.

3.) You lost many college-educated men, particularly those who are not religious.

So, you mainly have religious people and white males who are not college educated. There's a ton of crossover in those two segments, as well.

Another segment, though much smaller, that Republicans lost is that of people who are somewhat/mostly Liberal on social/personal issues and who are ACTUAL fiscal Conservatives...because they see that Republicans aren't really that anymore. Lots of talking about Federal Government spending cuts, but much less doing...the tewo major parties mainly have differing ideas of what the money should be spent on.

Although, I do love the high-income earning Republicans who mainly support Republicans hoping for some vague notion of reduced taxes. They're laughing at their religious Republican compatriots all the way to the bank. Meantime, they're snorting blow and nailing high-end prostitutes who they would pay to get an abortion, if needed, while voting for pro-life candidates.

Christian Conservatives just can't stand the notion of freedom of choice, in general, except for when it comes to religion provided it is one of the selected CORRECT religions. They can sanctimoniously wave the flags and preach about American, "Freedom," all they want, but the fact remains that they have no interest in freedom whatsoever.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
July 11th, 2020 at 9:29:26 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Mission146
Gay marriage crossed 50% approval nearly a decade ago and stands pretty damn near 70% popular approval present day. Your so-called, "Moral majority," sometimes likes to believe that it's still THE majority and you have churches and those affiliated often gripe about gay marriage. From what I can tell, those who are more likely to take social actions against homosexuals are mostly Christian Republicans vis-a-vis denial of service, actively speaking out and other things. I'm not saying they don't have the right to do that...I'm just saying it's not getting Democrats or Independents on the Republicans' side anytime soon. Adapt or die.


Yes, it was so popular that it never passed in a referendum and the Democrats never tried to push it legislatively. At the moment it is just accepted as a fact of life by the middle to whom it was never an important issue. This would be the crowd who cares more about who won the ballgame or what actress just went into rehab again.

Quote:
Marijuana crossed 50% at around the same time and is currently in the high-60's. Once again, guess who's most likely to be opposed? Religious Conservatives.


And most in favor are social liberals who also favor boys in the girls locker room at school. Your point?

Quote:
The problem that the Republicans have is that there are two competing factions. Back when it was mainly the party of fiscal Conservatism, or at least did a really good job pretending to be, it was kind of like some religious folks aligned with fiscal Conservatism while those mainly concerned with fiscal Conservatism yielded to the moral preferences of the religions. There are MANY religious people who are simultaneously poor, and vote against their own financial interests when they vote Republican, but they're willing to make that concession. If you think fiscal Conservatism still exists in the Republican party, even though it basically doesn't, then you need the religious people to vote against their own financial interests.


Vote against their financial self interest when the vote Republican? How exactly? I can give examples of Democrats voting against their financial self-interest of course. When they vote for higher taxes, which they regularly do.

Quote:
I'm not claiming anything; it just is what it is. You guys could win the National Popular vote for first-term Presidents before...California and New York existed at all relevant times, so what happened? Let's see:

1.) You never had minorities, at least, not at any extremely recent time.

2.) You lost a ton of women.

3.) You lost many college-educated men, particularly those who are not religious.


Lets balance. Democrats have lost whites, except for liberal whites. They have lost men. They will lose hispanics over time. They will eventually lose asians back to the GOP when the asians realize their skin color is not as important to Democrats as some other skin colors.

Democrats are a coalition party of unrelated special interests. The union member putting Suburbans together should have zero interest in the abortion-loving feminist and be against the global-warming believers. Yet they all vote in the same party. Sooner or later that will crack. Sooner or later women will tire of being told they have to let men in their bathrooms and locker rooms. Sooner or later Catholic hispanics will decide the do not want to vote for a party that loves abortion.

Give it time. You are blinded by your bigotry of religion.
The President is a fink.
July 11th, 2020 at 9:44:15 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: Mission146
Gay marriage crossed 50% approval nearly a decade ago and stands pretty damn near 70% popular approval present day. Your so-called, "Moral majority," sometimes likes to believe that it's still THE majority and you have churches and those affiliated often gripe about gay marriage. From what I can tell, those who are more likely to take social actions against homosexuals are mostly Christian Republicans vis-a-vis denial of service, actively speaking out and other things. I'm not saying they don't have the right to do that...I'm just saying it's not getting Democrats or Independents on the Republicans' side anytime soon. Adapt or die.

The same thing can be said when it comes to any blanket issue, or the concept of wanting to lump, 'Liberals,' altogether in the same box, in general. Both parties have an ideological purity problem to the extent that many (maybe not most...yet) rank-and-file voters tend to believe everyone in the party should be lockstep on everything; the Republicans compound that problem with the fact that there are fewer of them than there are Democrats.

Marijuana crossed 50% at around the same time and is currently in the high-60's. Once again, guess who's most likely to be opposed? Religious Conservatives.

The problem that the Republicans have is that there are two competing factions. Back when it was mainly the party of fiscal Conservatism, or at least did a really good job pretending to be, it was kind of like some religious folks aligned with fiscal Conservatism while those mainly concerned with fiscal Conservatism yielded to the moral preferences of the religions. There are MANY religious people who are simultaneously poor, and vote against their own financial interests when they vote Republican, but they're willing to make that concession. If you think fiscal Conservatism still exists in the Republican party, even though it basically doesn't, then you need the religious people to vote against their own financial interests.

Abortion-NEVER LEGAL is, like, one in five...but do you know what party gets associated with that? Again, more religious idiots not doing you guys any favors on that one.

Interestingly enough, more people think that abortion is ALWAYS morally wrong than those who think it is ALWAYS morally right, though not a simple majority in either case. What does that say? It says that many people conclude, "It wouldn't be my choice, but it's neither for me or for the Government to make this decision for other people, particularly not in the early stages of pregnancy."

Of course, the religious idiots TOTALLY conflict with themselves on that one. Many of them are 100% pro-life and would outlaw abortion, but are also no great fans of Government safety nets. Hmmm....let's think about this one for a second. Okay, so you want people to have kids, but you don't want the babies to have economic safety nets. Lot of F'n sense that makes. I think more fiscally-minded Conservatives would at least be logical enough to conclude that abortion does save a ton of money.

I'm not claiming anything; it just is what it is. You guys could win the National Popular vote for first-term Presidents before...California and New York existed at all relevant times, so what happened? Let's see:

1.) You never had minorities, at least, not at any extremely recent time.

2.) You lost a ton of women.

3.) You lost many college-educated men, particularly those who are not religious.

So, you mainly have religious people and white males who are not college educated. There's a ton of crossover in those two segments, as well.

Another segment, though much smaller, that Republicans lost is that of people who are somewhat/mostly Liberal on social/personal issues and who are ACTUAL fiscal Conservatives...because they see that Republicans aren't really that anymore. Lots of talking about Federal Government spending cuts, but much less doing...the tewo major parties mainly have differing ideas of what the money should be spent on.

Although, I do love the high-income earning Republicans who mainly support Republicans hoping for some vague notion of reduced taxes. They're laughing at their religious Republican compatriots all the way to the bank. Meantime, they're snorting blow and nailing high-end prostitutes who they would pay to get an abortion, if needed, while voting for pro-life candidates.

Christian Conservatives just can't stand the notion of freedom of choice, in general, except for when it comes to religion provided it is one of the selected CORRECT religions. They can sanctimoniously wave the flags and preach about American, "Freedom," all they want, but the fact remains that they have no interest in freedom whatsoever.


I read the first 2 paragraphs of this, and
hope to be able to set aside time later
to read the rest of the 2000 words. Sigh.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
July 11th, 2020 at 10:50:04 AM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Duffman thinks a lot things are still radical when they aren’t, and doesn’t even get to some of the ideas that are radical. I’ll give him the bathroom issue as still being radical enough.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
July 11th, 2020 at 11:39:28 AM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Could make a new thread, but won’t.

Republican pundit Ann Coulter blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday while suggesting that her followers should vote for his "lovely" Democratic opponent in November.
The staunchly conservative commentator took to Twitter on Friday to accuse McConnell of backing so-called "RINOs," or Republicans in Name Only, in another Senate race. Coulter offered harsh words for the majority leader, while touting the military service of his Democratic challenger Amy McGrath.
"The lovely Amy McGrath is a Marine Corps veteran. The average donation to her campaign is $36," Coulter tweeted. "Mitch McConnell is a broken-down old man owed by cheap labor lobbyists. #DefeatMcConnell"
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
July 11th, 2020 at 12:43:39 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: rxwine
Could make a new thread, but won’t.

Republican pundit Ann Coulter blasted


Nobody listens to the blatherings
of that old hag anymore. She lost
touch with reality about a year into
Trump's term. She makes no sense
most of the time now.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
July 11th, 2020 at 12:58:01 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Ah, the love is gone.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?