Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-07-2019, 02:59 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Sanders was mathematically eliminated when the superdelegates voted, and not before that. If you're going to have a system with superdelegates, then you can hardly fault a candidate for trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him. That's not being a sore loser; it's playing the game the way it is.

I'll fault a candidate that rails about how superdelegates are against democracy, then turns around and tries to convince the superdelegates to vote against the democratically selected nominee. Then turns around again in three years, back to "superdelegates bad".

It's not playing the system, it's whining to get what YOU want every step of the way.
  #52  
Old 12-07-2019, 03:51 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Do Super delegates exist just to be sure the Party gets the candidate it wants?
Well they've never gone against the candidate who was winning in pledged delegates. So overturning the clear popular will in favor of what "The Party" wants (of course a thing of a single mind), as Sanders was holding onto hope they would do, (wanting him of course) has not been their function ... yet anyway.

OTOH I do think the system functions as a hedge against the rise of a demagogue like Trump taking over the party in a crowded field by giving experienced party operatives some ability to nudge the choice to someone who is not about destroying the party and replacing it.

The original intent was born out of the Hunt commission, which was looking to reverse a run of D support decreases, to some degree, they thought, because the pure grassroots approach led to both too much frontloading to low turnout primaries that gave too much power to more highly motivated single issue, or cult of personality, factions, leading to a candidate who did not actually represent the interests of those who vote in general elections. Whether or not it delivered on that is of course pretty questionable.
  #53  
Old 12-07-2019, 04:20 PM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
It's not playing the system, it's whining to get what YOU want every step of the way.
That's literally what playing the system means.
  #54  
Old 12-07-2019, 05:03 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Sanders was mathematically eliminated when the superdelegates voted, and not before that.
Wrong. In May he was eliminated unless he got help from the Superdelegates (an incredibly unlikely proposition) but he was eliminated outright on June 7th, a week before the final primary. Not sure why I'm bothering because in a month you are just going to remember your own "facts" again.
  #55  
Old 12-07-2019, 07:38 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
That's literally what playing the system means.
Funny, I call that hypocritical bullshit.
  #56  
Old 12-07-2019, 10:34 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Clinton winning the popular vote in 2016 is about as relevant as the fact that she won the popular vote in 2008.
  #57  
Old 12-07-2019, 11:45 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Iím not refighting 2016, thatís been done enough. I will say that Bernie will be a lot less effective in 2020. Itís not a one on one race. And, quite frankly, I donít think the winning nominee should even bother with die hard Bernie supporters. They can ask for the nominee to Ďwin their voteí until theyíre blue in the face. Just ignore them. Nothing will make them vote for any other nominee.
Which is why he's the logical nominee.

You want the Berners to show up, you nominate Bernie.
  #58  
Old 12-07-2019, 11:51 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
But would black voters show up? I can see Bernie helping out a little in the states Trump won that he shouldn't have, but personally I think black voters turning out in large numbers works out better for Democrats.
  #59  
Old 12-08-2019, 02:23 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
You want the Berners to show up, you nominate Bernie.
You don't always give children what they want.
  #60  
Old 12-08-2019, 02:48 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Which is why he's the logical nominee.

You want the Berners to show up, you nominate Bernie.
Umm, no. I can watch the 1984 or 1972 election results on YouTube if I want to see what that would be like. Bernie has been nothing but toxic poison and Iím glad this is his last run. Itís too bad that Warrenís stans are adopting Bernieís scorched earth tactics at least on Twitter.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #61  
Old 12-08-2019, 03:02 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Clinton winning the popular vote in 2016 is about as relevant as the fact that she won the popular vote in 2008.
Not to the issue that it was raised in response to, whether or not "the American people have made it quite clear that they don't like her ideas"?

More voting for her than against her falsifies that specific proposition. I guess one could argue that they hated her ideas but loved her sparkling charismatic personality and the way she inspired them ... uh no. Americans in aggregate liked her ideas ... and even her. Elections are not won in aggregate though of course, are not always won by the choice that the most Americans like the ideas of. Rural votes each count for more, structurally, and votes in just a few states matter much more than many others. All true but not pertinent to what Americans think of her ideas.
  #62  
Old 12-08-2019, 03:48 PM
alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,459
I'm not thrilled with Sanders and I really want to avoid pilling on the Hillary hate, but she was deeply flawed candidate and whenever she speaks my reaction nowdays is basically just shut up.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #63  
Old 12-08-2019, 03:51 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 621
Hillary is still a child. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, and I was glad she lost. Her legacy will be losing to a clown like Trump and I'm sure it will be spray-painted all over her grave. Lady Macbeth, voting for EVERY single war. Never did a damn thing for the people.

"We came, we saw, he died"
  #64  
Old 12-08-2019, 03:53 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Clinton's kinda weird in that I think people respect her abilities and she would have made a fine President. But she was a horrible politician and really bad at strategy, which is why she got outwitted by Obama and then somehow managed to lose the electoral map(by a wide margin) to Trump. But you're right, the public does seem to have confidence in her abilities and her ideas are reasonable.

The character weaknesses though, as highlighted by her blaming everyone but herself for her loss, is part of the reason elections she should have won easily were close enough that she could lose by dumb luck or better strategy by the opposing campaign. It's also why she had so much trouble in 2016. Sanders is not performing well enough in 2020 to confirm that he should have been any particular threat to Clinton, yet she lost 23 states to him.
  #65  
Old 12-08-2019, 04:41 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Umm, no. I can watch the 1984 or 1972 election results on YouTube if I want to see what that would be like. Bernie has been nothing but toxic poison and Iím glad this is his last run. Itís too bad that Warrenís stans are adopting Bernieís scorched earth tactics at least on Twitter.
Aren't you backing Pete Buttigieg?

Yeah, I think your opinion on what is politically popular can be easily dismissed.
  #66  
Old 12-08-2019, 04:51 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
But would black voters show up? I can see Bernie helping out a little in the states Trump won that he shouldn't have, but personally I think black voters turning out in large numbers works out better for Democrats.
I think there are five times as many white people as black people in this country. Also, the Democrats need to grab up alienated young voters. If Biden's support skews disproportionately black & old, it's not that that's awful, but it's not really such a good thing.

I'm not for running someone like Pete Buttigieg with zero black support, but someone with broad working-class appeal is what you're looking for. Biden, Warren, & Sanders all have some of that; any would have a good chance of winning the general.

But Sanders also gets anti-corruption and anti-imperialist voters who might otherwise vote Green or something. He's the one who expands the base.

Warren is a good candidate, too, and likely enough she can get in on the novelty of being a woman (one with her own name & career, unlike Mrs. Clinton).

Biden is probably the worst of the top three, but he has name recognition.

I doubt that anyone like Castro or Klobuchar, let alone baby mayor man, is going to overtake those three.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 12-08-2019 at 04:54 PM.
  #67  
Old 12-08-2019, 05:46 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I've never understood this strange, inexplicable hatred of Hillary. Much of the time, she's just saying things that are - well, factually correct. Maybe she's abrasive about it, but so what? There are dozens of R's and D's who are more dislikable than her.
There are many reasons to hate Hillary. Losing toTrump is simply the last nail in the coffin
  #68  
Old 12-08-2019, 05:56 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Historic in the sense of having a wider margin of popular vote support than any other person to lose the Electoral college? I guess all losses are "historic" in the sense that they're part of history. But she lost because of three states with a difference in votes that would barely fill a football stadium.
She won the popular vote by 3 million and she won California by 5 million. If the popular vote was all that counted, maybe Trump wouldn't have spent as much time in Wisconsin and Michigan as he did and just drummed up extra votes in Texas or something.

The popular vote is meaningless unless you want to argue that the states are gerrymandered.
  #69  
Old 12-08-2019, 05:59 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Clinton's kinda weird in that I think people respect her abilities and she would have made a fine President. But she was a horrible politician and really bad at strategy, which is why she got outwitted by Obama and then somehow managed to lose the electoral map(by a wide margin) to Trump. But you're right, the public does seem to have confidence in her abilities and her ideas are reasonable.

The character weaknesses though, as highlighted by her blaming everyone but herself for her loss, is part of the reason elections she should have won easily were close enough that she could lose by dumb luck or better strategy by the opposing campaign. It's also why she had so much trouble in 2016. Sanders is not performing well enough in 2020 to confirm that he should have been any particular threat to Clinton, yet she lost 23 states to him.
Washington DC is packed to the gills with very smart, competent people with great ideas. What makes them answerable to the politicians rather than the other way around is that they do not have the ability to win a competitive election, and neither does Hillary.
  #70  
Old 12-08-2019, 06:56 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Washington DC is packed to the gills with very smart, competent people with great ideas. What makes them answerable to the politicians rather than the other way around is that they do not have the ability to win a competitive election, and neither does Hillary.
I don't completely disagree with this but it is somewhat odd that as poor of a political operator as she may be, one of the reasons for some people to hate her is that she, to them, represents "politicians" and "the political elite". I think her problem is that she tried to be politically savvy but was not very good at it ... if all along she had just been herself (which what she has been doing lately, just saying what she thinks, fuck it), I think she'd had done better. But she got burned from that early on and overcompensated with constant trying to edit herself as she spoke.
  #71  
Old 12-08-2019, 08:18 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
She won the popular vote by 3 million and she won California by 5 million. If the popular vote was all that counted, maybe Trump wouldn't have spent as much time in Wisconsin and Michigan as he did and just drummed up extra votes in Texas or something.



The popular vote is meaningless unless you want to argue that the states are gerrymandered.
The popular vote is functionally meaningless, but this shouldn't be the case. It's mind boggling to me that you think it's acceptable that the votes of most Americans really don't matter, based on nothing more than geography. In my preferred system, every single American, no matter what state they live in, would have the exact same voting influence. Everyone's vote would count exactly the same. You haven't articulated any reason why it's good that the votes of most Americans don't matter.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #72  
Old 12-08-2019, 08:29 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I don't completely disagree with this but it is somewhat odd that as poor of a political operator as she may be, one of the reasons for some people to hate her is that she, to them, represents "politicians" and "the political elite". I think her problem is that she tried to be politically savvy but was not very good at it ... if all along she had just been herself (which what she has been doing lately, just saying what she thinks, fuck it), I think she'd had done better. But she got burned from that early on and overcompensated with constant trying to edit herself as she spoke.
I believe there is some extent a gender issue with that. That whole "they go low we go high" mantra would probably have been disregarded if it were a male since two men trying to show who is more macho is seen as normal but the woman is expected to take the smears and the lies with grace and be above that.
  #73  
Old 12-08-2019, 08:54 PM
Derleth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Washington DC is packed to the gills with very smart, competent people with great ideas. What makes them answerable to the politicians rather than the other way around is that they do not have the ability to win a competitive election, and neither does Hillary.
Hey, if I bought a major news network and paid it to tell lies about you non-stop, and then spread even worse lies through arms-length operatives I could disassociate myself from if need be, and I continued that for going on three decades, I bet you'd end up a pretty lousy politician, too. Not to mention the rabid fans of a marginally-popular candidate from your own party using you as a scapegoat for why their guy, who has serious problems picking up minority votes, lost a competitive primary in the party where minority votes actually matter.

But yeah, Hillary's a Witch. You can find endless validation for that point of view. How accurate is it? Just never you mind!
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
  #74  
Old 12-08-2019, 08:59 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
More voting for her than against her falsifies that specific proposition.
Not really. Hillary only got 48.18% of the popular vote.
  #75  
Old 12-08-2019, 09:04 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,785
So not only did Hillary NOT get a majority of the total popular vote (only 48.18% of it), but it is not intellectually honest to use the argument that she got more votes than Trump because, as hard as this is to believe, Trump ran his election to win the electoral college meaning working the states where the swing of a few votes could (and did) change the election. IF Trump did what Hillary did and campaigned for the most votes possible no matter where they were from then the comparison would be valid.
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But Ö I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #76  
Old 12-08-2019, 09:35 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Nitpick but precisely accurate correction noted. She, and her ideas presumptively, got the most votes. Not exactly a rejection of her ideas.

As for the claim that she ran to get the most votes, that’s false. She took some states for granted that she should not have and played the game poorly, but to my read the intent was to build strength in other states looking to the future, not just 2020, but others in elections to come, trying to speed up the day that a Sun Belt strategy is also a viable path.
  #77  
Old 12-08-2019, 10:02 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I don't completely disagree with this but it is somewhat odd that as poor of a political operator as she may be, one of the reasons for some people to hate her is that she, to them, represents "politicians" and "the political elite". I think her problem is that she tried to be politically savvy but was not very good at it ... if all along she had just been herself (which what she has been doing lately, just saying what she thinks, fuck it), I think she'd had done better. But she got burned from that early on and overcompensated with constant trying to edit herself as she spoke.
Yep. Doing the politician act at the Presidential level should be reserved for the truly gifted, like Obama and her husband. Otherwise, just be yourself. There's a third way, being completely uninteresting but stable, which used to be how most politicians operated, but since Dukakis that seems to have gone out of favor. But it's an underrated way to go far in politics!
  #78  
Old 12-08-2019, 10:08 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The popular vote is functionally meaningless, but this shouldn't be the case. It's mind boggling to me that you think it's acceptable that the votes of most Americans really don't matter, based on nothing more than geography. In my preferred system, every single American, no matter what state they live in, would have the exact same voting influence. Everyone's vote would count exactly the same. You haven't articulated any reason why it's good that the votes of most Americans don't matter.
That's only half true. There is no election in which every vote matters the same except mathematically(everyone gets one vote). The EC violates that principle, but not a huge deal, as EVs roughly correspond to population(with only a few small states really getting a big boost).

But even in a popular vote election, my vote matters more than yours, because I'm a swing voter. We just replace Florida and Ohio voters with swing voters across the country. Which means urban voters will still be ignored and candidates will still focus on the industrial midwest where the Obama/Trump voters are.
  #79  
Old 12-08-2019, 10:25 PM
bengangmo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Clinton's kinda weird in that I think people respect her abilities and she would have made a fine President. But she was a horrible politician and really bad at strategy, which is why she got outwitted by Obama and then somehow managed to lose the electoral map(by a wide margin) to Trump. But you're right, the public does seem to have confidence in her abilities and her ideas are reasonable.

The character weaknesses though, as highlighted by her blaming everyone but herself for her loss, is part of the reason elections she should have won easily were close enough that she could lose by dumb luck or better strategy by the opposing campaign. It's also why she had so much trouble in 2016. Sanders is not performing well enough in 2020 to confirm that he should have been any particular threat to Clinton, yet she lost 23 states to him.
Doesn't this show up a problem in the system?
that somebody can be respected and thought to make a fine president can still lose to Trump?
If that's the case be looking for problems in the rules of the game than in the performance of the players.
  #80  
Old 12-08-2019, 11:00 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Not really. I myself have become a character voter when it comes to the Presidency. "The one I'd like to have a beer with" isn't the best proxy for determining good character but it might be more effective for choosing Presidents than taking an issues quiz and finding the best match.
  #81  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:16 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So not only did Hillary NOT get a majority of the total popular vote (only 48.18% of it), but it is not intellectually honest to use the argument that she got more votes than Trump because, as hard as this is to believe, Trump ran his election to win the electoral college meaning working the states where the swing of a few votes could (and did) change the election. IF Trump did what Hillary did and campaigned for the most votes possible no matter where they were from then the comparison would be valid.
Ahistorical bullshit.
  #82  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:35 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
In a world in which we go by popular vote we probably also require a majority.
  #83  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:41 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
In a world in which we go by popular vote we probably also require a majority.
No. Not really.

How would that even work?
  #84  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:46 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Think the recent Louisiana Governor race run off. None had won a majority so the top two had a run off.

Not sure if that would be required though. Why do you think so adaher?
  #85  
Old 12-09-2019, 01:05 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
The only other western democracy with a popularly elected President, France, does it with a required majority. You certainly don't have to go that way but you are giving third party runs much more "spoiler" power if you don't.
  #86  
Old 12-09-2019, 02:13 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Think the recent Louisiana Governor race run off. None had won a majority so the top two had a run off.

Not sure if that would be required though. Why do you think so adaher?
Because no one should be President when most people voted against them, and you don't want spoilers. A runoff if no one gets a majority insures that voters put their stamp of approval on the winner. A popular vote result where the winner gets 43-48% is no more legitimate than what we have now.
  #87  
Old 12-09-2019, 07:42 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
I get the point about wanting to reduce the power of spoilers but I would say that a popular vote result in which the person who wins 48 to 46% is more "legitimate" than the one have now in which the 46% candidate wins. And spoilers seem to have that power now, with each state doing their individual popular vote in which the plurality wins ... maybe more so since it can be a few votes they take in just a single state.

(Quotes placed because of course it is legal and the according to the rules of the game so of course is in fact "legitimate" in that sense.)
  #88  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:57 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
If 3 people run, there's a chance a person with 34% could win. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to remove the Electoral College if you are just going to switch to first past the post.
  #89  
Old 12-09-2019, 09:12 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,155
Given that with the Electoral College system that election would have no one with 270 so the House would decide https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg...faq.html#no270 with each state delegation getting one vote.

Still better with popular vote.
  #90  
Old 12-09-2019, 09:35 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,091
But also, still worse than have a popular vote with a runoff if nobody gets a majority.
  #91  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:50 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Yep. Doing the politician act at the Presidential level should be reserved for the truly gifted, like Obama and her husband. Otherwise, just be yourself.
For Hillary, being arrogant, prickly, paranoid, and entitled, is being herself.

Regards,
Shodan
  #92  
Old 12-09-2019, 02:22 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
For Hillary, being arrogant, prickly, paranoid, and entitled, is being herself.

Regards,
Shodan
Expert opinion.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #93  
Old 12-09-2019, 03:57 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Hey, if I bought a major news network and paid it to tell lies about you non-stop, and then spread even worse lies through arms-length operatives I could disassociate myself from if need be, and I continued that for going on three decades, I bet you'd end up a pretty lousy politician, too.
Then why exactly was she running? So she could lose to a bobblehead?

Quote:
Not to mention the rabid fans of a marginally-popular candidate from your own party using you as a scapegoat for why their guy, who has serious problems picking up minority votes, lost a competitive primary in the party where minority votes actually matter.
Maybe if she didn't cheat, they wouldn't have as much to bitch about.

Quote:
But yeah, Hillary's a Witch. You can find endless validation for that point of view. How accurate is it? Just never you mind!
Right, because that's what i said.
  #94  
Old 12-09-2019, 04:09 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Ahistorical bullshit.
In what way did Saint Cad Mistate the facts? And in what way was that mistatement bullshit? Everything he said seem accurate.

Or are you just saying shit to pass the time?
  #95  
Old 12-09-2019, 04:31 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The popular vote is functionally meaningless, but this shouldn't be the case. It's mind boggling to me that you think it's acceptable that the votes of most Americans really don't matter, based on nothing more than geography. In my preferred system, every single American, no matter what state they live in, would have the exact same voting influence. Everyone's vote would count exactly the same. You haven't articulated any reason why it's good that the votes of most Americans don't matter.
A nationwide campaign is even harder for less well financed candidates and money becomes even more important than it is now.

The electoral college has a protective function that acts as a fuse against a tyranny of the majority.

It is much easier to scoop up votes in densely packed population centers than in sparsely populated rural areas. We would end up going from ignoring deep blue and deep red states to ignoring rural voters.
  #96  
Old 12-09-2019, 04:34 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I get the point about wanting to reduce the power of spoilers but I would say that a popular vote result in which the person who wins 48 to 46% is more "legitimate" than the one have now in which the 46% candidate wins. And spoilers seem to have that power now, with each state doing their individual popular vote in which the plurality wins ... maybe more so since it can be a few votes they take in just a single state.

(Quotes placed because of course it is legal and the according to the rules of the game so of course is in fact "legitimate" in that sense.)
How do you know that the winner wouldn't have gotten more of the popular vote if they were trying to get a majority of the popular vote rather than the electoral vote?

That's like saying that the football team with the the most yards should win the superbowl because they are obviously better. Well there are all sorts of decisions that would change in how a game is played if we scored games by yardage instead of touchdowns.
  #97  
Old 12-09-2019, 04:35 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,317
To me rural voters are pretty much ignored now with the exception of Iowa and New Hampshire for the primaries.
  #98  
Old 12-09-2019, 05:56 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
A nationwide campaign is even harder for less well financed candidates and money becomes even more important than it is now.

The electoral college has a protective function that acts as a fuse against a tyranny of the majority.
I don't see why either of these are necessarily the case.

Quote:
It is much easier to scoop up votes in densely packed population centers than in sparsely populated rural areas. We would end up going from ignoring deep blue and deep red states to ignoring rural voters.
At least every vote would count the same, rural or urban. As we are right now, the millions of voters in NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and many other big cities don't matter at all. Seems ridiculous and anti-democratic to me that the biggest cities in the country don't matter at all when it comes to electing presidents.
  #99  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:10 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't see why either of these are necessarily the case.



At least every vote would count the same, rural or urban. As we are right now, the millions of voters in NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and many other big cities don't matter at all. Seems ridiculous and anti-democratic to me that the biggest cities in the country don't matter at all when it comes to electing presidents.
Of course they matter. They just aren't all that matters.
  #100  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:44 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Of course they matter. They just aren't all that matters.
Under the EC, they don't matter. Only swing state votes matter.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017