He’s probably assuming the fix is already in. That’s how the GOP rolls these days, cheat their asses off in every way imaginable.
My vote is unchanged at he gets in on 2020. I would think that Generic Dem needs to get like 65 percent or better of the vote to win the general election. If they get that much of the total votes, it might be enough to push him out based on how the Wisconsin percentages come in.
:dubious:
65% of the popular vote is an enormous landslide, the likes of which this country hasn’t seen in two hundred years. Reagan in 1984 “only” took 58.8% of the popular vote, which painted the whole country red. Nixon in '72 took 60.7% of the popular vote, and he also carried 49 states. LBJ in '64 took 61.1% of the popular vote–the highest percentage since the election of 1820–admittedly, he wasn’t even able to crack 500 electoral votes, thanks to intense but localized opposition in the Deep South on account of LBJ’s moves on civil rights (a harbinger of the coming realignment of that region from the Solid South for the Democrats to being a bastion for the Republicans) but it still wasn’t exactly a close shave in the Electoral College (486-52).
Any Democrat who gets 65% of the popular vote–which would be a nearly 17-point shift from what Hillary Clinton got–will be flipping states that haven’t voted for a Republican for President in a generation or more–places like Georgia (which Trump won in 2016 by 50.44% to 45.35%) and Texas (which Trump won in '16 by 52.23% to 43.24%).
The reason I say that is because places like California and the rest of the West coast are locked in. Red states are already locked in as well. I think the Dem is going to have to have a large increase of votes to get the votes to shift in places like PA, WI, and the states that seem to matter in the election. It doesn’t really matter for the presidential election if Republicans stay home in at lot of blue states. It only matters if they chose to stay home in the swing states or so many more people than usual vote blue in those states. The Democrats aren’t running an Obama this time, from what I hear from other independents like me is they are all kinda yawn-ish people. When Obama ran people in Texas where I lived at the time were talking about him right after he announced, and Hillary of course. I could have told you it would be Obama for the Dem nominee in 2008, he got all the buzz with the independent people I knew at the time. Kind of like Trump did.
I’m on the fence whether it would be wise to get a democrat in the office next time anyway. Don’t get me wrong, I think Trump is an ass-hat, but the economy is looking like its going to hit the shitter in 2020 according to our accountant and the credit union and banks that run our business accounts. It would seem to me that whoever is the winner in 2020 inherits that loaded diaper and puts it on. It would also seem to me, especially if the Whoever Dem gets elected, they are going to be blamed for it. They are certainly going to have to fix it and that’s going to hurt as well. Is it better for things to suck so hard directly under Trump/Pence 2020 that the next guy gets 8 years? I think that the Dem only stays in for 4 if he is elected in 2020, especially if they don’t keep the house and take the senate. I could be wrong though, and it wouldn’t be unusual for me to be wrong. I think looking at past precedent doesn’t really work with the current situation.
A lot of the independent types that I know are most interested in Pete, but I am not sure how experienced he is. Although it might not take a president with any work experience at all to fuck up everything, its going to take someone with a lot of political clout and experience to fix it, if it can be fixed. I don’t think anything changes until that snapping turtle from Kentucky loses his job, though.
What state is next?
ThelmaLou my bet would be Texas or Oklahoma. There have been some rumblings about that in Western Colorado.
One of the Constitution’s enduring flaws is the power of states to determine voter qualifications. In spite of the fact that the Civil War did much to establish the supremacy of federal law, particularly in support of civil rights, this inherent conflict of interest still exists.
Easy Trump win. It will be a massacre. D’s are right now finishing themselves off with a sham attempted coup.
I’m not sure if Trump will be re-elected, but I see nothing “sham” or “coup” about this impeachment.
By next November, I think all people will remember is that the House impeached him and the Senate didn’t vote to remove him. What people are saying on the floor tonight isn’t likely to echo through the ages.
The outcome will be determined by which party is the most diligent, zealous, and successful in Getting Out The Vote. That now must include immediate and massive voter registration and re-registration drives.
Not 65-35, though. It’s just math; If you give the Democratic candidate an additional 15-16 percent on top of what Clinton got in 2016, it’s not a close call, it’s a crushing victory.
We need a major recession and a disastrous war that gets a lot of American servicemen killed. I wish that were not the case - I wish we were intelligent enough as a society to care about abuses of power, but we’re not.
If you do believe this, then you would not expect equality of opportunity to correlate to equality of outcome.
[/quote]
Here was the statement:“with large populations it should be safe to assume that opportunity and results would be extremely closely aligned.”
So like I said, unless you consider things like having good parents a form of “opportunity” then you will not achieve equality of results.
Again I will ask, in what way does the poorest ethnic group in NYC have more opportunity than white New Yorkers? Why can’t the white New Yorkers seem to keep up with the poorest ethnic group in NYC academically?
It’s still an analogy.
I didn’t say that. Octopus didn’t say that yet here you are, arguing a point that was never made.
I even said in my post that LIFE isn’t fair. Life is a set of opportunities (which we are striving to MAKE equal)
You disagree simply because the outcomes are different.
Of course they do. It’s called culture.
That doesn’t mean that every member of a group will make the same decisions but as a group there is a tendency to make decision consistent with their culture.
At the individual level, you cannot make those assumptions. As a group, you can expect differences in outcome based on culture.
I don’t see ANYONE making the argument that equality of opportunity would not be a good thing. The argument is the insistence that disparity in outcomes necessarily means that there is disparity in opportunity.
So I will ask again, how is the poorest ethnic group in NYC doing so much better academically than whites in NYC? What opportunity advantage do they have over the whites?
For someone who complains so much about people rephrasing what they actually said, you seem to be taking it to the next level. Where did anyone say that we live in a truly fair society? I’m not sure such a thing is even possible.
The math part of your equation gets skewed simply because the heavily Blue states ALL vote for the Dem (like California) A few million here or there EXTRA doesn’t count in the electoral race, AT ALL.
I’m trying to find the actual point of disagreement, hence why I asked this question. I think our society is tilted so profoundly (along factors like race, ethnicity, gender, and other characteristics that ought to have nothing to do with opportunity) that we’re not even close to equality of opportunity, and there’s a lot of things we can do to try and help level the playing field, even if this is a monumental task that will take a long time. If you don’t agree with me on this, then that’s our point of disagreement. If you do agree with me on this, then our actual point of disagreement must lie elsewhere, though I’m not sure where.
You need to develop some actual arguments and stop insinuating that others are racist for not agreeing with you.