Because Democratic strategy to win has to take into account the electoral college. It’s more about solidifying certain states than anything.
You want to change the electoral college? More power to you, but it’s unlikely to happen.
So they should be easy marks then. Manipulate them, sway them, coerce them…SELL them on SOMETHING. That’s the only way to win.
We could start with working on stopping the GOP from: throwing legitimate voters off the rolls; blocking court-ordered redistricting and voter-ordered re-enfranchisement of felons; implementing targeted restrictions on polling locations and hours; engaging in deliberate voter intimidation; attacks on postal voting (and actual postal ballots); and a whole host of other nefarious practices specifically designed to prevent free and fair elections from happening (and that’s aside from the whole election security issue). That’s what we should be focusing on. Deal with those and the EC issues become a lot less relevant.
But instead I get “Sure, the Republicans are engaged in morally bankrupt (and occasionally outright illegal) activities to sway the election but golly, if only the Democrats would try a little harder next time…” No, sorry, but fuck that noise. The “It’s your fault for not stopping me” thing is comic book villain logic.
Chuck Todd on NBC just did another of his county-by-county analysis of the remaining states. Say what you will about his interviewing skills, he is a big data head who lives for this stuff. His thoughts:
- He expects PA to flip to Biden later today.
- GA has a good chance to flip to Biden.
- NV he thinks is likely to stay Biden.
- AZ is borderline, Todd says trump has been pulling in the vote margin recently to flip it, but Todd thinks ultimately trump will fall short.
Reliable Democratic constituencies - union workers - have been drifting away from the party. Blacks and Hispanics have voted more for Trump than any previous Republican candidate. And he did far better with suburban white women than he should have. I agree that all the undermining of the electoral process that you describe, is perverting the concept of democracy and it SHOULD be pushed back against. But we also need to take a long hard look at why these demographics which could once be reliably relied on to deliver elections for Democrats are now failing to do so in the decisive manner that we need.
The candidates have gobs of cash.
The states have to pay for the election though and they are perpetual paupers.
Also, I would ask, is there anything, anything at all, anything whatsoever, that would make you think this is something Trump and the republicans would not try to do because it would wreck the country?
But - again - Democratic policies are currently popular with a majority of voters and the Democratic presidential candidate has received a majority of the popular vote in every election bar one in the last 30 years. And that’s despite Republican dirty tricks - imagine what their vote totals might look like without them (I don’t know what they would be, but the answer is undoubtedly “a lot more”, otherwise the GOP wouldn’t bother).
Sure, the Dems need to consider demographic shift but legitimate popular support is not remotely the issue needing resolution here and now. Analogously speaking, we’re driving down the interstate in a car with two blown tires and you’re claiming the problem is what radio station we’re listening to.
Undoubtedly true, but would there not be an argument that the candidates campaign might shave a couple of percent from their ad spend towards the election’s expenses?
They could. They never, ever do. At least not that I have ever heard.
The caveat to this is campaigns definitely spend money on get-out-the-vote efforts including things like paying for transportation to polls. But they never pay for counting that I have heard of.
There’s American exceptionalism for you!
Electoral college question here that will probably show my ignorance of our government process-- I thought I had understood in the past that the EC existed as kind of a “circuit breaker”; in the case of a candidate elected by the popular vote who was clearly wrong for the job, the EC could step in and choose to not elect them.
But reading up on the EC in the past couple days, it seems that the main focus of the founders was to have a system that balances out the needs of more populous vs. less populous states. In that case, why not make the EC vote automatic-- why leave it up to emotional, bribable humans? Unless my original understanding is true as well.
The counter to that is that Trump is an awful person, so why is it that he got so many votes? The race shouldn’t have been this close.
The popular vote, and popular support for Democratic policies, that you refer to, is inflated by the large population of California and New York and Chicago and other large blue strongholds, and we’ve already seen that poll data doesn’t tell the whole story anyway. When you speak of the popular vote, you shift focus away from the battleground states and the blue wall.
I believe the “blue wall” strategy in the “rust belt” is important, because I myself have spent so much time immersed in the world of blue collar workers as I’ve drifted around various jobs and social circles over the course of my life, slowly trying to accumulate various skills and knowledge. A lot of these people with Trump signs and MAGA hats, if you got to know them, you’d be amazed at how talented they actually are at whatever it is that they do. These are guys who are capable of doing things you wouldn’t believe with cars, trucks, welding, carpentry - they’ve taken the time to learn this stuff to the point where they live and breathe it. It’s not like they spend all day in front of the TV with a can of beer.
This situation we have where guys like this, who are hard workers and in many cases have very big hearts and are stand-up guys, should be enthusiastically supporting a party controlled by a bunch of fucking shysters who’ve never done an honest day’s work before in their lives, who evade taxes while everyone else gets them rammed up their ass, and who relentlessly outsource jobs, does not need to exist in perpetuity. I really think it can be changed.
But it’s going to require a ground game from Democrats (including local and state races) that is willing to work as hard at it as the workers whose votes they need.
As I understand it the EC was meant has a kind of check against the whims of the public for a lousy, populist candidate (for all their democratic notions the FFs didn’t really trust the public much). From what I have read the EC pretty much did nothing of the sort within years of the adoption of the constitution. It has never really served its intended function.
The problem is, the people who benefitted from it were the people who would need to change it and they were never keen to do so.
As for the populous vs less populous states remember that the constitution was a bitterly fought over thing and the small states were super scared of being overwhelmed by the big states. That is why we got things like the 3/5 compromise on slaves. These were bones thrown to the small states to get them to ratify the constitution.
This ^ I think this is important to acknowledge. When I think of MAGA voters, most are white and well above the poverty line. They’re not necessarily educated but they’re not stupid and they’re often skilled in the trades. And a lot of them, frankly, are not people who are overtly racist - biased? Yeah maybe, but not always visibly uncomfortable around black and brown people.
These are people who feel that they worked hard and played by the rules, starting out in the warehouse and becoming a supervisor, or starting out as a technician and eventually going out and starting their own plumbing business. Their work vehicle is parked outside their home. These are your Trump supporters. They pay their taxes (mostly). They work 50 hour weeks. Got a diploma, an associates, and maybe even a college degree at a local college.
They view Democrats as a party that is going out of their way to help people who made decisions to break the law and enter illegally (of course some didn’t ‘choose’ to be here, but that’s another story). Even in police brutality cases, a lot of the victims have rap sheets or were on video clearly resisting arrest, so there’s skepticism about whether there’s a real need for police reform.
Thanks @Whack-a-Mole. So it sounds like my original understanding was more of less correct, it’s just that the EC hasn’t really functioned as a ‘check’ or ‘circuit breaker’ in actual practice.
(Bolding mine)
Gosh, I wonder if there was any recent election where that kind of check would have come in handy?
Seriously, speaking of a certain recent election, I would have thought that the possibility of a faithless elector situation would be vanishingly rare, but in my reading up on the EC I learned that there were SEVEN faithless electors in the 2016 election-- the most in history for one election. 5 Dem and 2 Rep electors went for 3rd party candidates. It wasn’t enough to move the needle in that case, but that is a scary implication for this election 
Oh, and 165 faithless electors in American history
Hurry up and flip, PA.
I have no doubt.
And yet for all their expertise they will gladly shit on others with expertise. Dr Fauci has what…50+ years of experience in his field and has numerous awards but fuck him…apparently he just wants to annoy these hard working folk by making them wear a paper mask.
How would any of them feel if someone with zero knowledge of the field they excel in started ignoring their advice when it comes to something they are an expert in?
(And that is just one example of many.)
Plenty of them spend all day working with black and brown people. For instance, look at the road crews working on the road next time you take a drive. It’s likely to be more racially diverse than the average white liberal’s workplace.
Well, they shit on him because Trump tells them to shit on him. Right now, Trump is their guy. But I’m saying it doesn’t NEED to be this way.