US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

prawnsambo

What.Now wrote: »

Was that ever challenged or was it a case of just let him go so we don't have to deal with it?

No. Although it almost certainly lost Ford the next election and lost a lot of Republican seats as well.

V8 Interceptor

StringerBell wrote: »

Your first paragraph, thanks. I don't see how that opinion would get you in trouble or burned at the stake anywhere even by people who disagree with you. The second paragraph though can get into murky water because even if someone accepts that perhaps Biden is in cognitive decline the obvious comparison to trump will not reflect well on trump. So lets not go there? So you think trump was good for the world outside of the US then more so than bad and you think that Biden will be worse for the rest of the world. Can you flesh that out a little bit more for me? What way has the world become a better place outside the US due to him other than the not starting a new war which you have mentioned already and how do you see Biden having a negative impact when he takes his position in January?

I'm afraid I can't thrash it out any further because that last reply got me a two day ban. We'll have to leave it there.

StringerBell wrote: »

He won't last long though, its kinda like the election. I'm curious to see how many posts he manages to get in before they all get deleted by the mighty ban hammer and disappear forever, likes trumps leads did. We were at 6 at the time of posting, I'll have the over/under at 11

In response to your question I was banned subsequently.

murpho999

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

...but it's not really a close election - only in the contorted, anachronistic world of the electoral college.

At the same time as that 71k margin is being whittled down by votes coming in in Arizona the overall total margin is increasing by millions in California and New York. Millions of people are disenfranchised by the Electoral College. The USA is the only country where their main election by-passes all of their major cities.

Just because it's the convention doesn't make it any less democratic.

It's not really close in the electoral college votes either and will pretty much reflect the popular vote.

It was more how this election panned out and was slower than normal due to postal voting that made it seem close.

The electoral college votes are related to population so I don't see your point.

V8 Interceptor

breezy1985 wrote: »

5 million more in the popular vote and about 76 in the electoral college isnt actually as close as it originally looked like it was going to be.

When's the last time a Dem didn't get the popular vote?

NY & CA have huge populations.

Water John

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

When's the last time a Dem didn't get the popular vote?

NY & CA have huge populations.

Two countries US and UK where the popular vote quite often doesn't tally with who's governing. This creates an unsustainable tension.

V8 Interceptor

Indeed it sounds strange when you hear it first (I first really learned about it in Bush v Gore) but there is a logic behind the electoral college.

What.Now

prawnsambo wrote: »

No. Although it almost certainly lost Ford the next election and lost a lot of Republican seats as well.

Ok thanks, so at this point nobody is sure yet that a president can be pardoned by an incoming president until it is challenged if needed.

listermint

awec wrote: »

The Ocasio-Cortez stuff is pure fantasy. The US is a long way away from electing someone like her to President.

Democrats should enjoy their victory, Trump is gone and that's something that the majority will celebrate all around the world. But they do need to reflect. Trump got over 70million votes, the election was close enough, and if anyone thinks that those 70+ million people are all immigrant hating, racist redneck types then they are absolutely deluded.

Evidently there is a very significant chunk of Americans who backed what Trump was trying to do. Some of these people are the stereotype that we've heard so much about, and they're a lost cause. But I will not believe that they represent the majority. Democrats absolutely must take time to understand why they don't appeal to these people, otherwise in 4 years time it's going to be the same story. Biden can talk about unity all he wants, but he isn't going to win these people over with words.

We would have to be idiots to not try and understand why anti-establishment politics has seen a real surge in numbers.

Facebook Facebook Facebook coupled with daily lies about the opposition. It's extremely difficult to over ride such a narrative when it's constant and daily and in your hands every waking moment of the day.

Slogan lies are easier than a paragraph factual explanation. For the democrats to win anything they have to get real airtime in peoples eyes and ears to get a message across. Over ride the fear campaigns with a positive campaign. That's not easy because fear is seductive

moon2

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Indeed it sounds strange when you hear it first (I first really learned about it in Bush v Gore) but there is a logic behind the electoral college.

Absolutely. The same kind of logic governs ireland's outsized influence and representation within the EU.

As with all things, population growth and time have strained things. The US allocation could do with a review.

awec

listermint wrote: »

Facebook Facebook Facebook coupled with daily lies about the opposition. It's extremely difficult to over ride such a narrative when it's constant and daily and in your hands every waking moment of the day.

Slogan lies are easier than a paragraph factual explanation. For the democrats to win anything they have to get real airtime in peoples eyes and ears to get a message across. Over ride the fear campaigns with a positive campaign. That's not easy because fear is seductive

I really think that putting it all down to lies / propaganda is just failing to deal with reality.

The lies and bending the truth was successful because a huge amount of Americans were disenfranchised with the system to begin with.

The problems are real, and they need to be fixed. Biden isn't going to fix them in 4 years, but he needs to make a start. He can talk about unity all he wants but if democrats want to keep the white house in 2024 they need to deliver for ordinary working people in the next 4 years.

V8 Interceptor

awec wrote: »

I really think that putting it all down to lies / propaganda is just failing to deal with reality.

Agreed. The mainstream media aren't shy about lying or propagandizing themselves.

awec

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Agreed. The mainstream media aren't shy about lying or propagandizing themselves.

I don't agree with this either though. This "mainstream media" is just deflectionary bull****.

Trumpism was successful because the people who voted for Trump were able to resonate with the message he was giving. If you want to defeat Trumpism, you need to kill the message at source. You need to restore faith in the system.

As far as I am concerned, Joe Biden should never mention Donald Trump again. Democrats should figure out why Trump picked up so many swing voters, and figure out what they can do to help those people while remaining true to their own values and principles. As I said, there is no way there is 70+ million right wing fanatics in the US.

V8 Interceptor

Well whatever way you look at it, social media (incl camera phones) has leveled things out a lot. The MSM no longer have control of the narrative like they did in the past. That's been the case for a few years now. I don't know what the Biden administration will do to reach out to the 70m Trump voters but I think Biden would be better at it than Harris and some of the more left leaning side of the party.

StringerBell

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I'm afraid I can't thrash it out any further because that last reply got me a two day ban. We'll have to leave it there.



In response to your question I was banned subsequently.

I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to civilly discuss trump in the presidency thread though? How would that get you a ban?

The second part, I wasn't referring to you in that response that you quoted.

Brussels Sprout

prawnsambo wrote: »

The EC isn't perfect, but it was designed to do the exact opposite of what you think is wrong with it. It's a form of proportional representation where the smaller states are supposed to be represented in a way that prevents them from being completely blown out by the big cities and states.

The system needs updating though and there are parts of the US like Puerto Rico that get no say whatsoever. Other than the popular vote of course.

Consider what the USA was like when it was conceived. In 1776 there were only 13 states. The population was only around 2.5million and they were almost exclusively rural. The largest city was Philadelphia with an estimated population of only 40,000 people. The urban population in 1790 at the time of the first census was only roughly 5%! This meant that there wasn't the same lop-sided population distribution between the states that there is today.

Not only that but the E.C. as it has become wasn't even what the Framer's had planned for it:

Not only was the creation of the Electoral College in part a political workaround for the persistence of slavery in the United States, but almost none of the Founding Fathers’ assumptions about the electoral system proved true.

For starters, there were no political parties in 1787. The drafters of the Constitution assumed that electors would vote according to their individual discretion, not the dictates of a state or national party. Today, most electors are bound to vote for their party’s candidate.

And even more important, the Constitution says nothing about how the states should allot their electoral votes. The assumption was that each elector’s vote would be counted. But over time, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) passed laws to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote count. Any semblance of elector independence has been fully wiped out.

After the unanimous election of George Washington as the nation’s first president, the Founders figured that consequent elections would feature tons of candidates who would divide up the electoral pie into tiny chunks, giving Congress a chance to pick the winner. But as soon as national political parties formed, the number of presidential candidates shrank. Only two U.S. elections have been decided by the House and the last one was in 1824.

link

The framers showed incredible foresight in crafting the structures for a democracy that has persevered to this day but they could never have imagined what the modern USA would look like. This notion that the system as it is today is exactly what they had panned for is completely misguided.

They simply did not plan for an extremely polarised 2-party system dictating the electoral college votes in a country where more than half of the population live in just 9 of the 50 states. The fact that their system persists to this day is more to do with the fact that it's practically impossible to get rid of since it needs bi-partisan support to alter and at one time or another it usually favours one party.

I'd imagine if you could magically show them a modern American presidential election with its focus on a tiny fraction of the population of the country they'd be rightly horrified.

prawnsambo

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Well whatever way you look at it, social media (incl camera phones) has leveled things out a lot. The MSM no longer have control of the narrative like they did in the past. That's been the case for a few years now. I don't know what the Biden administration will do to reach out to the 70m Trump voters but I think Biden would be better at it than Harris and some of the more left leaning side of the party.

The media are even more vital now when 'everyone has camera phones'. So long as you have the ability to differentiate between fact and opinion.. People are too quick to believe any old crap on social media so long as it doesn't clash with their views or make them think about their positions.

StringerBell

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

When's the last time a Dem didn't get the popular vote?

NY & CA have huge populations.

Bush 04

Matter of fact, that's the only time in the last 8 or 9 elections I am pretty sure.

V8 Interceptor

StringerBell wrote: »

I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to civilly discuss trump in the presidency thread though? How would that get you a ban?

You responded to that post and considered it civil but the Mod didn't. I guess its his decision that counts Stringer.

Brussels Sprout

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Well whatever way you look at it, social media (incl camera phones) has leveled things out a lot. The MSM no longer have control of the narrative like they did in the past. That's been the case for a few years now.

Your spinning this as a positive but one big negative from this phenomenon is that information isn't subjected to the same (or in most cases, any) verification processes that it would be under traditional media. Put bluntly, it's easier now for a single person to spread outright lies to a wider audience then at any point in human history. Many bad actors are taking advantage of that fact and the results have not been good for society.

V8 Interceptor

prawnsambo wrote: »

The media are even more vital now when 'everyone has camera phones'. So long as you have the ability to differentiate between fact and opinion. People are too quick to believe any old crap on social media so long as it doesn't clash with their views or make them think about their positions.

I would look at it another way. People, traditionally, have been too quick to believe any old crap they're shoveled by the media without critical thinking. Social media has opened another window where evidence can be seen directly for someone to make a judgment themselves.

Its horrifying to think the stranglehold a select few used to have on framing and giving out the information to the population. That's gone, never to return.

StringerBell

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Well whatever way you look at it, social media (incl camera phones) has leveled things out a lot. The MSM no longer have control of the narrative like they did in the past. That's been the case for a few years now. I don't know what the Biden administration will do to reach out to the 70m Trump voters but I think Biden would be better at it than Harris and some of the more left leaning side of the party.

Fox is absolutely massive, the opinion section of the network has some of the most watched shows on mainstream media. They are actually the zenith of MSM and you are absolutely dead right in that they do not have any problem whatsoever in pushing a false narrative and conditioning the masses of loyal customers they have if it suits their need.

The fox viewer is the least informed in the US, this has been shown in studies. They are the butt of many, many jokes for the sheer insanity of what they are willing to believe but there is absolutely a lot of sympathy to be had for these people. They really do believe the lies they are fed and this is a tragedy.

I have no idea how Biden reaches out to them, but I know he will try. He isn't going to change 70 million hearts but if he can find a way to reach even 10% of them he will have done a fantastic job. Harris not so much I agree, I think she probably hurt Biden in some places if I'm honest and was on record with that opinion when she was announced. I think she will do a fine job now the election is over.

There are lessons to be learned on both sides here, the democrats did not receive a ringing endorsement here but the republicans need to be wary that these people are hugely energised and motivated by trump, and once he is gone there is going to be a drop off on enthusiasm. The GOP is finished now for a generation in my mind in terms of credibility, it's gone there's nothing there. The fact that they have either accepted and endorsed through full throated or tacit approval this utter nonsense from trump before but even more so since election night and that 15 minutes of rambling nonsense tells me everything I need to know about whether they can be turned from the path they have gone down.

Until the new blood comes through, and there are good republicans out there same as there are good and bad democrats, that party at the top is nothing but a cesspit. What goes around comes around. These people are a stain on the constitution they are supposed to uphold.

V8 Interceptor

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Your spinning this as a positive but one big negative from this phenomenon is that information isn't subjected to the same (or in most cases, any) verification processes that it would be under traditional media. Put bluntly, it's easier now for a single person to spread outright lies to a wider audience then at any point in human history. Many bad actors are taking advantage of that fact and the results have not been good for society.

I do believe it is a positive, yes. Those MSM verification processes have been shown up time and again to be false with the advent of social media and phone devices.

I would say its the opposite. Before now a small group of people could spread lies or at the very least, biased information, depending on what narrative they wanted to create to the entire audience. The people just had to trust it with very few other avenues open to them.

Bad actors have been in place long before social media Sir.

Capt'n Midnight

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Not only that but the E.C. as it has become wasn't even what the Framer's had planned for it:

It was to stop the Northern states gaining control by the mechanism of giving Southern states extra votes based on the number of slaves they had. Virginia got a quarter of the total votes.


https://sluggerotoole.com/2020/11/07/the-bizarre-world-of-the-us-electoral-system/

It was justified, irony of ironies, as an anti-populist mechanism to screen the presidential election from the vagaries of Northern-backed direct election by the ignorant masses. Crucially, in the early years representation in the college, whose numbers were determined by reference to the size of state delegations in the House of Representatives, was calculated on the basis that a slave was only three-fifths of a free man.

Not quite as complicated as electing the Doge of Venice.

Brussels Sprout

murpho999 wrote: »

The electoral college votes are related to population so I don't see your point.

They are proportional to population but that's not what makes them undemocratic. What makes them undemocratic is that in 48/50 states the electoral college votes are given out on a winner takes all basis. In those states whether a candidate wins by a single vote or by 5 million votes there is no difference in the amount of electoral votes they get.

To use the language of economics every vote that a candidate gets in excess of a 1-vote win is wasted. This is because any extra votes beyond that in a particular state are not helping the candidate obtain any additional electoral college votes.

A good example of this wasted excess was in 2016 where Hillary Clinton won California by 4,269,478 votes. In Electoral College terms she didn't need 4,269,477 of those votes in California that day. She would have been far better off if she could have transferred some of those votes to make up the small margins that she was losing by in Wisconsin (23k), Michigan (11k) and Pennsylvania (44k) thereby flipping those states and winning all of their Electoral Votes and not the 0 that she instead got from the three of them combined. Had she got that 78k vote that would have swung the election to her instead.

This year was similarly tight - Had Trump won something like 70k extra votes in just 4 particular states then he would have won despite Biden probably winning the popular vote by 5 million votes.

Brussels Sprout

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

I do believe it is a positive, yes. Those MSM verification processes have been shown up time and again to be false with the advent of social media and phone devices.

How are you so sure that the information that you are consuming from your alternative sources is the truth and not just something that sounds about right to you?

rossie1977

awec wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, Joe Biden should never mention Donald Trump again. Democrats should figure out why Trump picked up so many swing voters, and figure out what they can do to help those people while remaining true to their own values and principles. As I said, there is no way there is 70+ million right wing fanatics in the US.

20% of the US population voted for an ailing John McCain and Sarah Palin to lead the country after the disastrous 8 years of the Bush Jr regime. 22% voted for Trump this past election.

To me anyway its a clear pattern. Republicans will vote for whoever is on the ticket in large numbers. Its not about Democrats trying to court those voters but get their own voters out in similarly big numbers.

~Rebel~

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Indeed it sounds strange when you hear it first (I first really learned about it in Bush v Gore) but there is a logic behind the electoral college.

There is a certain logic to it with regards state representation. I don't think there is any logic to it with regards the position of the Presidential election in the modern age though.

The fact that you're not voting for a President, but rather expressing your will to the states electors is a somewhat disingenuous position, as if you ask any single person in line at any polling station what they're voting on, they will tell you they're voting for President.

It would likely take a lot of uprooting to change, but imo for the decision of your prospective president, all votes across the country should be equal, and all votes should be relevant.

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/alaynatreene/status/1325588182382092293?s=19

Just when you thought he couldn't get any more pathetic.

V8 Interceptor

StringerBell wrote: »

Fox is absolutely massive, the opinion section of the network has some of the most watched shows on mainstream media. They are actually the zenith of MSM and you are absolutely dead right in that they do not have any problem whatsoever in pushing a false narrative and conditioning the masses of loyal customers they have if it suits their need.

The fox viewer is the least informed in the US, this has been shown in studies. They are the butt of many, many jokes for the sheer insanity of what they are willing to believe but there is absolutely a lot of sympathy to be had for these people. They really do believe the lies they are fed and this is a tragedy.

I would've had the same opinion of Fox when I was a liberal/lefty type but now I look at CNN and see just as much of a false narrative only in the opposite direction. And Fox has changed. A number of its anchors are Democrats eg Chris Wallace and they were the network that called Arizona for Biden remember.

All the other main networks would be liberal/Democratic in their outlook. Nothing wrong with that but I seen Rachel Maddow and Larry O'Donnell saying very strange things leading up to the election. To be fair to them I think Trump had driven a lot of them crazy by this stage.

There's also a certain haughtiness in the demeanour of a lot of those guys that doesn't make them well disposed to many working class and rural people.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

A good example of this wasted excess was in 2016 where Hillary Clinton won California by 4,269,478 votes. In Electoral College terms she didn't need 4,269,477 of those votes in California that day. She would have been far better off if she could have transferred some of those votes to make up the small margins that she was losing by in Wisconsin (23k), Michigan (11k) and Pennsylvania (44k) thereby flipping those states and winning all of their Electoral Votes and not the 0 that she instead got from the three of them combined. Had she got that 78k vote that would have swung the election to her instead.

But wouldn't that have the same outcome as a popular vote?

When it comes to people defending the Electoral College/waxing lyrical about the amazing blueprint the Founding Fathers came up with I can't help but roll my eyes. If the Founding Fathers woke up in America today their brains would flow out their nostrils. And of course there's the fact that the Electoral College is unrecognisable from how it was set up in the first place.
It's basically Gerrymandering and for the last while (and the next while) it works in a particular party's favour. They can dance around it all they like but that's the only reason to be in favour of it.