Whomever comes out on top tomorrow...

[jakee 1,489]

3 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I put this out as something I thought both sides could agree on.  Foolish me.

Oh sure, your comments have appeared so bipartisan.

[Phil1111 1,149]

32 minutes ago, jakee said:

Oh sure, your comments have appeared so bipartisan.

Other republicans looking on. They still think he's a part of the family.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I put this out as something I thought both sides could agree on.  Foolish me.

Hi airdvr,

It was until you posted this:  'My point is I don't recall any protest or destruction of property following Obama's victory.  Can't say the same for 2016.'

Now, who's to blame for that?

Jerry Baumchen

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

3 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi airdvr,

Re:  'It's only when the left loses that it's a problem.'

I strongly disagree,  Prove your premise.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Re:  'I understand that the EC works as it was designed.'

I understand that also.  However, therein lies the problem.

Well, there have been five instances where the popular vote and the EC went different ways.

2016, when Trump lost by 5 million votes.
2000, when the 'Brooks Brothers Revolution' stopped the recount in Florida.

1888, when Republican Benjamin Harrison beat Democrat Grover Cleveland, despite losing the popular election by less than 1%. In this one, the political machine of Tamany Hall denied Cleveland the EC votes from New York.

 

1876, when Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by 2.5 million votes, yet lost to Republican Rutherford B Hayes. There was a whole lot of contention over this one. 

1824, when John Q Adams beat Andrew Jackson. The rules were a lot different back then, and not all states selected the president by popular vote, so this one kinda doesn't count.

But in the first 4, where all states used popular vote, when something resembling modern Republicans & Democrats were the candidates (not entirely true for Hayes/Tilden), the Republicans were the ones who took office despite losing the popular vote.

So the comment that 'it's only when the left loses that it's a problem' is reasonably accurate (in 1876, the Rs were the 'liberals' and the Ds the 'conservatives' on social issues but not business ones). Because it has always been the Republicans who win.

[airdvr 210]

5 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi airdvr,

It was until you posted this:  'My point is I don't recall any protest or destruction of property following Obama's victory.  Can't say the same for 2016.'

Now, who's to blame for that?

Jerry Baumchen

 

You must have missed Phil's first post.  Anyways, probably won't know before I sack out.

[feuergnom 28]

12 hours ago, airdvr said:

I put this out as something I thought both sides could agree on.  Foolish me.

nothing to feel foolish for. even if i can not agree with most of the stuff you post, your wish is legitimate, and i think many people go for the same

 

[Phil1111 1,149]

If there is one concept that this close vote indicates. Its that the democrat platform is too radical for too much of America. Or that the democrat agenda needs to have more education and a better sell associated with it.

The frustration of voters such that they remain with trump. Overlook $6T in deficit spending and covid mismanagement. Has been severely underestimated. Corruption of the vote and the state and the electoral college only goes so far. The indifference in voters in their personal efforts to thoroughly understand complex issues. Only goes so far.

Assuming Biden wins. He should directly seize the issues that brought trump support. That would include China trade and others. The fact that this was not a blue wave in the face of trump's personal corruption is too obvious to ignore.

[ryoder 1,590]

From Heather Cox Richardson this morning. The origins of the asinine winner-takes-all practice that afflicts 48 out of 50 states in allocating their EC votes:

The problem of voter suppression is compounded by the misuse of the Electoral College. The Framers originally designed delegates to the Electoral College to vote according to districts within states, so that states would split their electoral votes, making them roughly proportional to a candidate’s support. That system changed in 1800, after Thomas Jefferson recognized that he would have a better chance of winning the presidency if the delegates of his own home state, Virginia, voted as a bloc rather than by district. He convinced them to do it. Quickly, other state officials recognized that the “winner-take-all” system meant they must do the same or their own preferred candidate would never win. Thus, our non-proportional system was born, and it so horrified James Madison and Alexander Hamilton that both wanted constitutional amendments to switch the system back.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/november-3-2020

[kallend 2,027]

41 minutes ago, ryoder said:

From Heather Cox Richardson this morning. The origins of the asinine winner-takes-all practice that afflicts 48 out of 50 states in allocating their EC votes:

The problem of voter suppression is compounded by the misuse of the Electoral College. The Framers originally designed delegates to the Electoral College to vote according to districts within states, so that states would split their electoral votes, making them roughly proportional to a candidate’s support. That system changed in 1800, after Thomas Jefferson recognized that he would have a better chance of winning the presidency if the delegates of his own home state, Virginia, voted as a bloc rather than by district. He convinced them to do it. Quickly, other state officials recognized that the “winner-take-all” system meant they must do the same or their own preferred candidate would never win. Thus, our non-proportional system was born, and it so horrified James Madison and Alexander Hamilton that both wanted constitutional amendments to switch the system back.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/november-3-2020

Good old Jefferson, the slaveowner who piously wrote that all men are equal, and fathered children by one of his slaves.

Role model. 

[yoink 321]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Assuming Biden wins. He should directly seize the issues that brought trump support. That would include China trade and others. The fact that this was not a blue wave in the face of trump's personal corruption is too obvious to ignore.

I posted this about a month after the Dems lost last time. They needed to send the message that 'we hear you' to the MILLIONS of people who voted for Trump. Instead they've spent 4 years pissing it away. What utter cunts.

[airdvr 210]

One thing seems clear; the pundits once again missed the mark in their predictions.

[Phil1111 1,149]

9 minutes ago, yoink said:

I posted this about a month after the Dems lost last time. They needed to send the message that 'we hear you' to the MILLIONS of people who voted for Trump. Instead they've spent 4 years pissing it away. What utter cunts.

This is why polls get it wrong so often. There are some well educated and some smart people in SC. What is often missed in the equation is what really drives the psychological decision making in people. IMO democrats loose 4-7 % of voters on the abortion issue alone. This is commonly called single issue voters. That regardless of what a person says when push comes to shove there is one issue driving their vote in the ballot box. Democrats lose another 4-7% on the gun issue and another 4-7% to outright racists. The GOP owns these votes so democrats concede 15% right off the bat.

Then the EC and gerrymandering, vote rigging and other scams. Rig the house the senate and the presidency to another 5% more or less.

Then we get to real economic and social issues that penetrate the fog, the b.s., the pandering, posturing, misinformation in the voters mind. These issues require constitutional amendments. So if this election results in Biden and senate control. He had better not piss away another four years.

[Phil1111 1,149]

Just now, airdvr said:

One thing seems clear; the pundits once again missed the mark in their predictions.

As an experienced salesperson you probably understand the mechanisms and motivators that really drive decision making of people. Polls and pundits miss the fundamental deeply rooted drivers of people. Successful salespeople do.

Variously defined between 4-10 reasons the real drivers are:

Fear-safety

Greed

Status

Need-problem

Dream-pleasure-vanity

Make a statement-forget our problems

Fatigue-capitulation to a problem

Thats why business, corporations create "focus groups" why trial lawyers conduct mock trials in important cases. To ascertain what is really driving the decisions of prospective jurors from a community. To ascertain what would drive big settlements for their clients.

[yoink 321]

48 minutes ago, airdvr said:

One thing seems clear; the pundits once again missed the mark in their predictions.

Unsurprising. Both the 'Trump effect' and the pandemic / massive drop-off voting means that traditional polling models were extremely unreliable.

[airdvr 210]

We might be in a repeat of 2000 Bush/Gore.

[yoink 321]

Trump said before election day that he was already preparing a legal challenge, so that's an almost certainty. What an utter clusterfuck.

These last elections show that America is so divided that whoever wins it's almost impossible to run it as a single country and make changes that work for a significant majority of the population. 

Split the US up into 3 smaller countries like Europe. Let them manage themselves with treaties between them.

[brenthutch 444]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

Good old Jefferson, the slaveowner who piously wrote that all men are equal, and fathered children by one of his slaves.

Role model. 

And Democrat

[tonyhays 86]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

And Democrat

Given the number of times the parties have switched platforms your comment is meaningless

[tonyhays 86]

On 11/3/2020 at 11:29 AM, airdvr said:

...I hope it's not close.

So far it looks like the worst possible outcome.  Too close to call and court fights inevitable

[wmw999 2,447]

1 minute ago, tonyhays said:

So far it looks like the worst possible outcome.  Too close to call and court fights inevitable

Well, the lawyers are gonna love it

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 444]

9 minutes ago, tonyhays said:

Given the number of times the parties have switched platforms your comment is meaningless

lighten up Francis

Edited November 4, 2020 by brenthutch

[ryoder 1,590]

3 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Well, the lawyers are gonna love it

Wendy P.

Trump lawyers will love it until they get stiffed on their bills.

[Phil1111 1,149]

4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Well, the lawyers are gonna love it

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 1,149]

8 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Trump lawyers will love it until they get stiffed on their bills.

trump readies thousands of attorneys for election fight. Dozens of lawyers from three major firms have been hired. Thousands of volunteer attorneys and poll watchers across the country have been recruited."

A politician decides he needs in-house counsel, so he interviews a young lawyer. “Mr. Peterson,” she says. “Would you say you’re honest?”

“Honest?” replies Peterson. “Let me tell you something about honesty. Some friends lent me $85,000 for my education, and I paid back every penny the minute I tried my first case.” “Impressive. And what sort of case was that?”

“My former friends sued me for the money.”

Edited November 4, 2020 by Phil1111

[Westerly 61]

so who is going to win? that's all that matters. the retoric is if the republicans lose, some of those who voted for trump will still be alive come this summer, whereas if trump wins many of them (and dems as well) will be dead from Covid come summertime. we will be sitting at 250,000 cases a day and 500,000 deaths and it will still be 'we defeated covid months ago--we're doing great'.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Westerly