Election 2020

[pbrower2a]

(05-01-2019, 08:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR...The popular vote is irrelevant.  The President is elected by the electoral college which was outlined in the Constitution a long ass time ago.  I suggest you read it.  The document is pretty clear.

The People do not elect the President; the States do. The Electoral College ensures that the biggest states do not get to gang up on the smaller states and (before 1965) a state does not get particular credit for getting 90% of the vote because it disenfranchises a large part of its population, as in the former "Kukluxistan".

But -- a nominee who wins the popular vote by a 70-30 margin in Maryland gets only one more electoral vote by winning that state but loses Tennessee 49-48 splits twenty electoral votes evenly, as both states have ten electoral votes. If there is no question of the integrity of the vote in either state, then we have a distortion as an example. One good effect is that no state governor has any incentive to induce machine pols to flood the electoral system with fabricated votes, so if somebody wins California by 40 million votes (which is larger than the total population of the state) then such makes no difference in the electoral college.

A movement exists for states assigning their electoral votes in accordance with the national popular vote. The problem is that the states that have signed on so far vote reliably Democratic in Presidential elections or are likely to do so, and the number falls short of 270, with the mandate not applying until states with 270 or more electoral votes join the mandate. One more Donald Trump who wins the Electoral College despite losing the plurality of the popular vote by about 2% and being a sick joke as President will make such possible.

Quote:But to make it simple enough for anyone who thinks you have a point besides the one on your head...the Presidential election is like the World Series.  It matters how many games (states) one wins not how many runs (popular votes) one scores in any one game.  Whoever the (Democrat) is, they can get 20 million more votes in Commiefornia or New Hades York each and both states would have the same number of electors.

Most of the States are artificial entities created by Congress. That a vote counts as much in California as in Mississippi is an expression of the principle of one man, one vote -- an essential characteristic of democracy.

(Which ones aren't artificial entities created by Congress? the Thirteen original colonies, Vermont, West Virginia [seceded from Virginia during the Civil War], and Alaska and Hawaii [obvious contiguity]). If America had to  reorganize on a state basis, then most states would not form as they are. California and Texas, and probably Florida, would obviously be split into multiple states, and I could easily see several of the states entering the Union in 1890 (which stretch from the Olympic Peninsula to Fargo and Sioux Falls) forming as one state.

Quote:It boils down to five states really.  Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.  All five states that a Leftist will lose (meaning only Biden stands a chance there) and all five states where Trump is relatively popular.

Relatively popular compared to California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York State, which isn't saying much.

Here is a composite map of approval and to some extent disapproval of Trump nationwide:





Trump, net approval positive -- raw approval

55% and higher
50-54%
under 50%

tie (white)

Trump, net negative approval -- raw approval

43-49% with disapproval under 51% if approval 45% or higher
40-42%, or under 45% if disapproval is over 51%
under 40%

Ruling out a rigged election, tell me how he wins. In 2012, Obama won no state in which a reputable poll ever had his disapproval rating above 51% at any time. (He once got a disapproval rating of 51% in Ohio, and he barely won it). (The colors are inverted, but I got this map from a website that analyzes all American Presidential elections -- and for a very long time, Democrats were in red and Republicans were in blue on most electoral maps. As I showed somewhere else, all of the states that Obama won in 2012 and all but one state that Obama won in 2008 were Eisenhower wins in both 1952 and 1956.

Donald Trump is not as adept a politician as Obama is, and he offends far more Americans at this stage. This map suggests that every state in maroon will be a double-digit loss for Trump -- 194 electoral votes (I do not assign ME-02 against Trump) because approval is under 40% and disapproval is over 55%. 101 electoral votes are in states in a medium shade of red, and those have approval under 43% (43% is the range at which winning a state is possible for an incumbent Governor or Senator with a competent and spirited campaign), but I project any state in which the President's approval is 45% or lower and disapproval is 52% or higher -- that is 101 electoral votes altogether in that category alone -- will be a loss. Donald Trump stares at a Democrat winning 295 electoral votes even if wins all the states that I have in pink or ever project as a tie in approval or disapproval. Any state in pale blue is a possible loss for him. Should he lose Texas he stares at a Democratic win of 400 or more electoral votes.  That is how bad things look for his re-election. 

How else is his prospect of re-election at this point?  His approval ratings are behind every President since Truman at the same stage of his Presidency:

Average presidential approval ratings through this point in term via ABC/Post and Gallup polling:

Kennedy 73%
W Bush 71%
HW Bush 70%
Johnson 69%
Eisenhower 67%
Nixon 58%
Truman 56%
Obama 55%
Reagan 55%
Carter 52%
Clinton 51%
Ford 47%
Trump 38%
[/url]
[url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1122111857777631232]46.8K
8:14 AM - Apr 27, 2019

Not only is he in last place -- he is way behind second-to-last (Ford). Ford made the 1976 election close, but he was near the level of approval in which he could win if he were a savvy campaigner and ran a competent campaign (he started getting his act together late in the electoral season -- but too late). Of the presidents on that list, only three gained from their approval level to the percentage of the popular vote -- 1% (Ford), 2% (Nixon), and 3% (Reagan). Second-to-last on the list is 1% closer to a typical liberal favorite (Obama) and a typical conservative favorite (Reagan) than to Trump.

Trump offends sensibilities that he dare not offend if he wants a second term. Got an IQ over 120? He baits you on behalf of the "low-information voters" for which he professes love. Love? Trump? He loves only himself, and everybody else is an accessory in  the sense that a laptop computer or an umbrella is. Donald Trump is the fictional Charles Foster Kane with underworld connections.

Quote:As for the rest of your latest post it is nothing more than the same talking points you've been using since 2015.  I don't think you've convinced anyone to your point of view by repeating it ad nausium.  Simply put you probably have never seen a truly charismatic person in action.  Trump is truly charismatic as is absolutely vital for him to be God-Emperor.

It's ad nauseam. Truth is boring because it is consistent. Except for New jersey and eastern Pennsylvania, I have been on the whole of Interstate 80 and I could tell you much about it. Such would be insufferably boring. The only way in which to keep truth from being boring is to select it carefully for entertainment value.

God-Emperor? You must be joking!

Here's a God-Emperor for you:



Caligula, who brought about many unhappy endings -- and met an untimely death for whom few mourned. He is still reviled.




Let's put it this way: Elizabeth II of the UK may be mysterious and secretive, but she has never claimed divinity. Her reign has been far less troublesome than that of Nero, and her images have been on perhaps more coins than any other then-living person. Nero had a short stay on Roman coinage. I saw an image of a bust of him, but I am not sure that the nose broke off by deliberate deed or by accident.



Ah, the delightful Caligula, who styled himself as a god and thought himself invincible in the sadistic games of Roman times. Remember Caesar, thou art mortal! He is not one of the immortals of history. He took the stable system of his well-regarded father Marcus Aurelius and made it permanently unstable.




Obama at his best is charismatic. Reagan was, too.