Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

my favorite justification for the EC is that is does tend to bring all states into the game.

The US is a sort of continential empire...we're all one nation, but lordy we are diverse. NYCers have almost nothing to do with Wyoming people. Trying to hold a nation together with such diverse holdings...is very hard. The EC does, I think, help get that done.

Without the EC, I think the large population centers would run the country, and people in empty areas would lose contact with the nation. That can't be good or preferable.

Fat hurts wrote:

I don't find that to be a valid argument at all.

I didn't say it was valid. I said it was easier to quickly tally the states and announce a winner before all votes were counted.

agip wrote:

my favorite justification for the EC is that is does tend to bring all states into the game.

Are you kidding me?

With the EC, no one campaigns in California, New York, most of the south and all of the central large but low populated states like Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas.

Texas is only getting a bit of attention as it becomes a closer margin.

With the EC, most of the country gets ignored while only a dozen or so states get all of the attention.

L L wrote:

agip wrote:

my favorite justification for the EC is that is does tend to bring all states into the game.

Are you kidding me?

With the EC, no one campaigns in California, New York, most of the south and all of the central large but low populated states like Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas.

Texas is only getting a bit of attention as it becomes a closer margin.

With the EC, most of the country gets ignored while only a dozen or so states get all of the attention.

there's certainly a cost to keeping the empire together. But nations that spread across entire continents, with 330 million people, are very very hard to hold together. You have to make compromises. Overweighting the votes of empty states is one of them.

And anyway, over time the states that get all the attention tend to move around. Look at EC maps from pre-Obama times. States like Indiana and CA and NY used to be swing states.

here's a classic of the 'the EC confers a clear winner when the election is close.

1968

1968 Election Results

Candidate Party Electoral Votes Popular Votes

Richard M. Nixon Republican 301 31,710,470

Hubert H. Humphrey Democratic 191 30,898,055

George C. Wallace American Independent 46 9,906,473

cool collection of EC maps over time. Lots of change, lots of change

https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

Scranton Joe versus Park Avenue Donald.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-leans-economic-populist-pitch-230051648.html

L L wrote:

agip wrote:

my favorite justification for the EC is that is does tend to bring all states into the game.

Are you kidding me?

With the EC, no one campaigns in California, New York, most of the south and all of the central large but low populated states like Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas.

Texas is only getting a bit of attention as it becomes a closer margin.

With the EC, most of the country gets ignored while only a dozen or so states get all of the attention.

Amusingly, people in those dozen states get far too much attention. It has literally been impossible since May to watch a commercial break on TV in Pennsylvania without a Joe Biden ad.

Fat hurts wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Georgia Senate will be extremely difficult to flip as the GOP contender is a very popular college football coach... football and right-winger views, hard to beat. Plus he's an outsider. But this really speaks volumes of how much Biden is favored by minorities and white suburban females. There are some fascinating survey stats across difference states showing the white male to female contrast -almost mirroring each other in blowout numbers for Trump and Biden.

You are thinking of Alabama.

Senator Kelly Loeffler was never a football coach. Maybe she was a cheerleader? :-)

You are right that it's going to be hard to flip both of those seats. But Ossoff is polling strongly against Perdue. There is a decent chance of getting at least one of the seats if we get a super turnout.

Sorry yes!

L L wrote:

agip wrote:

this is, btw, one of the justifications for the EC...that it tends to exaggerate wins...which confers a mandate on the winner. It's easier to accept a new prez when he won the EC 320-220 or whatever...than a 49%-45% win of the popular vote which seems much closer.

Well 2000 kills that justification.

Bush had an EC win of 271-267 with Gore winning the popular vote by 500,000 votes or half a percentage point.

There was a lot of talk about Florida but really New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes gave Bush the win.

NH voted for the Democrat presidential candidate in every election from 1992 to 2016, except for 2000.

It would have been a 271-267 EC for Gore.

And how that would have changed the course of history... thanks NH!

“We want to get rid of the ballots, and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation”

Your boy jumped the shark yesterday but I’ve been thinking that every week for four years.

I fully expect Trump to openly say we don’t need an election before the campaign is through, if he hasn’t already.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

this is, btw, one of the justifications for the EC...that it tends to exaggerate wins...which confers a mandate on the winner. It's easier to accept a new prez when he won the EC 320-220 or whatever...than a 49%-45% win of the popular vote which seems much closer.

I think that's the only valid argument I've ever heard in favor of the EC.

But it doesn't by any means outweigh the simple fact that everyone's vote for president should count equally. And you never get that with the EC.

The Rs will all line up to throw out the EC when Florida and TX turn blue, because they won't be turning back (those states insist on pilfering business from deep blue urban areas). They will want it terminated because they have a better chance to win with 40ish% of the voters supporting than they do with Dems always getting over 300 EC votes. They to win with 40ish% is to dark money find third party candidates that have no chance to win but are they type of candidates who peel off a lot more votes from Dems but not from so many from Rs.

Remember: Everything Trump touches dies.

Gina wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-data-guru-officially-disqualified-150116244.html

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

this is, btw, one of the justifications for the EC...that it tends to exaggerate wins...which confers a mandate on the winner. It's easier to accept a new prez when he won the EC 320-220 or whatever...than a 49%-45% win of the popular vote which seems much closer.

I think that's the only valid argument I've ever heard in favor of the EC.

But it doesn't by any means outweigh the simple fact that everyone's vote for president should count equally. And you never get that with the EC.

It's an argument, but everyone knows the major underlying flaw. EC just makes the final score look more defined. The only answer to this is giving every vote in the US the same weight. Right now, it matters where you live, and that drives how candidates campaign and may even really drive their agendas! Putin would have to target every american with his trolling instead.

this stupid country

1) PA GOP gets a ruling to throw out ballots if they are returned in one envelope, not two.

2) 9 returned ballots are found to be in one envelope so they were tossed.

3) The GOP is screaming bloody murder that the ballots were thrown out, saying it's proof of a rigged election.

You can't make this stuff up. The GOP will destroy us all.