Jump to content

2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

Patrick Bateman

By Patrick Bateman
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18939

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

More house members means the power of smaller states in the electoral college will be further diminished relative to more populous states. A state like Wyoming will still only have 3 electoral votes, but more populous states will pick up some.

Thanks. I was trying to figure out what blindingly obvious I was missing and that was that.  Ha.  I've got 538 so ingrained in my mind I didn't pay attention to how we got there (I.E. House plus senate plus 3 for the district). 

Edited by Wulaw Horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 39k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

I am so thrilled tonight! I spoke with my mom and asked her how my dad was taking the election. She said after every network declared Biden the winner, he turned off Fox News and said “Well, glad t

HenryJames
HenryJames
Thatguy
Thatguy

This was my experience in Galveston County, except for one thing. I came in and presented my ID to the geriatric at the front who printed out my pin number. I took my pin number to a table where two B

Posted Images

Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18939

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

More recently, companies will be switching to work from home models (hopefully) and will allow people to live wherever they want rather than crowding into cities.

I think people that live in cities want to live in cities though, irregardless of their jobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StassneyHorn

StassneyHorn 6515

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think people that live in cities want to live in cities though, irregardless of their jobs. 

Married couples want affordable houses, good schools, and yards for their dogs. Cities don’t give you that anymore.

Single people want 2 out of the 3 above

Edited by StassneyHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

I don't like living in a city, and I'll eventually figure out how to work from the country.  

Society is already quickly adjusting to this.  What is not going to happen for two more generations though is entire school districts are not going to move.  And they are not going to stay all digital/virtual.  It'll be like this for another year.  But after that, it's back to the status quo for least a generation, maybe more.  I pay out the ass to live in a good school district and most of the ones surrounding me are subpar, at best.  So I'm stuck living in "the city" for the time being.  That's why I'm staying, the rest of it---I could take or leave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 13851

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Married couples want affordable houses, good schools, and yards for their dogs. Cities don’t give you that anymore

I mean, I guess. I am beholden to living in suburb because of my career. If I had my druthers I'd be living in Mayfair or St James, London UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyDoughnut

MonkeyDoughnut 10100

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

That's what we need:  Even less democracy. 

There is a reason special interest groups target Senators and I don't think "democracy" is one of them.  Representatives are the people's voice, Senators were supposed to be the States.  Now Senators are nothing more than elected special interest group toll booth collectors.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104238

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

All of the live-caller polls out today pretty much at a consensus that this is a Biden +7.5 to +8 race.

Individual state polling is all that matters.  Discussion of national polling may make us feel better, but it's noise.  Filter out and determine the individual state soundtracks behind it, and we know where we are -- and where we are is that we can't count a shitload of important states as Biden locks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18487

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Individual state polling is all that matters.  Discussion of national polling may make us feel better, but it's noise.  Filter out and determine the individual state soundtracks behind it, and we know where we are -- and where we are is that we can't count a shitload of important states as Biden locks.

None of that matters. Donald Trump cannot win this election legitimately. People need to know that and respond accordingly.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104238

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

None of that matters. Donald Trump cannot win this election legitimately. People need to know that and respond accordingly.

But he can definitely win it 1) by focusing on key states where it matters, and it's close, and 2) suppressing votes and other mechanisms of interference.  80,000 votes put him over the line in 2016 -- you think he can't suppress/steal some combination of that many or more?  He absolutely can, and his loyalist armed irregular troops and personal law firm the DOJ will help him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45430

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah, I had a brain fart and knew I was missing something obvious. How we get to 538.  

The important thing here is that 435 has been fixed for roughly a century.  That's insane.

Fixing it will be impossible.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted

All these nicknames that Don like to throw out are so easy to counter. If I were Biden's campaign manager, I'd have him walk out into the debate with a big stein mug. He'd then pour water out of the glass pitcher in one hand into the stein mug in the other and take a big gulp. Across the stage, Don will be two-handing a high ball glass, guaranteed. Then I'd get the social media department to get #DaintyDon or #SippyCupTrump trending.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18487

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But he can definitely win it 1) by focusing on key states where it matters, and it's close, and 2) suppressing votes and other mechanisms of interference.  80,000 votes put him over the line in 2016 -- you think he can't suppress/steal some combination of that many or more?  He absolutely can, and his loyalist armed irregular troops and personal law firm the DOJ will help him.

That's an illegitimate victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

More recently, companies will be switching to work from home models (hopefully) and will allow people to live wherever they want rather than crowding into cities.

All we need to do is somehow convince hipsters that Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Ohio are the new place to move to before it was cool and the Republicans will never win an electoral college again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18939

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

All we need to do is somehow convince hipsters that Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Ohio are the new place to move to before it was cool and the Republicans will never win an electoral college again.

That would be the way to flip the electoral college on its head, without a doubt. 


I suggested for someone with a $1,000,000,000 budget to just straight up pay Californians to move to Wi, MI and PA (or AZ or GA I suppose). It wouldn't take a whole lot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104238

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's an illegitimate victory.

The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a victory depends solely on the outcome of the mechanism to make that determination.  You feel good about a Trump DOJ and Trump SCOTUS holding the line?  They will deem it legitimate, and thus legitimate it will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16427

Posted
Posted




I don't see how changing the size of the house affects Electoral college politics, but if I'm missing something obvious please share. 


Since the EC is house plus senate seats, and the states most likely to get new districts are the largest states, which lean Democratic overall, it would likely benefit democrats on net.

Ex: This is rough obviously but double the size of the house at the same proportions it is now and solid blue states for the foreseeable future (CA, NY, IL, NJ, VA, WA, MA, MD, CO, OR, CT, NV, NM, HI, ME, RI, DE, DC, VT) get 184 EVs, solid red (and I think I'm being generous at the top here - TX, OH, GA, TN, IN, MO, SC, AL, LA, KY, OK, UT, IA, AR, MS, KS, NE, WV, ID, MT, SD, ND, AK, WY) get 156.

That's equal to a free space worth the same as MI or GA on the electoral map for Democrats. And you'll notice I did not include PA for Democrats, which is a blue state long term (Philadelphia is the only place growing in that state). And I gave the GOP Texas and Georgia, which may be pretty generous.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18134

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Don't get me wrong- I agree with him. The House should be enlarged.

Another possible solution occurred to me recently (although I’m no con law expert, so it’s certainly possible that the courts or congress have already considered and rejected this).

Article II of the Constitution explicitly states that “each Senator shall have one Vote.” But it says nothing about the number of votes each representative will have. Could the House pass a rule that representatives’ votes be weighted proportional to the population of their state divided by the number of reps from that state?  

A weighted approach wouldn’t apply to some votes (such as impeachment and maybe overriding a veto). But it would result in something much closer to fair representation in at least one house of Congress for most purposes.

Like I said, this is probably something that’s already come up and been rejected, but the difference between Article II’s explicit limit on senators but silence on representatives struck me as odd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StassneyHorn

StassneyHorn 6515

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

All we need to do is somehow convince hipsters that Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Ohio are the new place to move to before it was cool and the Republicans will never win an electoral college again.

Convincing Millennials and Gen Z to leave places like LA,NYC, and Chicago and move to regional secondary cities is a dream I’d like to see.

LA to Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and Tucson. Happening already.

Chicago to Minneapolis/St Paul, Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Des Moines, or Omaha. This is not appealing, Chicago is hard to leave but Minneapolis/St Paul is fun. Most migration is someplace warmer.

NYC/ DC to Philly, Pittsburgh, Research Triangle in NC, Columbus as well.

Memphis, Knoxville, and Chattanooga are 3 places in Tennessee ripe for growth that I am having an affair on with Austin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25843

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, StassneyHorn said:

Convincing Millennials and Gen Z to leave places like LA,NYC, and Chicago and move to regional secondary cities is a dream I’d like to see.

LA to Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and Tucson. Happening already.

Chicago to Minneapolis/St Paul, Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Des Moines, or Omaha. This is not appealing, Chicago is hard to leave but Minneapolis/St Paul is fun. Most migration is someplace warmer.

NYC/ DC to Philly, Pittsburgh, Research Triangle in NC, Columbus as well.

Memphis, Knoxville, and Chattanooga are 3 places in Tennessee ripe for growth that I am having an affair on with Austin.

Yeah, as far as MSP, people leave Grand Forks and Fargo to go to MSP.  They aren't leaving L.A. to go there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16427

Posted
Posted
Convincing Millennials and Gen Z to leave places like LA,NYC, and Chicago and move to regional secondary cities is a dream I’d like to see.
LA to Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and Tucson. Happening already.
Chicago to Minneapolis/St Paul, Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Des Moines, or Omaha. This is not appealing, Chicago is hard to leave but Minneapolis/St Paul is fun. Most migration is someplace warmer.
NYC/ DC to Philly, Pittsburgh, Research Triangle in NC, Columbus as well.
Memphis, Knoxville, and Chattanooga are 3 places in Tennessee ripe for growth that I am having an affair on with Austin.
MSP is probably the most dynamic metro area in the Midwest, pound for pound. Chicago is just at that critical mass where it gets a shitload of attention but the Twin Cities are not your typical drying Midwest metro.

It's why I'm pretty sure Minnesota is Democratic long term. It's still a pretty solidly Democratic state and that metro area is driving the growth. In a generayion it'll just profile like CO or WA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32663

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

You showing up with your 10,000 Representatives and minority rule is good is as reliable as the sun setting and also completely wrong. 

No, reliable and also correct. The Electoral College effects would admittedly be only a lovely side effect.

The House is way too small and there is no good argument otherwise. You want DC to be more responsive to the people? Increase the size of the House significantly. If that's what you actually care about and not just Democrats winning instead of Republicans, then you should support an increase in that chamber's size.

As for minority rule, that's never been what I've said. I have said that unchecked majority rule can be a very bad thing and that's undoubtedly true. I've never advocated for minority rule.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45430

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

Quote

Asked why there have been no findings, however, of widespread fraud, Barr responded: "We haven't had the kind of widespread use of mail-in ballots that's being proposed."

This is false.  25% of ballots cast in 2016 were by mail.  That is absolutely "the kind of widespread use" that's being proposed.  There is no substantial difference between 25% and 40% (for instance).

Donald Trump belongs in prison.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 18939

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Another possible solution occurred to me recently (although I’m no con law expert, so it’s certainly possible that the courts or congress have already considered and rejected this).

Article II of the Constitution explicitly states that “each Senator shall have one Vote.” But it says nothing about the number of votes each representative will have. Could the House pass a rule that representatives’ votes be weighted proportional to the population of their state divided by the number of reps from that state?  

A weighted approach wouldn’t apply to some votes (such as impeachment and maybe overriding a veto). But it would result in something much closer to fair representation in at least one house of Congress for most purposes.

Like I said, this is probably something that’s already come up and been rejected, but the difference between Article II’s explicit limit on senators but silence on representatives struck me as odd. 

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that. My guess is no way, but don’t know why as w con law argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15327

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Add how many ever seats are required, and move to a national multi-party democracy with some form of proportional representation. If y'all want to rewrite the fundamentals of the system, lets go all the way.l 

How is expanding the number of seats in the House of Representatives rewriting the fundamentals?  Please show me in the Constitution where it says "The number of Seats in the House of Representatives shall be 435."

The fact is that the number of seats in the House has expanded throughout our history.  What's unusual is that it hasn't been expanded in over 100 years.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23329

Posted
Posted
Just now, Ghost of LL said:

How is expanding the number of seats in the House of Representatives rewriting the fundamentals? 

That was a reference to the electoral colleges comments of the last few pages, not increasing the number of reps. If we are going to revamp the whole system to one that is centered around national representation rather than representation of the states, let's go all the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15327

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

That was a reference to the electoral colleges comments of the last few pages, not increasing the number of reps. If we are going to revamp the whole system to one that is centered around national representation rather than representation of the states, let's go all the way. 

Ok.  I got you.

However, I would argue that the entire concept underpinning state representation ended with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23329

Posted
Posted
Just now, Ghost of LL said:

Ok.  I got you.

However, I would argue that the entire concept underpinning state representation ended with the Fourteenth Amendment.

I'll leave that up to you lawdogs to argue about. But I  am actually down with re-writing the whole thing. 

We should stop acting like the constitution is really in any effect relevant to America today, and produce a document that reflects reality to replace it. We'll have to take a pretty good slice off the bill of rights in the process, but the least that we can do is start being honest with ourselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 13851

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I'll leave that up to you lawdogs to argue about. But I  am actually down with re-writing the whole thing. 

We should stop acting like the constitution is really in any effect relevant to America today, and produce a document that reflects reality to replace it. We'll have to take a pretty good slice off the bill of rights in the process, but the least that we can do is start being honest with ourselves. 

I say just the opposite. We need to go back to early 20th century framework. Which ironically would result in much more progressive government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...