Senate The US Politics discussion

If I was Elizabeth Warren I'd say, "At least I have one."

 

I'd go with something like "My psychiatrist will have less impact on the next presidential election than your former attorney."

 

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" is the perfect name for his cognitive issues

 

Tell me who is gonna beat him. Do not underestimate the piece of crap, and never forget how vile a lot of Americans are.

 

The thing is, Trump overestimates himself and how many people would respond to him. For her missteps, if she gets it together, Elizabeth Warren could be a serious force. She has to do two major things though: She has to win back the Midwest voters. She can do this. Her accomplishments with the Consumer Protection Bureau and her going after big banks help her. More important, Trump screwing farmers with tariffs gives her amunition against him. Likewise his screwing people in the auto industry. Here's where it gets tricky though: she can't say those jobs are coming back. She needs another way to get people working- ironically that is where the Green New Deal would be useful as it gives an alternative to those who are losing their jobs to automation and the shift away from oil.

But she also needs to win over minority voters in the South. Again, thanks to Trump's blatant racism and screwing them over, this too is achievable for Elizabeth Warren (and many other Democrats). But it is not enough to sway them. She needs Obama level turnout. And that is because I firmly believe the next election will be compromised by outside forces. I don't trust those machines at all. Paper can at least be counted, but we've seen the lengths some go to just based on North Carolina and the Florida recount. If Trump has any leverage of winning or claiming the voting is rigged, then it is game over. And that is where Appleseed has a point.

And yes, a bunch of angry stupid people will vote to re-elect Trump and shoot themselves in the foot doing so. But that is ignoring the other 75% of the country who Trump has screwed over and pissed off. The Blue Wave proved to be real. The House win hasn't been so large since Nixon and it was with gerrymandered districts. President Obama is pouring all of his efforts into fighting gerrymandering and that is likely due to 2020 and the Senators up for re-election. It may not be enough, but if voters are angry and motivated to vote- and they are, then it falls to the candidate to channel that rage and to direct them. Elizabeth Warren may or may not be that person, but that doesn't mean none of the Democrats can do it.

The best thing going for the Democrats is Trump's overconfidence in himself and his desire to live in fantasy land. As long as they put in the work (and visit the states), Trump might make a fatal error in taking his own hype for granted. And that is to say nothing of the damage Mueller's report and hearing from the House could do to him. Still, I believe the best person to defeat Donald Trump will be Donald Trump. It just falls on the challenger to capitalize on the moment when it happens.

 

So in other words he's going to make a big show about how concerned he is about Trump's rhetoric and then vote to give him everything he wants.

 

His Washington Post OpEd brought tears to my eyes: "America must continue its devolution into a post-regulatory kleptocracy, but we need a president who's genteel about it."

 

Hey Trump zealots, here's your supposed hoax on a map.

 

Why would I need to tell you? It doesn't require a specific candidate to achieve that goal, a bunch of people would be able to if they campaign properly.
He barely won the last time around, against a candidate who had been vilified for years, and whose campaign got derailed big time by Comey announcing an investigation one week prior to the election.

No one is underestimating Trump, nor forgetting how vile a lot of Americans may be. You however, seem to drastically overestimate how well he is doing. You state that no one has a chance to beat him, while he is coming of an election win that relied on a few thousand votes in a bunch of states. It is simply ridiculous to take such a marginal victory and declare Trump to be unbeatable regardless of who goes up against him. Again, this is a candidate who got by a few thousand votes in three states, just a marginally different outcome and he would have lost. It is also the eventual president who fared the worst in the popular vote, yet here you are, acting as if he had dominated like Reagan.

As I said, it is possible that he gets relected, but there is nothing - absolutely nothing - which supports your theory of him being an unbeatable candidate.

 

I would support Cruz or Pence over Trump simply because Trump cheated on his current wife and they have not.

Now I know that there are no claims before 12 years ago of continuing infidelity and an argument can be made that he hasn't stepped outside his marriage in over a decade. And that's a good thing for Melania and Barron.

But if given a choice between someone who has never cheated vs someone who's stopped cheating, I'll take the one who never cheated 10 times out of 10. Given that all other aspects are similar.

 

Only one of the last five presidents has not been elected for a second term. Is this a coincidence or is it fair to deduce that the incumbent president is usually more likely to win?

 

... and the other shoe drops - US representatives are in Turkey to discuss handing over the opposition cleric that Erdogan has been itching to get his hands on.

 

He went on to such a huge victory it's easy to forget but Reagan was challenged in the Republican primaries after his first term (unemployment was still higher at that point than it was than when he was first elected, so a couple of challengers saw an opening). They didn't put up any sort of serious challenge though.

 

What are the steps that need to be made in order to change the electing system, so that the candidate with more votes is always the one who's elected president?
If I got it right, this goal is not very easy to achieve, practically. Is a change in the constitution needed?

 

Either that or passing laws/amendments in every state linking their electoral votes to the national popular vote results.

 

@Bilbo Fett
But is it up to each single state to decide how to allocate the electoral votes? For example, California has 55, and now the system is winner takes all. So whoever wins California gets all the 55 ev. Is it up to the state to decide whether they prefer to rather allocate the ev proportionally in future elections? For example, in case of 51% vs 49% in California one candidate would get 28 and the other 27 ev.
Or is it rather something that must be decided on a national level?

Let's phrase the question in another, more general way: suppose you are an influential politician who wants to change this electing system. What would you do?

 

Yes. At least the courts have let it go that direction to the extent that it has so far.

There are a couple that currently do not adhere to the strict winner take all method that dominates. But fully neutering the Electoral College would take a state-by-state effort, short a Constitutional amendment at the national level.

 

@Bilbo Fett
Ok this is bad news. Of course, it is not very convenient for single states to change their own rules before the others do the same.

 

Which is what the National Interstate Voter Compact is all about. It's closer to passage now than it's ever been, but Congress would still have to approve it, and that won't happen with a Republican Senate.

Following which it will be announced he's suffered a 'heart attack' and despite heroic efforts, did not survive. US intelligence will then deduce that said heart attack was caused by a small piece of metal piercing his chest at high velocity. Trump will then Tweet that US intelligent reports are 'Fake News' and that Turkey is a valuable ally in the fight against ISIS and cannot be insulted by the Loser Democrats. Republican Senators, lead by the spineless Lindsey Graham, will feign outrage, then turn the other cheek. Rinse and repeat.

 

If America was a Democracy, if our elections were free, fair and legitimate, then he could be beaten. But that is not the case.

 

Red state legislatures will never join that. They'll never decouple from the EC if they can help it. The best chance probably lies in trying to go grass roots and getting referendums on ballots at the state level. And even that would be tricky at best, a long shot at worst. At the end of the day the effort will probably only result in some slight adjustments to what are considered the battleground states.

 

Yep. Like most of America's problems and flaws, the way our system is designed prevents this from being fixed. That's why the best solution is for the entire system to collapse and be replaced. The US Constitution is a piece of crap.