Author Topic: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread  (Read 6783 times)

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #105 on: February 27, 2019, 11:06:49 am »
^ in the category of ' be careful what you wish for'

That Trump and newt are supportive has me concerned.... but I think it is lip service as they don't really want popular vote, it just sounds good

Absent some sort of ballot stuffing strategy, the Republicans definitely do NOT want this.  Not only does it make it very difficult for them to win the Presidency, but it will hurt them down the ballot as well because it incentivizes everyone to turn out and vote.

With that said....shouldn't this be Priority #1 for the DNC

such an easy topic to get good press on...
but this has to happen state by state (which is good) but honestly, we don't need that many more at this point
you'd think this have some good traction with the actual voters rather than the heads of the GOP

I need to correct my statement below
man, if we could just get FL and NH...this could be a reality 
not enough...

we need 90 more

CO isn't done as the Gov needs to sign
I think we should focus on some of the big orange/yellow MI/AZ/NC...you'd think DE/ME/OR would be easy too? (56)

and then really dump some money into FL(29)/PA(20)/GA(16)/VA(13) to get a few of the big ones ...


edit...just found this out...not a win yet, but a good sign
National Popular Vote bill introduced in Oregon Senate


although...this is my fear if the states actually do it...they will keep it in the courts until after 2020
Some constitutional scholars expect lawsuits to fly if the compact states reach 270 electoral votes combined and the Electoral College national-vote laws thus take effect.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 11:17:27 am by Defamatory Gist ılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl »
LAMF

gavroche

  • Member
  • Posts: 354
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #106 on: February 27, 2019, 12:10:46 pm »
^ in the category of ' be careful what you wish for'

That Trump and newt are supportive has me concerned.... but I think it is lip service as they don't really want popular vote, it just sounds good

Absent some sort of ballot stuffing strategy, the Republicans definitely do NOT want this.  Not only does it make it very difficult for them to win the Presidency, but it will hurt them down the ballot as well because it incentivizes everyone to turn out and vote.

With that said....shouldn't this be Priority #1 for the DNC

such an easy topic to get good press on...
but this has to happen state by state (which is good) but honestly, we don't need that many more at this point
you'd think this have some good traction with the actual voters rather than the heads of the GOP

I need to correct my statement below
man, if we could just get FL and NH...this could be a reality 
not enough...

we need 90 more

CO isn't done as the Gov needs to sign
I think we should focus on some of the big orange/yellow MI/AZ/NC...you'd think DE/ME/OR would be easy too? (56)

and then really dump some money into FL(29)/PA(20)/GA(16)/VA(13) to get a few of the big ones ...


edit...just found this out...not a win yet, but a good sign
National Popular Vote bill introduced in Oregon Senate


although...this is my fear if the states actually do it...they will keep it in the courts until after 2020
Some constitutional scholars expect lawsuits to fly if the compact states reach 270 electoral votes combined and the Electoral College national-vote laws thus take effect.

I think it is likely harder to get this passed, in the short term, then it is to win the Presidential for the Dems under the current system.  The impact is obvious and places like VA are so gerrymandered that it isn't going to fly there, but the Dem presidential candidate will win there. 

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #107 on: March 08, 2019, 01:39:56 pm »
I think we should focus on some of the big orange/yellow MI/AZ/NC...you'd think DE/ME/OR would be easy too? (56)
Ok, not a done deal yet....but looking like 3 more votes closer

On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote (status of SB 22).  The bill now goes to the Delaware House of Representatives, where it is sponsored by a 24 of the 41 members.  The bill has passed the House on two previous occasions.   
LAMF

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 18614
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #108 on: March 08, 2019, 02:18:50 pm »
In 2004, President Bush won the popular vote 62,040,610 to John Kerry's 59,028,444.  If Kerry had won Ohio (shift Ohio votes by 60,000), he would have won the electoral college and still lost the popular vote.

As I said in my comment before, manage your expectations carefully.

27>34

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #109 on: March 13, 2019, 09:55:33 am »
smakie...not going to let you get me down on that
Kerry was a horrible candidate IMO, especially after 9/11, people loved bush

Yes, I would hate if this got passed and then Trump wins the pop and the Dem wins the EC
I agree it 'could' happen, but the math doesn't seem like it's there

In related news...Poular Vote Compact bill passes both houses and is going to Democratic Gov Michelle Lujan Grisham
Haven't really heard reports if she is going to sign (I think she will) unlike in CO where Polis said he'd sign

this has me concerned tho...
Law professor: National popular vote bill may create constitutional conundrum

Liberals supporting this measure do not appear to realize that strong conservatives in this nation are a plurality ó not a majority, necessarily, but a strong plurality, Natelson said.

"A strong right-wing candidate could win a plurality and every other state would be forced to vote for them," Natelson said.

This happens regularly in countries with direct vote elections, Natelson said.

"Mexico's presidents are often elected with 40 percent of the popular vote," Natelson said, noting the Electoral College is there as a check and balance to direct vote elections.

LAMF

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 17785
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #110 on: March 13, 2019, 10:45:59 am »
The loser is always a horrible candidate

He lost by 50,000 votes in Ohio to the apparently super popular Bush

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #111 on: March 13, 2019, 11:09:05 am »
let's get the fact straight on Ohio 2004

United States presidential election in Ohio, 2004
Party    Candidate    Votes    Percentage    Electoral votes
Republican    Bush    2,859,768    50.8%    20
Democratic    Kerry    2,741,167    48.7%    0

my math says that Bush got closer to 120,000 more votes...or  a 2.1% margin of victory

yes if 59k of those bush voters, voted for Kerry, he would have won the state and the election...but that's not how it works

So it was close...but it wasn't Florida close
(in 2004 bush crushed FL)
LAMF

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 17785
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #112 on: March 13, 2019, 11:26:24 am »
Name the last person to lose a presidential election you donít think was a terrible candidate?


I will wait


vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 18614
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #114 on: March 13, 2019, 12:26:16 pm »
let's get the fact straight on Ohio 2004

I'm quite certain that's why I said "a shift of 60,000 votes" and not "if he received 60,000 more votes."
27>34

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #115 on: March 13, 2019, 12:42:50 pm »
this appears to be a common way to confuse things

if one person gets 120k votes more than the other person...yes a shift of 60k votes turns the election

but it doesn't work that way and it makes it sound closer than winning by 2.1 percentage points

So you did correctly state your case, but typically election results are not discussed like that
only when you want to make it seem closer

I'm not arguing that this could backfire...but I feel that the Dems have been getting screwed on 5 of 6 elections because of the GOP being able to play the EC like a game of jenga (not sure if that's an accurate metaphor)

The benefit of getting rid of the EC is that elections are decided by 7 or 8 states and millions upon millions votes don't really matter...so what incentive is for them to vote or for presidents to care what goes on in that state
LAMF

Space Freely

  • Member
  • Posts: 4569
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #116 on: March 13, 2019, 01:37:06 pm »
Name the last person to lose a presidential election you donít think was a terrible candidate?


I will wait

I didn't vote for him, but I thought McCain was a not terrible candidate. Until he picked Palin for his veep.

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 18614
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #117 on: March 13, 2019, 01:56:16 pm »
this appears to be a common way to confuse things

Only one person seems to be confused.
27>34

Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #118 on: March 13, 2019, 02:16:45 pm »
this appears to be a common way to confuse things

Only one person seems to be confused.

He lost by 50,000 votes in Ohio
are you referring to Hutch?

but I do think when I read your statement, I thought it was the same as Hutch's
As no one really talks about the shift, they just talk about how many votes some one got more than the other person
LAMF

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 17785
Re: The "We Should Have a Midterms 2018 Discussion Thread" Thread
« Reply #119 on: March 13, 2019, 02:22:54 pm »
Name the last person to lose a presidential election you donít think was a terrible candidate?


I will wait

I didn't vote for him, but I thought McCain was a not terrible candidate. Until he picked Palin for his veep.

Mr Suspend Campaign?!?