Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
Actually, you can do the math and break this all down by race, which is what I reported on four or five years ago in my blog. The electoral college, in essence, makes white votes worth something north of 1.1 votes each, which is a big deal when you get to 100 million voters.
Ah, to be white, male, and German, like me. We're thinking of suing for reparations during Vance's first term. My German cousins got hosed after WW II, so we need some recompense.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
Actually, you can do the math and break this all down by race, which is what I reported on four or five years ago in my blog. The electoral college, in essence, makes white votes worth something north of 1.1 votes each, which is a big deal when you get to 100 million voters.
Ah, to be white, male, and German, like me. We're thinking of suing for reparations during Vance's first term. My German cousins got hosed after WW II, so we need some recompense.
Hilary won the popular vote in 2016 by close to 3 million votes - 65,853,514 to T's 62,984,828
but she got beat in the electoral college ______________ouch
.
I'd support a Constitutional amendment / amendments which do the following:
Abolish the electoral college and decide the election solely by popular vote'
Prohibit PAC's, corporations or any entities other than individuals from donating to a politician or a political cause, and limiting the amount to $10K per person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
The hell with that crap, V. You might wind up with a democracy. As mickey likes to point out, the US is a federal republic, not a democracy. As the CIA has defined us, we're an anocracy. Here's an oldies but goodies:
https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...cracy-now.html
and
https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...-anocracy.html
It has never been explained clearly to me, just what the purpose or usefulness of the electoral college was. But whatever it was, it has long outlived that usefulness, to the point that it now disenfranchises most of the voters in this country. Anyone living in one of 42-44 states that is not one of the "swing states" and is easily predicted how your state will vote, your vote has almost no significance right now. And that includes all the most populous states.
But because this antiquated system has favored one side for the last quarter century, winning the presidency twice when they lost the popular vote, with a 3rd election, 2020, 3 states and about 90,000 votes could have turned the election, despite a popular vote landslide the other way.
So the republicans aren't going to be willing to change anything until it turns and bites them in the ass. And that scenario isn't that far away. Texas is a state trending the wrong way for republicans. One of these cycles, probably not this one or next, Texas will go blue by the slimmest of margins, and when it does, a very slim margin will win the democrats all those electoral votes. You could have a situation where the democrats win several big states by slim margins and lose most of the country by wide margins, and win the lection despite losing the popular vote. THEN the republicans will be screaming to change things. :D
the link describes pretty cogently the reasoning behind those who favor the electoral collegeQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
that's not to say that I in any way agree with it
the most important point the writer makes:
quote - "The Electoral College maintains a federal system of government and representation. Their reasoning is that in a formal federal structure important powers are reserved to the States. In the U.S. for example the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State's choice for the Presidency. To abolish the Electoral College would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to nationalization of our central government - to the detriment of the States."
the number of each State's electoral votes are the number of its Senators (which is two) plus the number of its Representatives
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/...0College_0.pdf
.
I am aware of all that. But meanwhile You have Pennsylvania 13 million people, Michigan, 10 million, Wisconis 5.9 million, that currently decide our elections. That is less than 9% of the population of this country. Add in 3 more states that are the current true swing states, Georgia, 3.7 million, Arizona, 7 million, and Nevada 3 million, and about 12% of the populations votes even matter. If you are one of the other 88% in one of the other 44 states, your vote is meaningless. It REALLY is!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smokethe link describes pretty cogently the reasoning behind those who favor the electoral collegeQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
that's not to say that I in any way agree with it
the most important point the writer makes:
quote - "The Electoral College maintains a federal system of government and representation. Their reasoning is that in a formal federal structure important powers are reserved to the States. In the U.S. for example the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State's choice for the Presidency. To abolish the Electoral College would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to nationalization of our central government - to the detriment of the States."
the number of each State's electoral votes are the number of its Senators (which is two) plus the number of its Representatives
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/...0College_0.pdf
.
If we elected by popular vote, EVERY vote would matter just the same. If a republican candidate could go to deep blue New York and pick up a few votes or a democratic candidate, went to deep red Montana (say hi to Mickey) and picked up a few votes, they would count just as much as those votes in Michigan, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Th electoral college disenfranchises 90% of voters.
The problem is you need 75% of the states to support to make an electoral college change. Those small states way out-number the large states.
.
one day after Biden dropped out a poll was taken by a University and T shows a slight edge
but the article states there is no clear leader as the results are within the margin of error - see link
and then there's this - which gave me a nice morning chuckle - "Let's Go Brandon" is of course a fudging of words that came to mean "eff Joe Biden"
.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTKKcJEX...pg&name=medium
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3901
.
So, who placed bets on who the running mate will be? I'm putting imaginary money on Mark Kelly.
I don't see betting lines for VP pick at the sportsbooks I currently deal with and am not going to open a new account just to bet that. But I am keeping an eye on my current books and should a line appear, I might consider a wager on Shapiro, if the odds were ok, based on my own process of eliminationQuote:
Originally Posted by pinchingyourballs
Whitmer - out. can't have 2 women
Buttigieg - out. too risky for 1st woman candidate and 1st gay guy on same ticket.
Newsome - out. Residency problem. Can't have pres and VP from same state or that states electoral votes don't count. I also don't think Newsome is looking to play second fiddle. he has his eye set on running for President, not VP
Beshear - out. Dont know too much about him other than he is a democrat that won governor in a very red state, Kentucky. That is impressive, but Dem's aren't going to win Kentucky in a presidential, so don't know what he would add to the ticket.
Cooper -mostly out. Similarly, democrat won Governor in red leaning North Carolina. Dems always think NC is in play. It never is. Also 67 and I think Dems are looking for younger to really avoid that "age" issue
Mark Kelly - 2nd choice. Could help win Arizona. Likeable and popular. Something about him just doesn't seem like presidential material to me.
Josh Shapiro My pick (but only at decent odds). Could help win Pa which is a must win for Dems. He is Jewish and some Jewish support has eroded from Dems based on the War, so he could help sure up Jewish vote.
It might be asking a bit much to have a ticket with a black/Asian woman and a Jew.
Whatever, Trump has a feisty opponent in Kamala: I just watched the opening of her first rally and she was actually pretty damned impressive.
Can't wait to watch the two of them debate: it will go a lot different this time: she'll kick the old fart's butt to the curb!
"Kamala is BRAT"
not much chance of that - I would say save your $ on that oneQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ;180723
[B
Jews are only 2.4% of the U.S. adult population
and so many have prejudices towards them
they are 11% in NY State but the State is already pretty solidly blue
agree with Mr. V that she would not choose a VP with minority ethnicity
it's all but a sure thing that her pick will be a white Christian male
and if she wins not only would she be the first female Prez; her husband Doug Emhoff would be the nation's first "First Gentleman" in the White House
.
Is there really that much anti-Jewish sentiment out there? I don't know. I was sort of hoping we were past that kind of thing. Before 2008, we had never had a black president. before 2020 we had never had a woman or non white VP. before 2020, we had also had only 1 catholic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
So which states have this big anti-Jewish sentiment? Any ogf the normal blue states? is New Jersey less likely to be blue with a Jewish guy on the ticket? How about, Conneticut, Virginia, California, Colorado (who has a gay Governor), or Washington State? Is a Jewish guy on the ticket a problem in any of these states?
Pa a major swing state elected this particular Jewish guy to statewide office 3 different times, including Governor, so I don't see a problem there. What about Wisconsin? Is there some large anti_jewish movement there I am not aware of? About the only state I can think of that there could be a problem is Michigan because they have a larger Arab population. But even that is only 2.1% of the total population.
IF, picking Shapiro helped Pa, but hurt in Michigan, they probably wouldn't do it. They will conduct some targeted polling to try to figure that out. She probably wont make the pick until next week, so there is a little time.
Still no VP lines on my sites, and I don't expect there will be as there were none, last week with the republicans. But if a line shows up and Shapiro is decent + money, I will put a little on it.
And yes, there could be some deep redneck states where it might matter. Dems aren't going to win those states anyway.
I wouldn't be afraid to pick Shapiro, if he is the best candidate and helps in targeted areas.
Plus it would be fun to hear all the conspiracy theories about how Harris's Jewish husband is calling the shots. :D.
So the first 2 days of the Harris candidacy and the republican response has been interesting. It is being reported that Trump and the republicans were totally blind-sided by this switch. Not sure why, since this has been discussed and ballyed around for a month now. :confused:
But anyway, their initial response has been to attack Harris on her sex and race, saying things like she got where she is by being black and sleeping around. :rolleyes: Not really surprising, but totally stupid.
The republicans biggest problem is women, particularly suburban woman. Do they think that is going to get better by attacking a woman for being a woman and saying things like "she slept her way to the top". :D
Additionally, the republicans according to polls, have made some inroads with black support. Yeah attack a candidate based on race. Smart move. That support they worked hard to gain, will dry up like water in Death Valley.
There are plenty of things they can attack Harris on. Policy things. I just don't know if THIS republican party and THIS candidate is capable of doing that and steering clear of the personal attacks. We will see if there is anyone with some brains left over there. :D
maybe not a great deal, but if it's 5% - one out of 20 - hey, that's 5% of the vote that may turn awayQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
or more likely decide not to vote at all -
Bernie Sanders who was Jewish was totally crushed by Biden in 2020 in the Democratic Primary
you don't really believe that Biden was all that much better than Bernie as a candidate do you____?
a Jewish person has never been chosen as VP - that's not due to randomness
look how much shit you take here for being outside of the mainstream in certain ways
anybody who thinks that America is one big happy diverse family of people is really just dreaming
Kamala is a candidate with non majority ethnicity - she would be crazy to double down on that
.
I don't think Bernie Sanders problem (as to why he can't win) is because he is Jewish. It is because he is WAY, WAY to far to the left. basically "socialist" left. Elizabeth Warren had the same problem and she isn't Jewish, so that isn't it and it wasn't because Bernie is/was Jewish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smokemaybe not a great deal, but if it's 5% - one out of 20 - hey, that's 5% of the vote that may turn awayQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
or more likely decide not to vote at all -
Bernie Sanders who was Jewish was totally crushed by Biden in 2020 in the Democratic Primary
you don't really believe Biden was all that much better than Bernie as a candidate do you____?
a Jewish person has never been chosen as VP - that's not due to randomness
anybody who thinks that America is one big happy diverse family of people is really just dreaming
Kamala is a candidate with non majority ethnicity - she would be crazy to double down on that
.
never mind BernieQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI don't think Bernie Sanders problem (as to why he can't win) is because he is Jewish. It is because he is WAY, WAY to far to the left. basically "socialist" left. Elizabeth Warren had the same problem and she isn't Jewish, so that isn't it and it wasn't because Bernie is/was Jewish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smokemaybe not a great deal, but if it's 5% - one out of 20 - hey, that's 5% of the vote that may turn awayQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
or more likely decide not to vote at all -
Bernie Sanders who was Jewish was totally crushed by Biden in 2020 in the Democratic Primary
you don't really believe Biden was all that much better than Bernie as a candidate do you____?
a Jewish person has never been chosen as VP - that's not due to randomness
anybody who thinks that America is one big happy diverse family of people is really just dreaming
Kamala is a candidate with non majority ethnicity - she would be crazy to double down on that
.
you're just wrong - plain wrong
one more time - her pick will be a white Christian male
if I was a betting man, which I'm not - I would give you 35/1 that the person she chooses will not be Jewish
I don't think you're Jewish. I am. I think I know things about this that you don't
you take all kinds of shit on this site because you're gay
do you really believe that there aren't all kinds of similar negative feelings out there about Jews that are not usually verbalized because a great many want to appear politically correct_____?
and on boards like this people don't generally know who is Jewish and who is not - that's why you don't hear much about it
.
You seem to be getting agitated by this discussion. Not sure why. And maybe you are right. Time will tell.
With regards to your 35-1 odds, just curious in June of 2020 what odds you would have given that an Indian Woman with a Black father and Jewish husband, would become the VP pick? :D