The WoV Thread

[quahaug]

Trump would have won the popular vote in 16 if we didn't have the E.C.

[Mission146]

We have an electoral college because our Founding Fathers thought that the American people were too stupid to elect their own President. That is the reason - no other, and not to protect minority rights either. I have read some revisionist theories as to why else we have an electoral college, but I don't really buy them.

The electors do not have to vote with the popular vote of even their own state, and sometimes do not, they are merely elected to vote - for us.

Back then, among a nation of illiterates and farmers this rationale of an ignorant populace might have been true, but no longer applies sufficiently to justify the Republic's Electoral College system.

I basically agree with what you said with the minor exception that sometimes EC voters have to vote with the state's popular vote. It depends on the state, but some states have laws against Faithless Electors conferring upon the state the ability to discard that elector and replace him or her with a different one who will vote in accordance with the popular vote of the state.

Specifically, three different electors (total) were replaced in 2016 because they did not wish to vote for Clinton. These electors were from Maine, Colorado and Minnesota. Also, one elector resigned rather than vote for Trump...I want to say Georgia, but that could be wrong and I don't feel like looking it up because I haven't had enough coffee yet.

[MDawg]

As a practical matter the electors always vote as expected, just rarely, they do not.

Trump would have won the popular vote in 16 if we didn't have the E.C.

How? Why?

T won the 2016 election due to 77,744 votes across three states PA, MI and WI. These states were blue 1992 - 2012. These 77K votes decided the election by giving their 46 red electoral votes to T. C ended with 230 / T with 306 and it takes 270 to win.

State Electoral Trump Clinton Difference
PA ---------20 2970733 2926441 44292
MI ---------16 2279543 2268839 10704
WI ---------10 1405284 1382536 22748

T lost the popular vote by 2,864,974 votes.

[Darkoz]

I think I know where he is going although it becomes a see-saw hypothesis.

NYS has a lot of red voters who don't bother going because their votes never matter as the state always goes blue. Ditto Cali.

Therefore if it was just popular vote then he surmises the absent voters who are red in historically blue states would vote throwing trump the win.

The problem with that hypothesis (the see-saw effect for lack of a better term) is such a popular vote would have the same effect on Blue voters in predominantly Red States that would also be similarly disposed to turn out the vote.

In effect there maybe a nullifying effect to his theory. Something that is somewhat moot since if we ever change the EC it won't be during Trump's presidency

[mickeycrimm]

I think I know where he is going although it becomes a see-saw hypothesis.

NYS has a lot of red voters who don't bother going because their votes never matter as the state always goes blue. Ditto Cali.

Therefore if it was just popular vote then he surmises the absent voters who are red in historically blue states would vote throwing trump the win.

The problem with that hypothesis (the see-saw effect for lack of a better term) is such a popular vote would have the same effect on Blue voters in predominantly Red States that would also be similarly disposed to turn out the vote.

In effect there maybe a nullifying effect to his theory. Something that is somewhat moot since if we ever change the EC it won't be during Trump's presidency

You may as well get used to the electoral college. It will never be abolished. It takes a two-thirds vote by both the house and the senate. States with smaller populations just will not give up the power. The other way is two-thirds of statehouses. It will never hapen that way either for the same reason.

[MDawg]

I think I know where he is going

Assuming what you mentioned is quahaug's theory - still, nearly three million votes are statistically quite difficult to overcome just by voter turnout. Which I believe you are agreeing that it would be very hard to even out no matter what.

Looking back, numbers only (don't have time to run % wise against US Pop at the time), looks like the highest winners were Nixon v. McGovern, 1972, almost 18M ahead by popular vote, Reagan v. Mondale, 1984, about 17M, and Johnson v. Goldwater, 1964, about 16M.

BUT looking at times popular vote did not decide the election, the 2016 almost -3M votes against Trump were the highest ever by an exponential factor...highest others were G W Bush v. Gore, 2000, about -500K, Hayes v. Tilden, 1876, about -250K. That's really lopsided losing by three million votes and being elected.

[mickeycrimm]

I think I know where he is going

Assuming what you mentioned is quahaug's theory - still, nearly three million votes are statistically quite difficult to overcome just by voter turnout. Which I believe you are agreeing that it would be very hard to even out no matter what.

Looking back, numbers only (don't have time to run % wise against US Pop at the time), looks like the highest winners were Nixon v. McGovern, 1972, almost 18M ahead by popular vote, Reagan v. Mondale, 1984, about 17M, and Johnson v. Goldwater, 1964, about 16M.

BUT looking at times popular vote did not decide the election, the 2016 almost -3M votes against Trump were the highest ever by an exponential factor...highest others were G W Bush v. Gore, 2000, about -500K, Hayes v. Tilden, 1876, about -250K. That's really lopsided losing by three million votes and being elected.

Bill Clinton won the Presidency with just 41% of the popular vote.

[mickeycrimm]

Newly reinstated KJ is making himself useful over at WoV by teaching the pro gamblers how to suck off the government tit.

[jbjb]

Newly reinstated KJ is making himself useful over at WoV by teaching the pro gamblers how to suck off the government tit.

Nothing wrong with AP'ing the government.

[Mission146]

I think I know where he is going

Assuming what you mentioned is quahaug's theory - still, nearly three million votes are statistically quite difficult to overcome just by voter turnout. Which I believe you are agreeing that it would be very hard to even out no matter what.

Looking back, numbers only (don't have time to run % wise against US Pop at the time), looks like the highest winners were Nixon v. McGovern, 1972, almost 18M ahead by popular vote, Reagan v. Mondale, 1984, about 17M, and Johnson v. Goldwater, 1964, about 16M.

BUT looking at times popular vote did not decide the election, the 2016 almost -3M votes against Trump were the highest ever by an exponential factor...highest others were G W Bush v. Gore, 2000, about -500K, Hayes v. Tilden, 1876, about -250K. That's really lopsided losing by three million votes and being elected.

Hayes v. Tilden was probably quite lopsided voter population relative, safe theory, but I don't feel like figuring out the specific effective percentage.

[kewlJ]

Newly reinstated KJ is making himself useful over at WoV by teaching the pro gamblers how to suck off the government tit.

The CARES act, which includes the expanded eligibility for self employed as well as the additional $600 a week unemployment through July, was crafted entirely by Mitch McConnel and republicans. If you remember the democrats were screaming that they weren't included in the drafting of the initial bill.

Pretty hypocritical for someone on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to even have the balls to say anything about the "government tit". While I don't consider Social Security and Medicare, welfare programs, they are most certainly government socialist programs, one even having the word in the name.

Medicaid IS a welfare program. And there is no doubt Mickey is or was on Medicaid, when he went through his heart attack and extended hospital stay. He can deny it if it makes him feel better, but there is a caseworker at the hospital, associated with the hospital that signs and helps sign anyone in Mickey's position, up for Medicaid.

So just shut up Mickey and stop judging everyone and being such a douche bag, you hypocrite.

[MDawg]

Bill Clinton won the Presidency with just 41% of the popular vote.

Unless I am missing something?

[kewlJ]

Newly reinstated KJ is making himself useful over at WoV by teaching the pro gamblers how to suck off the government tit.

Nothing wrong with AP'ing the government.

That is right jbjb.

I shut down my play about a week before the official shutdown as I no longer felt comfortable in the casinos. I was prepared financially for that decision, as long as it took, as it is someone's responsibility, who is self employed to be.

I didn't ask for anything. The government created the CARES act, which is part stimulus bill. I qualified so I accepted. Just the same as there are very few people that said no thank you to the $1200 direct payment. Nobody asked for that. But no one refused it either.

If I didn't accept the stimulus payments, including unemployment that the government says as a tax paying citizen, I am entitled to, I would not only not be an AP, but would in fact be a fool.

[kewlJ]

Bill Clinton won the Presidency with just 41% of the popular vote.

Unless I am missing something?

MickeyCrimm rounded Down for effect and cause. Trump supporters and even those in his campaign, know that he has about 40-41% support. And those numbers aren't going anywhere....they have been solid for 2 years. So Trump "enthusiasts" are trying to come up with a scenario that he can still win. The closest example is the 1992 election where Clinton won with 43%, so mickey dumbed that down to 41%, because he knows that is where Trump is and is trying to say "see it can be done".

And THAT is what it is going to take for Trump to have a shot. A third party candidate that gets nearly 20%. The 1-2% that a couple third party candidates took in 2016 and most elections isn't going to come close to doing so. Trump needs a legitimate 3rd party candidate syphoning off 20%. The only real chance of that happening was Michael Bloomberg. Maybe Mark Cuban. These guys would have had the money to get on the ballots and instantly compete via television airtime. That time has passed now. There isn't even time for a legitimate 3rd party guy to get on the ballot in most states.

That leaves Trump trying to win with 40-41% of the vote and even against a bad, over the hill, candidate like Joe Biden, Trump has no chance. I said a while ago, I don't even think he will be running come fall. Sometime this summer, when poll after poll shows Trump down 10, 12 even more points, republican Senate and congressional candidates will all start backing away from him. They will try to run on their own records and never mention Trump. And if there are campaign rallies in our future, they will not want to be on stage with him. And then before a humiliating defeat, Trump will drop out, blaming everyone and anyone else. And while that will seem a dark day for the republican party as far as 2020, it will actually be the beginning of a new responsible conservative party.

[Mission146]

Newly reinstated KJ is making himself useful over at WoV by teaching the pro gamblers how to suck off the government tit.

The CARES act, which includes the expanded eligibility for self employed as well as the additional $600 a week unemployment through July, was crafted entirely by Mitch McConnel and republicans. If you remember the democrats were screaming that they weren't included in the drafting of the initial bill.

Pretty hypocritical for someone on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to even have the balls to say anything about the "government tit". While I don't consider Social Security and Medicare, welfare programs, they are most certainly government socialist programs, one even having the word in the name.

Medicaid IS a welfare program. And there is no doubt Mickey is or was on Medicaid, when he went through his heart attack and extended hospital stay. He can deny it if it makes him feel better, but there is a caseworker at the hospital, associated with the hospital that signs and helps sign anyone in Mickey's position, up for Medicaid.

So just shut up Mickey and stop judging everyone and being such a douche bag, you hypocrite.

They are not Government Socialist programs, despite being social in nature. If you wanted to call them anything, I would call them, "Forced investment programs," considering that they are specifically directed. Being self-employed and filing taxes, as you already know, you pay a Social Security Tax of 12.4% on your first $137,700 in annual earnings and then nothing after that, per year. That amount goes into the Social Security fund which represents a maximum of a hair over $17,000 coming out of your money annually. MickeyCrimm has already paid this for any years that he filed taxes and his SS payments (unless they are the minimum, which I assume not) are based on how much he paid into the thing.

Medicare, similarly, is an employee funded and employer-matched contribution of 1.45%, on both sides, or 2.9%, if one is self-employed. I guess the thinking is some cost more than others and this amount is sufficient to make it all come out in the wash. IOW, it's something that MickeyCrimm has already paid into and is now availing himself of.

I hardly see the hypocrisy in taking back the money he has already put in, especially when you consider that he might not even get BACK everything he put in by the time he dies. Of course, people do tend to live longer these days...which is one of the big problems that these programs are having. Death was another means by which it was all supposed to, "Come out in the wash."

It would be like calling me a hypocrite if I got mugged at gunpoint, but when the muggers came and offered me some of my own money back, I accepted. It doesn't mean that I like getting mugged or support the muggers going around mugging people.

Similarly, KewlJ, you have stated that you have paid your taxes every year. Therefore, provided that is true, you are just as entitled to Unemployment compensation as anyone else would be as long as the applicable laws say that you qualify. I'd have thought, as self-employed, you'd have to pay into unemployment specifically, but I am not up on Nevada unemployment code so I really don't know.

In any event, neither of you are hypocrites on this one, far as I can tell.

[Mission146]

That is right jbjb.

I shut down my play about a week before the official shutdown as I no longer felt comfortable in the casinos. I was prepared financially for that decision, as long as it took, as it is someone's responsibility, who is self employed to be.

I didn't ask for anything. The government created the CARES act, which is part stimulus bill. I qualified so I accepted. Just the same as there are very few people that said no thank you to the $1200 direct payment. Nobody asked for that. But no one refused it either.

If I didn't accept the stimulus payments, including unemployment that the government says as a tax paying citizen, I am entitled to, I would not only not be an AP, but would in fact be a fool.

I have, thus far, succeeded in refusing it...so not quite nobody. I might be a fool, but not quite as foolish as the Government with its spending.

[kewlJ]

I might be a fool,

Well, you will get no argument from me based on these circumstances.


But let's clarify. I am guessing they didn't direct deposit the funds into your account and you sent it back (as I did with a second payment). So your situation was treasury had no deposit info on you and in order to get the payment you needed to go to the IRS site, click the provide payment information button (or whatever it was called) and submit your payment information. And you refused to do this on principal. Is that about right? If so please see my first line of this post again.

[MDawg]

MickeyCrimm rounded Down for effect and cause.

The % (43%) from 1992, matters but also what matters, is which got more votes! Clinton got almost six million more votes than Bush in 1992.

It's inconceivable that someone could win with both LESS votes and only 41%.

These elections where the winner won with less votes, he got at least 46% of the popular. Plus the 2016, election was a serious anomaly, where, as noted above, about 77K votes across three states decided the election.

[Mission146]

MickeyCrimm rounded Down for effect and cause. Trump supporters and even those in his campaign, know that he has about 40-41% support. And those numbers aren't going anywhere....they have been solid for 2 years. So Trump "enthusiasts" are trying to come up with a scenario that he can still win. The closest example is the 1992 election where Clinton won with 43%, so mickey dumbed that down to 41%, because he knows that is where Trump is and is trying to say "see it can be done".

And THAT is what it is going to take for Trump to have a shot. A third party candidate that gets nearly 20%. The 1-2% that a couple third party candidates took in 2016 and most elections isn't going to come close to doing so. Trump needs a legitimate 3rd party candidate syphoning off 20%. The only real chance of that happening was Michael Bloomberg. Maybe Mark Cuban. These guys would have had the money to get on the ballots and instantly compete via television airtime. That time has passed now. There isn't even time for a legitimate 3rd party guy to get on the ballot in most states.

That leaves Trump trying to win with 40-41% of the vote and even against a bad, over the hill, candidate like Joe Biden, Trump has no chance. I said a while ago, I don't even think he will be running come fall. Sometime this summer, when poll after poll shows Trump down 10, 12 even more points, republican Senate and congressional candidates will all start backing away from him. They will try to run on their own records and never mention Trump. And if there are campaign rallies in our future, they will not want to be on stage with him. And then before a humiliating defeat, Trump will drop out, blaming everyone and anyone else. And while that will seem a dark day for the republican party as far as 2020, it will actually be the beginning of a new responsible conservative party.

You guys might want to keep that whole Ross Perot guy in mind if we're looking at either of those two years, but particularly 1992. That said, Trump was the least popular (favorability) rating Presidential candidate in recent history and already won once because he was going against the second-least favored candidate in Presidential history. In any case, it looks like he probably loses national popular vote again, but:

1.) We know that doesn't really matter.

AND:

2.) Because #1, as we all discussed earlier, it's tough to tell what the National Popular Vote would even be if that was the deciding metric.

Another thing is that third-party candidates underperformed the polling in 2016 while the two major-party candidates slight outperformed (both) most polls, so I wouldn't rely too much on the polling. It was almost as though some people were excited to vote third-party, but then went, "Pragmatic," when they actually got there. It's tough to make sense of this year's national polling, even compared to 2016, because, "OTHER," is doing well...but the national polls don't seem to be listing anyone by name, for the most part. I can't tell you where the, "OTHER," defectors are likely to break if I don't know who they mean in the first place. I know a lot of numbskulls are planning to write Sanders in.

To the second quoted paragraph, again, lots of people are saying, "OTHER," in the polling, but it would help to know who, "OTHER," is...I might need to check other sources. lol

Lots of the polls are also garbage because the sample sizing is terrible and then you have to consider the impact of where the sample comes from. Undecided/OTHER can range anywhere from 6-20%, so I think a lot of that has to do with either phrasing or maybe not putting specific options on the poll at all.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

One other thing you should be concerned about, if you want Trump to lose, is that the spectrum of All-Registered Voters-Likely Voters, seems to really tighten up when it comes to Biden's lead the further you get to the right of that spectrum. You can have all the national votes in the Polls from, "All," that you want to, but it's really not going to matter if the people doing it don't actually show up to vote.

We're also early enough in the cycle that the polls, in general, are just kind of trash anyway. I could go around door-to-door in counties that were super competitive in 2016 and get you better polls than this garbage...they're all (both sides) mainly just agenda pushing and cheerleading, at this point.

[Mission146]

I might be a fool,

Well, you will get no argument from me based on these circumstances.


But let's clarify. I am guessing they didn't direct deposit the funds into your account and you sent it back (as I did with a second payment). So your situation was treasury had no deposit info on you and in order to get the payment you needed to go to the IRS site, click the provide payment information button (or whatever it was called) and submit your payment information. And you refused to do this on principal. Is that about right? If so please see my first line of this post again.

You're goddamn right the Government doesn't have my bank information. Principle*, and yes, basically.