And a 6.3 million/4+ point vote margin can't really be called "narrow".
It could be called worse: I'd say it's completely irrelevant.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And a 6.3 million/4+ point vote margin can't really be called "narrow".
And a 6.3 million/4+ point vote margin can't really be called "narrow".
It could be called worse: I'd say it's completely irrelevant.
And a 6.3 million/4+ point vote margin can't really be called "narrow".
It could be called worse: I'd say it's completely irrelevant.
Whelp --- you just posted that "narrow" elections are bad for democracy, and I showed how that doesn't apply.
And a 6.3 million/4+ point vote margin can't really be called "narrow".
It could be called worse: I'd say it's completely irrelevant.
Whelp --- you just posted that "narrow" elections are bad for democracy, and I showed how that doesn't apply.
I don't know what you mean by 4+ point vote margin. If the 6.3 million is the current total of the popular vote on Biden's side (including all the California illegals with Motor Voter), that IS irrelevant, since counting the popular vote nationwide is not how we score elections.
The way we actually do score elections yielded so narrow a "victory" that many don't believe it. I've read this isn't good for democracy; I know that it has happened before, however, and we're still here, one fraught nation. Still, I agree with the point of what I read, which was that democracy was meant to register something like a comfortable majority. That hasn't happened lately, and I agree it's no good, though what to do about it I can't imagine.
Again, it's relevant because you described the election as a "narrow narrow margin". Neither 6.3 million popular votes nor a 306-232 Electoral vote can really be called "narrow". The reference to "4+ point margin" is the difference expressed as a percentage between the two popular vote totals. The same percentage could be calculated for the EV but it would be meaningless because of the way it's done.
As for getting past narrow margins, that's the fault of running with a Duopoly and an EC system that keeps it entrenched. As long as we're forcibly limited to two party (singular intentional), neither side of that Duopoly has any incentive to trot out a worthy candidate, because they know their only competition is the other side of the same Duopoly.
Again, it's relevant because you described the election as a "narrow narrow margin". Neither 6.3 million popular votes nor a 306-232 Electoral vote can really be called "narrow". The reference to "4+ point margin" is the difference expressed as a percentage between the two popular vote totals. The same percentage could be calculated for the EV but it would be meaningless because of the way it's done.
As for getting past narrow margins, that's the fault of running with a Duopoly and an EC system that keeps it entrenched. As long as we're forcibly limited to two party (singular intentional), neither side of that Duopoly has any incentive to trot out a worthy candidate, because they know their only competition is the other side of the same Duopoly.
I see that the reason you don't think the popular vote is irrelevant is that you want to delete the Electoral College. Maybe that will happen, and the less populated states will all secede, which is what I would assume (and we'd move to that new country, assuming that Maryland would stay on the Dark Side). But in the meantime, the excess popular vote from California and New York, with their overpopulation of illegals and new immigrants, simply doesn't matter.
I am not au fait with this term Duopoly -- is that the idea that the GOP and Dems are really all the same? Is this a longing for socialism or communism? Or (I could get into this) Libertarianism?
I've not thought the same as you about the lack of incentive to trot out worthy candidates: Trump swept the party with a new broom, filling the dustpan with shrieking never-Trumpers like George F. Will and Bill Kristol. A tidal wave isn't the same as a plot. And as for poor Biden, I have and do assume he was simply a sacrificial lamb, like Romney The Mormon was --- someone no one expected to win (what, deny re-election to The First Black President?? That would be, dare I say it, racist, right?) so they saved their big guns for luckier times, their on-coming talent, which are being run out fast now --- Cruz and Graham on the GOP side, I notice. No one expected Biden to win, and he didn't campaign, but then came COVID, and Trump went from being a sure shoo-in to aaaaaaacccccck, what just happened there?
This election was a fraud.....the blue cities did everything they could do to insert fraudulent votes...and when those evil efforts came up short still...Dominio kicked in.....that is why the count stopped in the middle of the night so Dominion could do their thing.....
Whether I like or dislike the EC doesn't affect the point that a 6.3 million margin simply is not "narrow". "Narrow" compared to what? Minus 2.9 million?
Lots of wags around here like to wax all pipe-and-slippers about "if you take out California..." --- well, you can't do that.
I am not au fait with this term Duopoly -- is that the idea that the GOP and Dems are really all the same? Is this a longing for socialism or communism? Or (I could get into this) Libertarianism?
I've seen people say that, presumably describing the politics of both parties tending toward the center. That strategy failed with a whoosh on both sides as of 2016, I'd say, when radical populism and socialism took over most of the election, and the same thing in 2020. All those COMMIES calling themselves Democrats --- if that's not a break-up of the Duopoly, I don't know what you could want --- well, maybe I do: I have a book to suggest to people who want a really radical break with politics as usual: In Defense of Looting, by Vicky Osterweil, a tranny. Pretty well written.......something seems wrong with the logic a little, though, among other things.....The former basically. Technically meaning a monopoly of two but in practice I like to describe them as a single party that dresses up alternately in red or blue uniforms and we're all supposed to think they're 'different' from each other, but the sad fact remains, as long as everything electoral is controlled by that Duopoly, said Duopoly has no challengers, because it will not allow any.
I think everyone expected Biden to win, or we could say, expected Rump to lose to whoever the alternative turned out to be. The polling and Rump's consistently high disapproval numbers ensured that. Those disapproval numbers have been the most consistent ever recorded, perhaps the only consistent feature of these last four interminable years. Remember also that Rump barely squeaked into office (there's your 'narrow narrow margin') with a 2.8 million vote shortfall and a "perfect storm" in the Terrible Three states which he won by a combined margin of under 80,000 (which Biden more than tripled) and was unable to win a majority of the vote in any of them. All of that points to a soft and vulnerable target.
Finally, "never Trumpers" never existed until there was a Trump to never. That's why such revulsion has always been about the personal and not the political.
Whether I like or dislike the EC doesn't affect the point that a 6.3 million margin simply is not "narrow". "Narrow" compared to what? Minus 2.9 million?
If you don't like "irrelevant" maybe we could agree on invisible? I just can't take any interest in California and New York running up the score pointlessly, and very likely illegally, IMO. If it's not how the game is played I'm surprised you care about it, because, you know, it's not how the game is played. I don't care about the popular vote.
Lots of wags around here like to wax all pipe-and-slippers about "if you take out California..." --- well, you can't do that.
No........can't take out all their motor-voter illegals, either. I sure would like to see all that cleaned up with voter IDs. Since the popular vote doesn't matter, I suppose the illegals in CA and NY don't matter either, but they are likely to spread to battleground states, is the problem as I see it.
I am not au fait with this term Duopoly -- is that the idea that the GOP and Dems are really all the same? Is this a longing for socialism or communism? Or (I could get into this) Libertarianism?I've seen people say that, presumably describing the politics of both parties tending toward the center. That strategy failed with a whoosh on both sides as of 2016, I'd say, when radical populism and socialism took over most of the election, and the same thing in 2020. All those COMMIES calling themselves Democrats --- if that's not a break-up of the Duopoly, I don't know what you could want --- well, maybe I do: I have a book to suggest to people who want a really radical break with politics as usual: In Defense of Looting, by Vicky Osterweil, a tranny. Pretty well written.......something seems wrong with the logic a little, though, among other things.....The former basically. Technically meaning a monopoly of two but in practice I like to describe them as a single party that dresses up alternately in red or blue uniforms and we're all supposed to think they're 'different' from each other, but the sad fact remains, as long as everything electoral is controlled by that Duopoly, said Duopoly has no challengers, because it will not allow any.
I think everyone expected Biden to win, or we could say, expected Rump to lose to whoever the alternative turned out to be. The polling and Rump's consistently high disapproval numbers ensured that. Those disapproval numbers have been the most consistent ever recorded, perhaps the only consistent feature of these last four interminable years. Remember also that Rump barely squeaked into office (there's your 'narrow narrow margin') with a 2.8 million vote shortfall and a "perfect storm" in the Terrible Three states which he won by a combined margin of under 80,000 (which Biden more than tripled) and was unable to win a majority of the vote in any of them. All of that points to a soft and vulnerable target.
We seem to disagree here. You think "everyone" expected Biden to win (here I am, yet again not "Everyman") whereas I thought Everyman expected Trump to be a shoo-in because of the great economy at least, until COVID spoiled the party. I thought he might scrape by all the same (at least from 10 to 11 PM election night) but I am aware (Hi, Herbert Hoover!) that great disasters throw governments out of office, even if it's not their fault. There will likely be a lot of falling dominoes in 2021 around the world, I think.
Finally, "never Trumpers" never existed until there was a Trump to never. That's why such revulsion has always been about the personal and not the political.
Well, that seems true enough, and I like the phrase, until there was a Trump to never.
That's two sections in a row where you've brought up "illegals voting", without any evidence that it significantly exists, and certainly none that it exists more in those states. Ergo if you see a 'problem' you can't substantiate with evidence.... it might just be it wasn't a problem to start with.
Or the short version, "saying so doesn't make it so".
What I see in the Duopoly is in ideological terms as far as such can be generalized a party on the right and a party on the center-right. We have no left-wing party to speak of, certainly not within the Duopoly, as a casual comparison with the rest of the world will demonstrate.
But the main issue with the Duopoly is that it dominates and shuts out competing parties, ensuring that they can never get a foothold. That's why a fringe element here or there might don the mantle of "Republican" or "Democrat" even though lacking in what are supposedly the core values of that party. Bernie Sanders for example isn't a Democrat and never has been, but he's got no chance at the Presidency running as a 3P, because the Duopoly will not allow it. Rump for another example had never been a Republican. In both cases they needed a horse to ride to the gate, and the stable has only two horses available. And that limitation is a problem, because entrenched parties have but one goal and it has nothing to do with any ideology --- it's simply self-perpetuation, regardless what ideologies or principles are either taken up or abandoned.
I think everyone expected Biden to win, or we could say, expected Rump to lose to whoever the alternative turned out to be. The polling and Rump's consistently high disapproval numbers ensured that. Those disapproval numbers have been the most consistent ever recorded, perhaps the only consistent feature of these last four interminable years. Remember also that Rump barely squeaked into office (there's your 'narrow narrow margin') with a 2.8 million vote shortfall and a "perfect storm" in the Terrible Three states which he won by a combined margin of under 80,000 (which Biden more than tripled) and was unable to win a majority of the vote in any of them. All of that points to a soft and vulnerable target.
Finally, "never Trumpers" never existed until there was a Trump to never. That's why such revulsion has always been about the personal and not the political.
Indeed, "never, the verb!" Inasmuch as you're an especially literate sort, I appreciate the compliment. Sometimes I treat words like free-form jazz.
You need help twisted sister.You absolutely have to be a real idiot to believe anything this guy says.
Are there any real reporters anymore ?
President Trump said Thursday that he would leave office if the Electoral College votes for President-elect Joe Biden, but also alleged “massive fraud” in the vote count and promised to keep up with his legal fight.