Who Replaces Biden before the Election?

[Winco]

Looking like it's going to be Harris.

Bring on the debate.
Have it on Fox, with Brett Baier as the Moderator.

 

[Winco]

and then there is this:

 

[Winco]

Policy aside........
Biden is Gone.
Harris is Worthless.

Harris it is.......Time to PROVE it to the voters.
I'm listening.

 

[Couchpotato]

Grover Cleveland was kind of a shit president.

But Grover won the popular vote all three times he ran.

Trump hasn't won it once.

You don’t win Presidential elections via the popular vote. Why would someone run a campaign to do so?

 

[JoeB131]

You don’t win Presidential elections via the popular vote. Why would someone run a campaign to do so?

Yes, our system is flawed. Someone shouldn't be president after the people rejected them.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Yes, our system is flawed. Someone shouldn't be president after the people rejected them.

Better than the one you want. Why should REAL Americans be disenfranchised because the urban shitholes get all the say?

 

[Couchpotato]

Yes, our system is flawed. Someone shouldn't be president after the people rejected them.

The point is we don't actually know who would have won the popular vote in any of our presidential elections because candidates don't run their campaigns to win the popular vote and it's likely that many voters who might have otherwise been inclined to vote don't because they are in a state where their political candidate has no chance of winning. This is why the whole "so and so won the popular vote" is such a moronic argument.

 

[JWBooth]

If you know, you know

 

[JoeB131]

Better than the one you want. Why should REAL Americans be disenfranchised because the urban shitholes get all the say?

Why are you more of a "Real American" than people who live in cities? Frankly, everyone should get the same say, whether they be an urban dweller, or some stupid, inbred rural person who keeps voting against his own interests.

One Person. One Vote. It's how we pick every other office in this country from dog-catcher to Senator.

 

[JoeB131]

The point is we don't actually know who would have won the popular vote in any of our presidential elections because candidates don't run their campaigns to win the popular vote and it's likely that many voters who might have otherwise been inclined to vote don't because they are in a state where their political candidate has no chance of winning. This is why the whole "so and so won the popular vote" is such a moronic argument.

Actually, we know that of our 46 Presidents, 41 1/2 of them won the popular vote, and it was just fine. They would have gotten the same result either way.

We also know that when you ignore the people and use some kind of corrupt shenanigans to ignore their will, bad things follow.

 

[Vrenn]

Yes, our system is flawed. Someone shouldn't be president after the people rejected them.

Whom are you referring to, cupcake? While I support the black plaque more than I do tRump, he has a small minority of a chance to win. Of course, the threatening of voters, polling places and pollster should be severely taken care of the second they start.

 

[Couchpotato]

Actually, we know that of our 46 Presidents, 41 1/2 of them won the popular vote, and it was just fine. They would have gotten the same result either way.

Can you not grasp that a candidate would have a wildly different campaign strategy if our elections were based on the popular vote vs the electoral college and that people's voting patterns would change not only as a result of that differing strategy but also because it would change the how meaningful their vote might be? Republicans would spend more effort in places like California and NY in order garner votes and Democrats in places like Alabama, or Nebraska. The rules of the game and the specifically the winning conditions have a huge effect on how the game is played. So no we in fact don't know that. Thier winning the popular vote is meaningless because that's not how you win elections.

We also know that when you ignore the people and use some kind of corrupt shenanigans to ignore their will, bad things follow.

It's not shenanigans it's the way our system works. It's not like the candidates aren't aware of how it works. The rules don't get changed based on who's might win or lose depending on the ruleset. There's a process to change the system if you'd like. It seems to me people like you just want to ***** and complain when things dont go your way.

 

[Couchpotato]

Why are you more of a "Real American" than people who live in cities? Frankly, everyone should get the same say, whether they be an urban dweller, or some stupid, inbred rural person who keeps voting against his own interests.

One Person. One Vote. It's how we pick every other office in this country from dog-catcher to Senator.

What's comical and sad is that I think you actually believe that the popular vote outcomes wouldnt change if we changed how our Presidential elections were won.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Why are you more of a "Real American" than people who live in cities? Frankly, everyone should get the same say, whether they be an urban dweller, or some stupid, inbred rural person who keeps voting against his own interests.

One Person. One Vote. It's how we pick every other office in this country from dog-catcher to Senator.

The Senate should revert back to legislative picks by the states before the 17th was ratified. Plus urban shitholes deserve nothing. They should be destroyed

 

[JoeB131]

Can you not grasp that a candidate would have a wildly different campaign strategy if our elections were based on the popular vote vs the electoral college and that people's voting patterns would change not only as a result of that differing strategy but also because it would change the how meaningful their vote might be? Republicans would spend more effort in places like California and NY in order garner votes and Democrats in places like Alabama, or Nebraska. The rules of the game and the specifically the winning conditions have a huge effect on how the game is played. So no we in fact don't know that. Thier winning the popular vote is meaningless because that's not how you win elections.

Actually, if anything, a true popular vote system would be MORE lopsided to the Democrats. Because when they win big blue states, they are pretty lopsided. Increase the voter turnout, and you'd increase the victory margin.

It's not shenanigans it's the way our system works. It's not like the candidates aren't aware of how it works. The rules don't get changed based on who's might win or lose depending on the ruleset. There's a process to change the system if you'd like. It seems to me people like you just want to ***** and complain when things dont go your way.

Blah, blah, blah... point is, our system doesn't reflect the will of the people, and a president who doesn't win the popular vote has no legitimacy.

What's comical and sad is that I think you actually believe that the popular vote outcomes wouldnt change if we changed how our Presidential elections were won.

Let's change it and find out.

 

[JoeB131]

The Senate should revert back to legislative picks by the states before the 17th was ratified. Plus urban shitholes deserve nothing. They should be destroyed

Dude, you have issues.

Seriously, seek professional help. The world will always be a place you hate.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Dude, you have issues.

Seriously, seek professional help. The world will always be a place you hate.

Nope. I want the Federal Government to revert back to it's proper Constitutional mandates, PERIOD!.

 

[dblack]

Yes, our system is flawed. Someone shouldn't be president after the people rejected them.

It's not flawed. "The people" don't elect Presidents. The states do. That's a feature, not a bug.

 

[Couchpotato]

Actually, if anything, a true popular vote system would be MORE lopsided to the Democrats. Because when they win big blue states, they are pretty lopsided. Increase the voter turnout, and you'd increase the victory margin.

I don't know why you would just assume that completely changing the conditions for victory in Presidential campaigns would necessarily benefit one party or the other, based on results of how elections are run currently. There is really no way to know one way or another. That said Republicans (much to their long term detriment I would argue) have all but abandoned NY and CA 2 huge pools of voters, not spending any resources to move the needle there toward the GOP. If that changed you have to assume that ground would be made there. Not to say they would flip the state but they would certainly make up ground.

Blah, blah, blah... point is, our system doesn't reflect the will of the people, and a president who doesn't win the popular vote has no legitimacy.

Blah blah blah, its just the way our system works, and I want to ignore that because it fits my narrative of the day. I have no really argument to the fact that those voting outcomes likely change with changing strategies and efforts so I'll just go with it doesnt matter.

Let's change it and find out.

There's a process, feel free to get it started cupcake.

 

[Couchpotato]

Dude, you have issues.

Seriously, seek professional help. The world will always be a place you hate.

The Senate was much more accountable to the people the way it was elected prior to the amendment. State Legislatures could recall a Senator at any time.