All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Hellion]

The population of America is 330 million.

The Electorate in 2020 is about 160 million (maybe more before this is over), so it's a little less than half the actual population. Remember that 18 is the voting age, so a lot of babies/toddlers/children/teenagers are excluded, as well as of course those with a criminal record and felony (which by the way is not an accident).

Republicans constituted 71 million votes this Election. That's not even a quarter of the US Population (in fact by the time the final voting tally is compiled, the democratic electorate would approach that).

So 70% of 71 million, anyway you slice it, is not gonna be a significant number measured against 80% of 330 million.

Good call, thank you for breaking it down for me. Sweet Christmas, the EC vote is so far away. At the rate I find myself facepalming at the news these days, I'll be in a coma by then.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Good call, thank you for breaking it down for me. Sweet Christmas, the EC vote is so far away. At the rate I find myself facepalming at the news these days, I'll be in a coma by then.

The eligible voting population is basically about 233 million people. In other words despite the higher turnout this year, it's not the full turnout.

The USA among major western democracies does not do enough to engage all its voting population. Other countries make Election Day a holiday, other countries make it illegal to punish someone for voting or partiicpating in an election (meaning if you skip work to vote or take time off to work, your bosses cannot punish you or dock your wages for that, because it's seen as denying someone the right to vote). They also pass a single national voter ID so that every citizen has a single ID to use to show registration for vote.

In America, you see the opposite. Election Day is First Tuesday in November based on the lifestyle and attitudes of 18th Century yeoman farmers (a class of people that has been modernized out of existence). So that means Election happens on a working day for most Americans. Then you have the notorious voter ID thing where each state has its own laws here and there passed that certifies what ID is valid or not, which obviously leads to abuse. Employees can punish and harass workers for going to work on Election Day, especially the poor and low-income workers who may or may not vote for who their bosses vote for. So corporate heads don't have interests in making it easier for their employees to vote. Anytime you move out of state and so on, you need to register again for vote or cast a mail-in ballot or something to your state. And since young people tend to move about often, that makes it harder for young people to vote then for older people with established homes.

In a lot of respects, America has 18th Century and 19th Century problems that most modern democracies around the world, in Europe but also in India and so on, have evolved out of. It's really bizarre and weird. I think you can blame that on American patriotism, American exceptionaism, the cult of the founders, this concept of "Constitutional Originalism", and all that does is maintain 18th Century concepts well past the due date.

[DrNewGod]

...The real concerning news is that Trump has just purged top Pentagon officials and replaced them with henchmen.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/polit...gns/index.html

It looks like he's gonna start a war in the last two months of his Presidency or use the military for shenanigans. We talk about breaking stuff on the way out but handing Biden a war on his plate first day of January 20...

This is serious, no doubt. Still, I have faith in the US' senior commissioned and non-commissioned officers. The guys the guys with guns will follow? Trump is everything they detest, and they do take that oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution (you know, the lie Trump told back in Jan 2016?) seriously.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This is serious, no doubt. Still, I have faith in the US' senior commissioned and non-commissioned officers. The guys the guys with guns will follow? Trump is everything they detest, and they do take that oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution (you know, the lie Trump told back in Jan 2016?) seriously.

Against fellow Americans or Americans in blue states maybe. But if Trump deploys them in Iran and so on, I doubt many would say no, and that could be just as bad. He could drag America into a military quagmire and then hand that to Biden on top of everything else. He could send the military to Venezuela say, or Cuba.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Against fellow Americans or Americans in blue states maybe. But if Trump deploys them in Iran and so on, I doubt many would say no, and that could be just as bad. He could drag America into a military quagmire and then hand that to Biden on top of everything else. He could send the military to Venezuela say, or Cuba.

The world's not doing anything, including Iran. We know this because when Trump assassinated a top official in Iran, something which would have started a war, all they did was symbolically do a tit for tat to save face with people back home. Trump's tried this for years and no-one bit, and now all they have to is wait a month or two and Biden's in office. Venezuela and Cuba are the same, they're not going to risk a war with an America lead by Biden, so they'll sit that out.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The world's not doing anything, including Iran. We know this because when Trump assassinated a top official in Iran, something which would have started a war, all they did was symbolically do a tit for tat to save face with people back home. Trump's tried this for years and no-one bit, and now all they have to is wait a month or two and Biden's in office. Venezuela and Cuba are the same, they're not going to risk a war with an America lead by Biden, so they'll sit that out.

But Trump is capable of unilaterally declaring and waging war without warning and provocation. It would be a war crime certainly, but USA is so powerful that there's literally no one to stop it and hold it accountable for war crimes.

[DrNewGod]

Against fellow Americans or Americans in blue states maybe. But if Trump deploys them in Iran and so on, I doubt many would say no, and that could be just as bad. He could drag America into a military quagmire and then hand that to Biden on top of everything else. He could send the military to Venezuela say, or Cuba.

In that case, we need Congress to flex a backbone.

Will they? Dunno.

I can only hope that even a McConnell won't want to live with the wreckage that guarantees.

You know, it's odd. This is like being in an automated vehicle, designed for low velocity, mellow suburban traffic, traversing a dicey obstacle course at high speed. You're betting your life on programmers you never met.

We're all frantically hoping that The Framers and the folk that did Significant Tweaks got the code right.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I can only hope that even a McConnell won't want to live with the wreckage that guarantees.

Jameson laugh.jpg

We're all frantically hoping that The Framers and the folk that did Significant Tweaks got the code right.

No they didn't get it right. The Framers got as many things right as they did wrong. They got slavery wrong, they got suffrage wrong, they got the Electoral College wrong, they got the 2nd Amendment wrong...and countless lives were lost and are being lost because
a) The stuff they got wrong
b) Our denial about the stuff they got wrong.

[Steel Inquisitor]

But Trump is capable of unilaterally declaring and waging war without warning and provocation. It would be a war crime certainly, but USA is so powerful that there's literally no one to stop it and hold it accountable for war crimes.

Trump could have done this at any time in 4 years, but he didn't. Another problem is that Trump is much more vulnerable legally than the Bushes were so he may not get the same protections - unlike Trump, who people in his inner circle got sent to the big house and it would have gotten more had Barr not shut down the Mueller investigation. Sure it would be a war crime, but I'm saying doing that won't guarantee an actual war from the other side.

[DrNewGod]

Jameson laugh.jpg



No they didn't get it right. The Framers got as many things right as they did wrong. They got slavery wrong, they got suffrage wrong, they got the Electoral College wrong, they got the 2nd Amendment wrong...and countless lives were lost and are being lost because
a) The stuff they got wrong
b) Our denial about the stuff they got wrong.

That is correct. The point you're missing (perhaps because it doesn't serve your narrative) is that we're about to find out how much of the source code is sound. This wasn't Framer Worship, Jack.

It's a prayer that they were right enough.

[Mister Mets]

Florida isn't comparable to Michigan. FL and TX are the mega-electorates for the GOP. It's their CA and NYS. In 2020, Biden won more votes in both states than Trump's winning margin in 2016. 5million people each in both states both voted for Biden. GOP can't boast any improvement in NYS and CA.



Right.



Agreed.

Still at the end of the day, no matter what shenanigans are about to ensue, I feel pretty optimistic about the Democrat Party's future.

Only a fool would look at this and want to be in the position of the Republicans and not the position of the Democrats.

In this context, Florida is important as a swing region that Obama won twice, and that was one of the four states Trump won by less than a point in 2016. It's great for the GOP if they can win it by a few points while losing the popular vote.

A small improvement in California and New York doesn't matter for Republicans in the context of the Senate or the White House. The main effect the Democrats' high numbers in those states have is that it makes it likelier that Republicans will win the White House and the Senate without winning the popular vote. It's not a great win, but it beats losing.

I think it will be more of a question of getting people who don't usually vote to turn out, rather than a referendum on the Democrats performance.

Arizona:

Hispanics in Arizona were most likely mobilized by Trump's draconian approach to border enforcement, but at the same time, Hispanic turnout is usually 20% less than Caucasian or African American nationally.

Hispanics are also not one voting block, as proven by George Bush's ability to capture 44% of the vote in 2004.

Georgia:

Georgia is now a swing state in play, with African Americans now making up to over 30% of registered voters in the state who vote overwhelmingly Democrat. That could translate into more permanent gains in the house for Democrats.

As for the House this election, outside of wanting to get a quasi fascist out of the Whitehouse, I don't think people were incredibly inspired to vote for an aging one term President. Had it been a younger potentially 8 year term visionary I'm sure the Democrats would have taken the house by a bigger margin, but you have to go with what you got.

It's definitely true that the dynamics of states could differ. There is a further argument that subgroups within the umbrella of Hispanic Americans have different preferences. Florida has a large Cuban contingent. Texas has the descendants of an exodus of middle class Mexicans. These groups can be more conservative.

As for Georgia, we'll see if Trump's loss there translates to any gains for Democrats. It might be the equivalent of Trump winning Michigan in 2016; nice but unnecessary, and without getting a Senator or Governor elected.

I do agree that it may be unclear people were personally inspired by Biden. So in that case, base turnout will be lower if Trump's not on the ballot.

The eligible voting population is basically about 233 million people. In other words despite the higher turnout this year, it's not the full turnout.

The USA among major western democracies does not do enough to engage all its voting population. Other countries make Election Day a holiday, other countries make it illegal to punish someone for voting or partiicpating in an election (meaning if you skip work to vote or take time off to work, your bosses cannot punish you or dock your wages for that, because it's seen as denying someone the right to vote). They also pass a single national voter ID so that every citizen has a single ID to use to show registration for vote.

In America, you see the opposite. Election Day is First Tuesday in November based on the lifestyle and attitudes of 18th Century yeoman farmers (a class of people that has been modernized out of existence). So that means Election happens on a working day for most Americans. Then you have the notorious voter ID thing where each state has its own laws here and there passed that certifies what ID is valid or not, which obviously leads to abuse. Employees can punish and harass workers for going to work on Election Day, especially the poor and low-income workers who may or may not vote for who their bosses vote for. So corporate heads don't have interests in making it easier for their employees to vote. Anytime you move out of state and so on, you need to register again for vote or cast a mail-in ballot or something to your state. And since young people tend to move about often, that makes it harder for young people to vote then for older people with established homes.

In a lot of respects, America has 18th Century and 19th Century problems that most modern democracies around the world, in Europe but also in India and so on, have evolved out of. It's really bizarre and weird. I think you can blame that on American patriotism, American exceptionaism, the cult of the founders, this concept of "Constitutional Originalism", and all that does is maintain 18th Century concepts well past the due date.

I am always a bit suspicious about arguments to make Election Day a national holiday, which don't take into account that most elections were decided before November. It seems like an effort to get people involved when the race is between Republicans and Democrats, but not at the primary stage, when the race is more likely to determine the individual who will represent a district or a state.

[Tendrin]

I am always a bit suspicious about argyuments to make Election Day a national holiday, which don't take into account that most elections were decided before November. It seems like an effort to get people involved when the race is between Republicans and Democrats, but not at the primary stage, when the race is more likely to determine the individual who will represent a district or a state.

Shocking. Local conservative prefers archaic system that helps his party. 'but the primaries' is a laughably bad point.

God forbid we make it easier for people to vote.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

A small improvement in California and New York doesn't matter for Republicans in the context of the Senate or the White House. The main effect the Democrats' high numbers in those states have is that it makes it likelier that Republicans will win the White House and the Senate without winning the popular vote. It's not a great win, but it beats losing.

Look I have to ask you, is your interest in the Republican party entirely about baseball stats and so on. Politics isn't sports you know. If all you care about is power and not how it is attained or what it is used to represent, then you can't have a real conversation about politics. Political power is just a means to an end. If it doesn't bother you that a little less than 2/4ths of your major states have Democrat voters who the parties in power don't care to represent and help, then I don't think you really care about democracy, you just care about one-party rule. I have to ask you which period of the Republican party you care for, do you care for its current incarnation, do you care for the Civil War era party. If in a decade or so, the Republican party shifts to the center- or who knows even the left- would you still follow it or are you just blindly loyal to the word Republican and don't care about ideology, mandate, and electorate?

I am always a bit suspicious about argyuments to make Election Day a national holiday,

This is my shocked face.

You do know that a time might come when a Republican candidate stands to win the popular vote and do well, that reforms about election and voting can help both parties ultimately. Republicans passed term limits after FDR ran for a fourth term. Ultimately it hurt them when Eisenhower after completing his 2 terms couldn't run a third (which he would likely have won even against JFK)...because whatever the initial motivations it ultimately served to benefit both. Reagan for instance might well have pulled off a four-term but the term limits got in his way (which is why he was vocal about complaining about it). The Dems of course could have used without it, when Obama finished his 2nd (he totally would have won against Trump).

It seems like an effort to get people involved when the race is between Republicans and Democrats, but not at the primary stage, when the race is more likely to determine the individual who will represent a district or a state.

Obviously at the Primary level, it's the political parties and their base who vote for their candidates and give them party mandate...whereas on Election Day the entire country votes and decides on the ballot. Libertarian Party don't make noise in primary stage and so on but that doesn't mean that on Election Day they don't have a presence (for good and bad).

[worstblogever]

God forbid we make it easier for people to vote.

"But voting is totally SUS!"

[Wildling]

Look I have to ask you, is your interest in the Republican party entirely about baseball stats and so on. Politics isn't sports you know.

Sums up the impression I have on Mets. He posts politics in a comics board (which by nature allows endless stats fanboyism discussion), goes by a Lego Alan Moore avatar (Moore being known, besides his towering achievements in his medium, as someone who will stick to his career grudges on some level until he dies, much like GOP voters and operatives survive on spite) and hell, wasn't some Lego movie guy even crony hired by Trump?