Jump to content

Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

Not only do you want the Rebels to build their own Death Star, you want them to build Starkiller Base.

 

The Rebels won because Palpatine got complacent. Our Republicans are a party full of Admiral Thrawns. Ain't shit happening without a Starkiller. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

That Biden is EXACTLY the type of character you need to go toe-to-toe with Trumpian types.

 

Liberals need to learn that sometimes you gotta play the game using the "Chicago Rules".

 

Why do you think Avenatti got as much traction as he did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I've loved about Canada in the last few years is the acceptance that we've become an urban nation, and that politics has adjusted to it. Perhaps this is the reason why right-wing populism has failed here nationally compared to other western nations. Unfortunately the United States has institutional roadblocks to prevent this shift, such as a geography-based Senate. I don't know if the US will ever truly shift into an urban-nation mindset (politically) even though it clearly already is an urban nation.

 

Looking up some rough stats from the last few years:

  • 82% of Canadians live in urban areas
  • 80% of Americans live in urban areas

So basically the same. And both countries have relatively high immigrant and visible minority populations:

 

Visible minorities:

  • Canada: 23%
  • USA: 38%

Immigrant population:

  • Canada: 22%
  • USA: 14%

But the big difference is that Canada only has one elected house, which is based on population distribution, and the US has two, one of which is based on geography. I know that it was designed that way for a reason (to protect small states, yada yada...) but it was a death-sentence once the country grew enough to birth megalopolises that contain the majority of its population. 

 

As someone pointed out in the last few days, the precedent set by the current impeachment trial is that a President is completely above the law (and constitution!) as long as they have the loyalty of 34 Senators, which could theoretically be elected by as little as 7-16% of the US population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

You know, it strikes me that caucuses could be entirely replaced by ranked-ballot voting. You could get rid of the entire stupid thing.

It's really sad that so many fundamental things are wrong with our so called democracy and to one is talking about it outside of the democratic desire to abolish the electoral college. 

 

Like that's a problem, but there's so much more, and it's pretty silent from anyone leading the democratic party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

You know, it strikes me that caucuses could be entirely replaced by ranked-ballot voting. You could get rid of the entire stupid thing.

 

Technically, caucusing IS ranked choice voting. So in that respect, it's better than a straight FPTP primary. But yeah, it absolutely should be a ranked choice primary all on the same day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

Technically, caucusing IS ranked choice voting. So in that respect, it's better than a straight FPTP primary. But yeah, it absolutely should be a ranked choice primary all on the same day. 

 

Also just hold the entire leadership primary at the same time. Allow online voting from all members on a ranked ballot, and then you can calculate the winner instantly. Having a campaign for months and months in each state is just dumb. Yeah, it sucks that only larger places will get the most attention. But that would suck less than rural goobers getting all of the initial say in "momentum." More people living in a place is exactly why that place should be more important than a small place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

but I mean with him leading in the polls as it is, a clear win in Iowa should pretty much make him unstoppable no? 

 

Wellllll, lots of if's here, so I'll try to break it down the best my punk ass can:

  1. No one is clearly leading right now, and with the kind of ranked choice voting, we could very well see people overperform, underperform, etc.
  2. If one of the single digit candidates overperforms, you could see that help them in New Hampshire.
  3. If Bernie wins Iowa, they're not going to make it easy for him in New Hampshire. Right now, it's better not to get super aggressive so you can siphon another candidate's supporters in second round voting, and you don't want to turn them off. In primaries, there's no such reason, best I can see, to not get more aggressive and attack another candidate.
  4. If he wins Iowa and NH, he still has to consolidate the vote of African-American Democrats in South Carolina (I don't know if many of them are strongly for someone like Biden or if their preference would change based on the first two states). If there's one thing I've learned from my black friends, it's that many of them are very strategic with their votes. A girl I worked with, who's big on racial justice, was thrilled that I was voting Andrew Gillum (African-American progressive Democrat) in the Florida Democratic gubernatorial primaries in 2018, yet she wasn't voting for him because she felt another candidate, Levine, had the best chance of winning in the general election. In 08, many were for Hillary until they saw Obama win in a white state like Iowa, and then realized he could win nationwide. With Sanders, I really don't know how it would break.
  5. If he wins the first three states, it'd be an amazing sweep, but I also wonder how the party members will react and if they will try to do something to stop him as Republicans tried with Trump. It could get messy, though my gut feeling right now is it would light even more of a fire under Sanders supporters to vote in a way that other candidates' supporters may not. But this is uncharted territory; my hope is that it might get messy, but they let it play out if he's winning.

 

First, he has to win Iowa, and it's really competitive. I have no idea who's actually going to win, only an idea of which four or five I wouldn't be surprised to see win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...