June 2019 Democratic Primary Debates - pre game/pbp/post game thread

Discussion in 'Elections' started by Boloni86, Jun 26, 2019.

  1. sitruc

    sitruc Member+

    Jul 25, 2006
    Virginia
    I missed that the Gabbard stuff was still going on in this thread. I put some stuff in the electrion thread.
    Romney is in the Senate, Bush was getting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court (while people fondly look back at his years) and Trump constantly goes after Clinton and Obama, but damned if Obama or Hillary Clinton speak. I don't know where you get your news, but I know what kind of people you get it from. FFS, the Clinton news was that she was cleared by another investigation. You clearly did not listen to Clinton's comments and it does not read like you know where they came from. I'll help you. It was about 35 minutes into a podcast interview. She has been public and candiid. She called Jill Stein a Russian asset. It's often incredible how far you are into some of these things.
     
    The Jitty Slitter repped this.
  2. MatthausSammer

    MatthausSammer Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 9, 2012
    Canada
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    So the concrete benefits of the electoral college to rural voters are "unanswerable"? That's not a particularly strong response when you're trying to justify devaluing votes on an arbitrary basis. Real harm is done to the democratic legitimacy of the process for "unanswerable", potentially nonexistent, benefits for a specific group of Americans at the expense of another, larger group of Americans. You're going to have to do a lot better than that for me, chief.
     
    dapip repped this.
  3. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    It super absurd that on the one hand Clinton is so toxic that one interview with her will lead to four more years of Trump (see the reaganite reaction) but also, she somehow controls the DNC and media elites
     
    dapip and sitruc repped this.
  4. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And you ignored the pertinent part of my post. I’ll answer yours, then you answer mine.

    It’s unanswerable because trump is not on any normal scale, nor has he done anything except attempt to enrich himself. Trying to use him as an example in this case is just dumb.

    Now, do you think Clinton would have paid more or less attention to Michigan and Wisconsin if there was no EC?
     
  5. MatthausSammer

    MatthausSammer Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 9, 2012
    Canada
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Well clearly you have an issue with the amount of attention paid either way. I'll say less. But the better question is on what basis should attention be paid? There's only a finite amount of "attention" to go around, after all. If every American is to be treated equally, then it makes sense that places where the candidates should focus their attention is where they can reach the most Americans. Right now, preferential treatment is given to Americans in the Midwest and in Florida. According to you, preferential treatment would otherwise be given to Americans in major cities. The Electoral College doesn't solve the problem of equal attention/treatment, it merely redistributes it. If the Electoral College doesn't fix the problem you say it does, why can't we fix the actual problem of the Electoral College rearranging the value of people's votes on arbitrary lines?

    Equality of attention/treatment is a unsolvable problem with "unanswerable" benefits to supposedly solving it. There isn't infinite attention to be given, and candidates can't afford to be everywhere, touring every single coffee shop in America, treating every person exactly equally, targeting their ads exactly equally. That isn't a realistic expectation, even though it would be helped by a popular vote forcing them to even try to treat everyone equally, albeit imperfectly. The electoral college causes the value of the vote in Ohio or Florida to skyrocket compared to everyone else's, and causes the candidates' attention/treatment of a specific cluster of states to skyrocket compared to every other state.

    By contrast, equality of value of votes across state lines is a real problem with a basis in mathematical fact. There are real, tangible benefits to solving it, such as giving each person an equal and fair say in who the President should be, and lessening regional tension because what region you live in is no longer a consideration for how valuable your vote is. Everyone, from the rural Democrat from Idaho, to the urban Republican from California, gets the same vote with precisely the same value. I think this is a worthwhile goal, honestly.
     
    dapip repped this.
  6. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree.

    Less.

    Now, do you think the issues that the people of LA, NYC, Boston have are the same or different than those from Howell, MI or Whitewater, WI?

    Because that’s what we are really talking about. The diversity of the country means at least cursory thought needs to be given to as many areas as possible. What a resident of a Brownstone in Boston sees as an issue is probably different from a rancher in Nebraska.

    You want our federal government to ignore the rancher, who may produce food for thousands, because, reasons?

    The EC at least forces candidates to get in front of some rural voters in the beginning and address their concerns.

    If they don’t, like Clinton, they can lose.

    Admit that if your preferred candidate had won the last election this wouldn’t even be a topic of conversation.
     
  7. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    1. 2 of those 3 states are big states with large urban areas.
    2. What’s magical about the Midwest? She did even worse in the South, but lots of black People live here, so it doesn’t register to you.
     
    dapip repped this.
  8. MatthausSammer

    MatthausSammer Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 9, 2012
    Canada
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    I mean, yes, the Electoral College would be less of a topic if it agreed 100% of the time with what I would consider the more legitimate metric, the popular vote. It doesn't, and therefore we get stuck with stuff like the Iraq War and Donald Trump. I dislike both the outcome and the process taken to get there, separately and for separate reasons, but the fact that they both happen to intersect does sting. I would like to think that I'd be principled enough to argue with the EC if it had been the other way around, but I can't know that for sure.
    The Nebraska rancher still doesn't get his/her concerns addressed because Nebraska, barring some absolute landslide in which Nebraska is just piling on, is a red state and will go red regardless of whether the rancher votes red or blue. You think the EC solves this problem, it doesn't. The only voters that benefit from the EC are voters in a handful of bellwether states that have the right demographic composition to make for close races. That includes Ohio.
     
    dapip and superdave repped this.
  9. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thanks for your opinion.

    I don’t think any system would be perfect and I don’t think the EC solves anything, I’m
    Just not willing to abandon something that has worked, more or less, since the beginning.

    And I would love it if Ohio got less attention in national elections.
     
  10. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    Please, for the love of Christ, stop acting as if the popular vote would be the same when the terms of the contest are completely different. There would be significantly different conditions if the contest was purely popular. No one can know for sure which direction it would go, and pretending as if the popular vote total is meaningful in a contest that specifically is not conducted as one is one of the worst and most persistent logic errors people make. Just stop.
     
  11. MatthausSammer

    MatthausSammer Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 9, 2012
    Canada
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    That's the crux of the issue; I think it hasn't worked and we are all worse off for it.
     
  12. MatthausSammer

    MatthausSammer Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 9, 2012
    Canada
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    I don't see it that way. For sure it would be different, but I don't think it would be hugely different. The country would still be divided along similar lines, and relatively few voters in my view would make different choices on the basis of wanting their candidate to win the country as opposed to wanting their candidate to win the state.
     
  13. Timon19

    Timon19 Member+

    Jun 2, 2007
    Akron, OH
    It MAY NOT be that different. But no one knows that or can know it or can even sorta-kinda pretend to know. The conditions of the contest are completely different.
     
  14. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I see that @stanger has pointedly avoided answering why my vote for President should be one-third as valuable as the votes as people who live 70 miles to the north in Wyoming.
     
    dapip, sitruc and The Jitty Slitter repped this.
  15. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    Stop crying you snowflake coastal elitest
     
    dapip repped this.
  16. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wyoming doesn’t decide anything, ever.

    And I have already answered this question repeatedly.
     
  17. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    The U.S. has several major socioeconomic/cultural divides. Among them are -

    1) Urban/rural
    2) White/nonwhite
    3) Non-college/college
    4) Protestant/non-Protestant

    If we're going to give rural voters a bigger say for reasons of "diversity," so that they are not overrun by the majority, then let's do so for those otter groups, too. Well OK not college grads, they have enough pull already in the system. But for sure, absolutely, let's boost the vote for nonwhite and non-Protestant, because at least as much as rural voters, they are overrun by the majority.
     
    dapip, sitruc and superdave repped this.
  18. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So their votes don't count under the current system.

    Isn't that your objection to changing to the popular vote?
    That sounds like a Modest Proposal. Only a soft white supremacist could object.
     
    dapip and sitruc repped this.
  19. ToMhIlL

    ToMhIlL Member+

    Feb 18, 1999
    Boxborough, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As the person who started this whole shitstorm, apparently you are pretty dense. No one (other than you) said anything about the EC. My point was the order of the states voting in the primaries. If a candidate does not appeal to the voters in New Hampshire, Iowa and many of the "Super Tuesday" states, their candidacy is toast, even if they could win many of the other states that come later in the process.

    If they mixed up the states so that more "diversity" was represented in each primary voting day, it would be a far fairer and more representative process. Let the snowflakes in Iowa and New Hampshire vote early if they insist on being special, but have Ohio, Wyoming, Alaska, Alabama, Missouri, W'scaaahsn and New Jersey vote the same day. Anyone who can finish in the top 3 of most of those states is a pretty solid candidate.

    And this has nothing to do with the Electoral College. Under this system, Stanger will be happy that a liberal in Utah's vote will count exactly the same as a conservative in Massachusetts!
     
  20. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't care if Wyoming's three EC votes ever decides anything. It's about "one man, one vote," not "one man, one-third of a vote if you don't live some place where people are outnumbered by prairie dogs."

    And your repeated answer to the question a bunch of horsecrap handwaving about what rural voters bring to the table, as if the people who work in ranching and resource extraction in Wyoming are more valuable than the more numerous people who work in ranching and resource extraction in Colorado. (And that's before you get into the whole issue of why those people are more valuable than the numerous people who work in other professions in Colorado.)
     
    dapip, sitruc and The Jitty Slitter repped this.
  21. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    I am pretty sure that I did. But that was only after stanger breached the subject. At any rate, your argument about the order of the primaries is fair. I don't see how anybody could complain about having the primaries held on several days, with each day having a relatively representational mix of big and small states, North and South, etc.
     
    sitruc repped this.
  22. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You have a problem with the media and their desire for a horse race.
     
  23. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Nov 29, 2008
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not at all surprised we don't agree.

    I do agree with Brummie's idea of expanding congress to more adequately represent the population changes.

    But the rest of you just seem to be pissed your team lost and now you want to change the rules.
     
  24. MatthausSammer

    MatthausSammer Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 9, 2012
    Canada
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Independent of any motives, surely we can agree that no vote should be worth more than another? Is that basic principle a worthwhile starting point?
     
  25. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Stranger talking about the EC is like Mayor Daley talking about voter fraud. He won't acknowledge the issue. Instead, he will tell you that you lost and stop complaining.
     
    dapip and sitruc repped this.

Share This Page