No I am being pragmatic. Making stupid votes in the Texas presidential race did not have consequences 4 years ago. It did in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and other close states.
In your very Canadian perspective you're being pragmatic. In an American context you're talking nonsensical gibberish.
Quote:
Votes in this election in the presidential ballot do not matter in most states. They just don’t. This is not projecting a Canadian perspective, it’s projecting an emotionless math prospective. You are jaded in emotion wanting a crushing victory. You want to embarrass trump, you want to punish him. Those are reasonable reactions but they don’t have a practical effect.
Yes, they have a very real impact. If there is a broad rejection of Trumpism with even traditional red states like Texas, Arizona, and Georgia going purple or blue, that is a huge message being sent to Washington and the rest of the nation. When the House, the Senate, and the Presidency has the potential to swing in one election, that is a complete and total rejection of Trumpism. But if it remains close, because some people think their little protest vote means something, that is when we have the potential for Trumpism to survive. That is a reasonable and practical effect, and that only happens if people pull their heads out of their asses and understand how the ####ing system works.
Quote:
Let’s say Texas flips by a % as opposed to losing by a %. Nothing changed. Prior to that point it was already a historic loss. Winning bigger in the national popular vote doesn’t matter because of how well vote targeting works.
If Texas flips, everything changes. To red states, that would be like the blue states watching California go red. When the largest block of votes that a party relies upon all of a sudden rejects their politics and votes for the other party, that is how change happens. That is a massive message to Republicans that they need to significantly alter their course or be lost for ever. That is how change works in this country. We don't have third parties where coalitions can be built and political pressure applied to make deals happen. This is a binary system and you have to understand how to make change in a binary system. You don't do it by spoiling your ballot.
Quote:
You are living in the past in a world where vote patterns and targeted spending did not exist and Norms were followed like laws. A world that is been eroding since Raegan and May actually have never existed. In that world things like mandates mattered. Now it’s the ability to pass legislation and that’s it. The math is the math. Win the house Seats, win the senate seats, win the governorship and the state houses. That will create opportunities for change.
You just obliterated your own argument! "Win the house Seats, win the senate seats, win the governorship and the state houses. That will create opportunities for change." And how does voting for that protest candidate make any of those things happen? You don't do that by throwing away votes for parties or individuals who have no hope of winning. That is the strength and the weakness of the binary system we Americans have to suffer with. You vote only counts if it is for one of two candidates.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
For context, again—138 million votes were counted in the 2016 election. Turnout is over 20% of 2016 turnout in a number of states, including Wisconsin.
Always possible this reflects in part “cannibalization” of Election Day votes, but there are some indications that overall turnout will be way up. Which is usually bad news for incumbents, and in most states is generally bad news for Republicans.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Our findings show that concerns about political moderates — and specifically politically moderate men — are not unfounded. As America battles a global pandemic and an economic collapse and reckons with systemic racism, IDEALS suggests that moderate men may be the least likely to make a positive difference.
In your very Canadian perspective you're being pragmatic. In an American context you're talking nonsensical gibberish.
Yes, they have a very real impact. If there is a broad rejection of Trumpism with even traditional red states like Texas, Arizona, and Georgia going purple or blue, that is a huge message being sent to Washington and the rest of the nation. When the House, the Senate, and the Presidency has the potential to swing in one election, that is a complete and total rejection of Trumpism. But if it remains close, because some people think their little protest vote means something, that is when we have the potential for Trumpism to survive. That is a reasonable and practical effect, and that only happens if people pull their heads out of their asses and understand how the ####ing system works.
If Texas flips, everything changes. To red states, that would be like the blue states watching California go red. When the largest block of votes that a party relies upon all of a sudden rejects their politics and votes for the other party, that is how change happens. That is a massive message to Republicans that they need to significantly alter their course or be lost for ever. That is how change works in this country. We don't have third parties where coalitions can be built and political pressure applied to make deals happen. This is a binary system and you have to understand how to make change in a binary system. You don't do it by spoiling your ballot.
You just obliterated your own argument! "Win the house Seats, win the senate seats, win the governorship and the state houses. That will create opportunities for change." And how does voting for that protest candidate make any of those things happen? You don't do that by throwing away votes for parties or individuals who have no hope of winning. That is the strength and the weakness of the binary system we Americans have to suffer with. You vote only counts if it is for one of two candidates.
I like the breakdown of this post, its one thing as a Canadian to know the US is binary and we are not, it's another to understand what that means.
We feel we are in the same boat as we are dominated by 2 parties, but unlike the US, the other parties DO matter, they can (and currently are) become game changers for the major parties.
You don't get that in the US, and speaking for myself, I don't think I really give it enough credit that you don't have options, you have party A or party B. A third party vote in Canada is a vote for incremental change, a third party vote in the US really looks like a wasted ballot (for either side).
For myself, just reading through this kind of flipped a switch between knowing and getting closer to understanding the different complexities.
Thanks!
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
^^^ Those findings are based on a survey of college seniors. Even ignoring that, I don't think the results agree with the conclusion that "moderate men may be the least likely to make a positive difference."
In a lot of cases, I'd suggest that both moderate men and women are likely to be less political or perhaps just more focused on pragmatic aims like graduating college, student loads, potential job prospects, getting laid, etc. This article kinda seems like another attempt to equate moderation with conservativism and goes on to enforce the ridiculous purity test that's required to be a "real" liberal.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
I'm curious if you vote as an Expat American or as am American who has never lived in the US, where does your vote go?
Will it be applied to the State you have the most ties to, or just go in some kind of pool?
Where do the Puerto Ricans votes go?
Complex question. I think it depends on the state you are from and registered to vote in. That is the kicker here, where you are registered to vote, as voting is a states rights issue. If you were from a state that allows expats to vote, then they get access to that ballot and to vote down ballot as well (not all states allow expat voting). If not, you only get to vote what is on the absentee ballot, so usually just the Presidential race. For people who were born outside the country, you're limited to that latter option. For Puerto Ricans, and people from DC, you don't have statehood so you don't get to have those down ballot races to choose from, so you get to vote for President and then you're local government and non-voting representatives. I'm not 100% certain on where these votes end up being enumerated, but I would not be surprised if those expat votes with no association to a specific state are thrown in with the DC vote.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
^^^ Those findings are based on a survey of college seniors. Even ignoring that, I don't think the results agree with the conclusion that "moderate men may be the least likely to make a positive difference."
In a lot of cases, I'd suggest that both moderate men and women are likely to be less political or perhaps just more focused on pragmatic aims like graduating college, student loads, potential job prospects, getting laid, etc. This article kinda seems like another attempt to equate moderation with conservativism and goes on to enforce the ridiculous purity test that's required to be a "real" liberal.
I mean Biden has a 40 year record of neoliberalism, but sure. I'm fine with the whole return to normalcy and getting the fascist goons out of the White House, but I do hope that the "we'll hold his feet to the fire after the election" sentiment is genuine and doesn't devolve into "Yeah, but Trump was worse!" rhetoric that I'm cynically expecting.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
In your very Canadian perspective you're being pragmatic. In an American context you're talking nonsensical gibberish.
Yes, they have a very real impact. If there is a broad rejection of Trumpism with even traditional red states like Texas, Arizona, and Georgia going purple or blue, that is a huge message being sent to Washington and the rest of the nation. When the House, the Senate, and the Presidency has the potential to swing in one election, that is a complete and total rejection of Trumpism. But if it remains close, because some people think their little protest vote means something, that is when we have the potential for Trumpism to survive. That is a reasonable and practical effect, and that only happens if people pull their heads out of their asses and understand how the ####ing system works.
If Texas flips, everything changes. To red states, that would be like the blue states watching California go red. When the largest block of votes that a party relies upon all of a sudden rejects their politics and votes for the other party, that is how change happens. That is a massive message to Republicans that they need to significantly alter their course or be lost for ever. That is how change works in this country. We don't have third parties where coalitions can be built and political pressure applied to make deals happen. This is a binary system and you have to understand how to make change in a binary system. You don't do it by spoiling your ballot.
You just obliterated your own argument! "Win the house Seats, win the senate seats, win the governorship and the state houses. That will create opportunities for change." And how does voting for that protest candidate make any of those things happen? You don't do that by throwing away votes for parties or individuals who have no hope of winning. That is the strength and the weakness of the binary system we Americans have to suffer with. You vote only counts if it is for one of two candidates.
I didn’t blow away my own arguments.
The election of the electoral college representatives to vote for the president is a separate election from the items I listed.
You understand that you don’t just vote democrat or republican in every single part of the ballot right? I mean there are states you can do that in with a single mark on a punch but you can always vote in every individual race and decide which candidate you are voting for based on the individual circumstances in that race.
It’s immaterial if Texas is Red by a point or blue by point. It has the exact same meaning for Trumpism. If a party becomes that Incompetent Texas is purple. That message is sent regardless of third party votes in the presidential election.
Finally got around to watching this. Great as always and worth a watch if anyone hasn’t yet, should put a little perspective into the hands of the “be nice” crowd.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
People's votes don't matter in this election. We all know Trump is going to lose the electoral votes badly, cry foul, and ultimately the Supreme court will decide the election. Chaos and violence will ensue. It is going to be a ####show.
Finally got around to watching this. Great as always and worth a watch if anyone hasn’t yet, should put a little perspective into the hands of the “be nice” crowd.
Best Quote as a Summary:
Quote:
This isn’t even really ‘karmic retribution’, which is a religious idea tied to things like past lives.
This is just scientifically predictable cause and effect.
Trump isn’t meeting a poetically ironic fate. He’s meeting a completely predictable one. That multiple experts tried to warn him of, repeatedly.
Take a close look....what's wrong with this picture?
Spoiler!
What the F kind of country allows its citizens to walk around like this? Every once in a while I wake up and realize how de-sensitized we are to crazy stuff like this.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Take a close look....what's wrong with this picture?
Spoiler!
What the F kind of country allows its citizens to walk around like this? Every once in a while I wake up and realize how de-sensitized we are to crazy stuff like this.
Lots, but they are typically shown on the news as counties you’d never want to visit (Except with one observable difference). You can add this one to my list.
Lots, but they are typically shown on the news as counties you’d never want to visit (Except with one observable difference). You can add this one to my list.
No, in those countries the thugs arent nearly as fat old and unhealthy, the US is the only country in the world where fat bastards think they can be a soldier, I suppose its a good thing for them you cant outrun a bullet as I could definetly out run any of that lot
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
A federal judge has blocked a Texas order that limited the number of drop-off locations for mail-in ballots to one per county.
That order was put in place on October 1 by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott when he issued a proclamation that allowed for only one drop-off location in each of Texas’s 254 counties, regardless of population or geographic size. Abbott cited election security as a justification for the order. But it eliminated multiple drop-off sites available for Texans; for instance, Harris County — the third most populous county in the country — had to shut 11 of its 12 drop-off sites.
Abbott’s decision immediately drew legal challenges from advocates and voting rights groups, who sued to reinstate the drop-off locations, arguing that Abbott changing procedures in the middle of the election — after people have already started requesting their ballots — put an unreasonable burden on voters and ultimately undermined faith in the electoral process at this late stage.
US District Court Judge Robert Pitman sided with those groups, saying that Abbott’s order put an undue burden on older voters and voters with disabilities, who make up the majority of absentee voters in Texas. Pitman wrote that Abbott’s restrictions would cause “absentee voters, if they choose not to return their ballots in person to avoid exposure to Covid-19, to face the risk that their ballots will not be counted if the USPS is unable to timely deliver their ballot after it’s been requested or unable to timely return their completed ballot.”
“These burdens fall disproportionately on voters who are elderly, disabled, or live in larger counties,” Pitman wrote.
Quote:
Friday’s decision was a victory for voters, and for advocates and some county clerks in Texas, who wanted to see the drop-off locations reinstated. The governor’s office is likely to appeal the decision. (Vox contacted Abbott’s office for comment, and we will update when we hear back.) So the fight over these drop-off locations is not quite over, and the final outcome could make a difference in how easy it is for Texans — particularly older ones — to vote in this unprecedented election year.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November
