The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump has gone far on the appearance of strength, power, being a "winner". He has preyed on those who conflate bullying with strength and rudeness with honesty.

Burst that bubble, and his campaign will deflate like a balloon full of hot air.

[FireNexus]

Part of me wants to believe that her health scare, her relative disappearance from the poli lic eye, her whole campaign strategy since the convention was a high stakes game of political rope a dope. The GOP has gotten much, much more willing to stand behind Trump, to the point where even Cruz has endorsed him, as it's gotten closer. If her campaign just hammers away at him and opens up a big lead again, and pretty much nobody thought the debates would go at all well for Trump, then the damage to the GOP is going to be much worse in the long run than it would have been if she'd kept a comfortable lead.

I have no evidence for this and it seems like a long shot. But wouldn't it be amazing if a few months or years from now a Campaign book comes out where Clinton intentionally made unforced errors to lull the GOP into showing that they have no principles? It's like a damned House of Cards plot.

Too bad she just prob had a bad month and Teump had a really bad night.

[The Romulan Republic]

Considering the stories about Bill encouraging Trump to get into politics, I can just see the Clintons being Machiavellian enough to do that.

Not that I'd approve, since that is playing a very dangerous game where a slight miscalculation fucks us all.

[FireNexus]

Considering the stories about Bill encouraging Trump to get into politics, I can just see the Clintons being Machiavellian enough to do that.

Not that I'd approve, since that is playing a very dangerous game where a slight miscalculation fucks us all.

I'd approve if they won. Frankly, destroying the GOP or tea party conservatism as a political idea at this point in history is the kind of high value outcome that's worth taking a chance if you're pretty sure it'll work.

Trump has ruined the GOP for blacks, Hispanics, and most young people for a generation. The numbers of "principled conservatives" are dwindling to a point that is almost funny. And Clinton has such systemic advantages in fundraising and ground game that she could afford to let it get as close as it has on purpose and still come out just about ahead even if it didn't connect.

Like I said, probably not what actually happened. But if she gets a landslide and that turns out to be what she did, it's the difference between 30 more years of obstinate polarization and the reformation of a functional two party system. I'd clap. And I'd hope like hell nobody else has the ovaries to try such a stunt in the future.

[Terralthra]

This was probably one of the funnier summaries I saw:

If it had been anyone other than Donald Trump, it might have inspired something like pity.

The first presidential debate of 2016 was nearly totally humiliating, even if it wasn't the humiliation that Hillary Clinton's supporters wished for. Their candidate missed opportunities to deliver a killing blow, instead frequently remaining silent and letting Trump do all the work. No, what was humiliating was watching a candidate, after only a little provocation, completely disassemble his own campaign legend.

Going into last night, the 24-hour news media was determined to set the stakes high for Clinton, low for Trump, remonstrate with themselves for establishing such unequal standards, then keep returning to them anyway.

Trump slunk beneath the lowest expectations. The man dismissed as the most ignorant, uncivil and unprepared major-party candidate in history could not have conducted himself more poorly if his goal was to vindicate all the haters and losers who bedevil him.

Trump's debate conduct is destined to become a future candidate-training video of what not to do. He sniffed into the mic constantly and grunted again and again. He leaned forward and to the left of the podium, toward Clinton, glowering in between his almost constant interruptions — many of which topped out at repeating the word "wrong." Clearly someone in the Trump campaign must have pleaded with him to not interrupt and reject a woman candidate without evidence and thus reinforce charges of misogyny, and clearly whoever that person was wasted his or her day.

When Holt countered Trump's comments about stop-and-frisk by correctly noting that the practice had been deemed unconstitutional, Trump replied, "No, you're wrong," before elaborating with, "it went before a judge who was a very against-police judge." When presented with his previous comments about Clinton not looking presidential, he tried to pivot to the last few months of conspiracies from the right-wing fever swamps that claim Clinton is afflicted with some wasting disease. (Best guess: chemtrail-induced morgellons.)

"She doesn't have the look. She don't have the stamina," Trump explained. "I said she doesn't have the stamina. And I don't believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina." That pop you just heard in your head was a lightbulb going off at the idea of starting an ironic Trump-wigged Bon Jovi/Ratt/Survivor/Poison/Journey cover band named Stamina.

The most ironic part of the assertion is that, by this time, Trump's stamina had clearly flagged. But the humor of the assertion was dwarfed by his comments from a few minutes before. In order to distinguish himself from Clinton, Trump said, "I have a much better temperament." The audience responded with a sudden surge of laughter.

On actual issues, Trump was almost entirely a shambles. His answers on nuclear weapons never rose above the level of gibberish. He described America as a third-world country, an assertion rejected by almost any measure of prosperity you can cite. He again asserted that African-Americans and Hispanics are "living in hell," which – America's treatment of minorities notwithstanding – might be news to many of them.

More importantly, Trump appeared completely unprepared to handle the most obvious attacks that would be directed against him.

Trump had no satisfactory explanation for his years of enthusiastic birther conspiracy mongering, and his attempt to obfuscate the issue relied on the sorts of conspiracies familiar only to voters who spend a lot of time reading right-wing websites plastered with ads for dick medicine, gun hoarding and Atabrine tablets. If you already knew who Sidney Blumenthal is, you either already knew that the Hillary Clinton campaign didn't invent the Obama birther rumors, or you are someone who expects Clinton to have Sid rubbed out like Vince Foster and a bunch of Arkansas prostitutes.

Once more, Trump deemed his birther crusade a great success, citing Obama's release of his long-form birth certificate in 2011. Unfortunately, Holt pointed out that "you continued to tell the story and question the president's legitimacy in 2012, '13, '14, '15, as recently as January."

Holt continued, "I'm just going to follow up. I will let you respond because there is a lot there. We're talking about racial healing in the segment. What do you say to Americans—"

"I say nothing because I was able to get him to produce it," Trump said. "He should have produced a long time before. I say nothing, but let me just tell you." He went on, but the damage was done. When the context of the conversation deals with African-Americans who have watched you malign the first African-American president as un-American, your first response cannot be that you have nothing to say to them.

Trump likewise had no explanation for his refusal to release his tax returns and disclose not only his real wealth but also his overseas interests that may conflict with the responsibility of steering American foreign policy. Instead, he returned to his claim that he was told not to release his returns until the conclusion of an IRS audit. When pressed on the fact that this is total BS, he again said that he would release his tax returns if Clinton released "all 30,000" of her State Department emails.

It's a nice gambit, but it overlooks the fact that releasing tax returns is just something that all major presidential candidates do and have done for decades. Tax returns are part of the job application process. They are not a tool for leveraging extra concessions out of your opponent. You release them or you don't. It's on you.

Even if Trump seemed determined to make the debate a total surrender, Clinton's game wasn't perfect.

Clinton enjoyed moments of real laughter and broke into an irrepressible grin during parts of the night. For supporters, it must have been fun. Clinton is not a natural retail politician, and part of what belies her forced laugh and smile on the stump is the fact that the genuine articles are both unmistakable and charming. That said, you could see the conservative critique forming as her smile lingered and before she burst into laughter and asked, "Why not, yeah why not? Just join the debate by saying more crazy things."

Clinton supporters will note the sexual double-standard: Men always tell women to smile, then get annoyed when they smile without invitation. But while Clinton has been victim to this kind of double-standard for nearly a quarter century, any male candidate would expect to take a few shots for indulging in prolonged self-satisfaction at an opponent's implosion.

It's not wrong that Clinton enjoyed Trump flailing around her; it's just that, by the joyless rules of modern politics, nobody is allowed to enjoy that sort of thing too much. This is more or less the same critique Obama backers leveled at the simperingly indulgent smirk Mitt Romney wore throughout the first 2012 debate, as if he were trying to channel a smile that said, Well, there you go again...

On more concrete issues, Clinton still lacks a convincing policy on trade, an issue that Trump owns this election. Trump effectively criticized her for her support for NAFTA and the TPP, which she only rejected after Bernie Sanders made it politically toxic. No one but Clinton die-hards really believes she plans to keep opposing the TPP, if for nothing more than the fact that Clinton and Obama spent 2008 carping about NAFTA before going on to do fuck-all about it.

Last but not least, Clinton missed a huge opportunity during the exchange about Trump's taxes. Clinton pointed out that Trump's financial statements "for a couple of years where he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license ... showed he did not pay any federal income tax."

Trump replied, "That makes me smart."

While America might be a nation of 300 million temporarily embarrassed millionaires who see no problem in principle with evading taxes because they will eventually be in Trump's position themselves, there's a lot to make of a statement like this.

Clinton was on a roll, clearly hoping to get through prepared material, and she let Trump off the hook with all the people who play by the rules. Are they stupid? Are people who obey the law morons? Is everyone who thinks they should pitch in for roads and schools a chump? And how ethical are Trump's smarts? Is he legally paying zero taxes, or is he putting himself on the same plane of financial genius as Al Capone?

In the end, Clinton's few missteps didn't matter, because there was one overwhelming conclusion to be drawn from the night: Trump looked incompetent because he's no longer only standing next to other Republicans.

Aside from the repugnant racism, xenophobia and misogyny, the Trump phenomenon remained amusing for months because it felt like it was engineered in some fouler deity's ironic punishment laboratory. Donald Trump flagrantly made shit up every moment he wasn't bullying everyone around him; it's just that his victims were a bunch of wealthy bullies who'd spent their careers haphazardly making shit up and sliming their way upward like a phalanx of slugs conquering a staircase.

Trump cut through over a dozen Republican candidates like an industrial saw shredding a box of Kleenex, and it couldn't have happened to a more dismal gallery of frauds. After years of complaining about deficits while promoting tax cuts that reduced government revenues by trillions, after years of promoting dominionist Christianity while claiming religious discrimination, after years of claiming to be victims while blaming everything wrong in America on homosexuals and college professors and minorities and Islam, after years of saying whatever the fuck they felt like and repeating it until it sounded true, each one of these blow-dried mediocrities got fired from The Apprentice: Republican Party by someone with even more sociopathic contempt for facts, logical consistency and other human beings than they had.

Hell, it wasn't even difficult. Just coming up with mean nicknames was enough on a stage teeming with their brand of puffed-up prevaricating nincompoopery. Donald Trump wasn't a legendary force, and he wasn't a ruthless killer. He was the only guy with a fork in a room full of inflatable clown punching bags – shoving them and waiting for them to rock back and forth, their fixed idiotic grins leaning into the fatal puncture.

Unfortunately, this debate and the rest of the campaign will be conducted in the closest approximation of the real world that American politics can provide. The record still sort of matters, and most of us can remember history as far back as goddamn yesterday. We remember that Donald Trump can't keep a story straight for 24 hours.

Many more of us can remember back a few decades and realize that even the most dishonest predators elected to our nation's highest office put in time and training to achieve a patina of "not overtly malicious" and the imperturbable expertise of the diligent halfwit.

And while we might not be great at arithmetic, most of us can remember enough of it to realize that ISIS is only a few years old, Hillary Clinton is 68, and when Donald Trump snarls, "No wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life," it sounds like the most dumbfuck failed political burn in a generation.

And if that's not enough, there's still the colossal mismatch of pitting the least knowledgable, least experienced and least disciplined candidate in history against a woman who is in almost every respect his polar opposite.

The only hope for Trump is that, between now and the next debate, he can develop the focus and dedication to learn the policy, talking points and composure needed to win it. All it will take is his suddenly adopting the seriousness and rigor that he's never displayed at any moment of his campaign or, really, any point in his public life.

Or he could just skip the rest of the debates.

Links preserved from original, images and video cut.

The analysis of how Mr. Trump won the primary with tactics that won't work against Sec. Clinton is particularly incisive.

[General Zod]

The best part out of all of this is that there's people out there who actually, legitimately believe Trump won the debate.

[Q99]

The Arizona Republic endorses a Democrat for the first time since 1890

Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.

This year is different.

The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.

That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.

We understand that Trump’s candidacy tapped a deep discontent among those who feel left behind by a changed economy and shifting demographics.

Their concerns deserve to be discussed with respect.

Ironically, Trump hasn’t done that. He has merely pandered. Instead of offering solutions, he hangs scapegoats like piñatas and invites people to take a swing.

In a nation with an increasingly diverse population, Trump offers a recipe for permanent civil discord.

In a global economy, he offers protectionism and a false promise to bring back jobs that no longer exist.

America needs to look ahead and build a new era of prosperity for the working class.

This is Hillary Clinton’s opportunity. She can reach out to those who feel left behind. She can make it clear that America sees them and will address their concerns.

She can move us beyond rancor and incivility.

The Arizona Republic endorses Hillary Clinton for president.

I recommend reading the whole thing, it's a solid article and strong endorsement.

[FaxModem1]

So, what this really taught me is that if I want to watch a Presidential debate again, I have to bring popcorn and at least three beers. Everyone who watched that poll on facebook had one of two reactions. or . It was as if the country just received some sort of wake up call after too many shots and nearly taking home a mistake from the bar.

Nate Silver is calling the first debate for Hillary.

Instead of waking up on Inauguration Day or the morning after the election clutching their bedsheets in sober terror, this might have been the wake-up call the US needed.

You know, about a year ago, I predicted this with friends.

Myself: "I'd really prefer a Rubio vs Sanders campaign to what we're going to get. It'd be what the election this country would need."
Friend 1: "Why?"
Myself: "It'd be more about the issues than mudslinging."
Friend 2:"You just want a West Wing style election."
Myself: "Yes, what's your point?"
Friend:1" We're not going to see it. You know what we're going to see..."
Friend 2: "Clinton vs Trump?"
Myself: "The election this country deserves."

Course, I also would have loved to have seen a Trump vs Sanders campaign, we could have called it Grumpy Old Men 3: Road to the White House.

Though, Mr. Bean's right, Trump kept his pants on, so people in his camp still think he won.

[The Romulan Republic]

My dream tickets, given the admittedly lacking slate of options that we had, would have most likely been:

Sanders/Gabbard

Kasich/Paul.

[FTeik]

Question since I'm no expert on how the U.S.-election system works. I seem to remember during the election of Gore VS Bush Gore got the majority of the actual votes, but Bush became President, because he got more districts (or those districts/states with more electors(?). Can the same happen here for Clinton and Trump?

[FaxModem1]

Question since I'm no expert on how the U.S.-election system works. I seem to remember during the election of Gore VS Bush Gore got the majority of the actual votes, but Bush became President, because he got more districts (or those districts/states with more electors(?). Can the same happen here for Clinton and Trump?

Not with the deadlock in the Supreme Court....

Seriously though, the 2000 election was settled by Court decision, while the votes were still (re)tallying, and after all was said and done, Bush had won the Presidency, but lost the election. 2004 was just a weak showing by the Democrats with Kerry in the middle of two wars that started during Bush's first term(one of which he started, but still), which are usually guarantees to be re-elected in the US.

In regards to electoral vote, this is why gerrymandering is a bit of a problem here, as districts and borders can sometimes make no sense whatsoever, except for whatever politician needed it to fit their reelection needs, and then is forgotten about until the next census comes or someone points it out. We're a First Past the Post system, so winner takes all.

[Simon_Jester]

Question since I'm no expert on how the U.S.-election system works. I seem to remember during the election of Gore VS Bush Gore got the majority of the actual votes, but Bush became President, because he got more districts (or those districts/states with more electors(?). Can the same happen here for Clinton and Trump?

It's possible, but basically, you can predict how each individual state (the electors are counted by state) is going to vote just as you could predict how the nation will vote. We keep talking about this guy Nate Silver and his website fivethirtyeight.com because he runs massive statistical analyses on poll results state by state, in order to predict who will win the election.

While it is just barely possible for a US presidential candidate to lose the popular vote and win the election by winning the 'right' states, it isn't very easy to do that and it doesn't happen often. It has only happened four times in American history, out of well over fifty presidential elections. And prior to the 2000 election, the last time before that was in 1888.

In general, the US presidential election involves candidates wrestling over 'swing states.' These are states whose voting populations are close to evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, so that either party can realistically hope to win them by convincing more of their supporters to vote, by demoralizing the opponent's supporters, or by swaying the small minority of people who haven't decided which party to vote for.

The states that don't 'swing' are those which almost always vote for the same party in the general election, For example, most of the more rural inland states, and the formerly Confederate southern states, reliably vote Republican in this era. Meanwhile, states like California, Maryland, and New York reliably vote Democrat.

As a result, it is nearly impossible for a presidential candidate to NOT get at least, oh, 150 or so of the electoral votes they need. But getting the next 100 or so that bring them up to 270 can be difficult. That is what really tests the candidate's popularity and the organization of their political machine.

[The Romulan Republic]

Question since I'm no expert on how the U.S.-election system works. I seem to remember during the election of Gore VS Bush Gore got the majority of the actual votes, but Bush became President, because he got more districts (or those districts/states with more electors(?). Can the same happen here for Clinton and Trump?

Not with the deadlock in the Supreme Court....

Oh God, imagine the election result going before a deadlocked Supreme Court.

Seriously though, the 2000 election was settled by Court decision, while the votes were still (re)tallying, and after all was said and done, Bush had won the Presidency, but lost the election. 2004 was just a weak showing by the Democrats with Kerry in the middle of two wars that started during Bush's first term(one of which he started, but still), which are usually guarantees to be re-elected in the US.

Wasn't it the case that even if you give Bush his marginal win in Florida, he still lost the popular vote, winning only by a majority in the electoral college?

In regards to electoral vote, this is why gerrymandering is a bit of a problem here, as districts and borders can sometimes make no sense whatsoever, except for whatever politician needed it to fit their reelection needs, and then is forgotten about until the next census comes or someone points it out. We're a First Past the Post system, so winner takes all.

Actually, as I recall, their are two states that are not necessarily winner take all in the electoral college- Maine and Nebraska.

Gerrymandering isn't really an issue in Presidential elections, thank God, because the electoral college is winner take all for each state (those two exceptions aside).

Its given the Republicans a lock on the House though.

[Simon_Jester]

Maine and Nebraska are small enough, and partisan-aligned enough, that those states NOT being winner-take-all is vanishingly unlikely to have a significant impact on the election.

Also, I'm honestly not sure the Republicans can keep their lock on the House, especially if the Trump campaign discredits the current version of the Republican Party. Even if the House doesn't flip in 2016, a lot of Democratic challengers in 2018 will be able to honestly ask "what, do you wish Trump had won?"

Plus, the Republican policy of not allowing anything to happen for eight years in hopes of making Obama a one somehow not two term president has gotten Congress's approval rating down into the neighborhood of 10-15%. That is not a sustainable long term strategy. If they don't change after yet another presidential election in which their candidate loses the White House, I suspect it's going to have consequences.

[Thanas]

I am watching the debate.

How the FUCK is this guy considered to be a serious political candidate? WTF. He can't even articulate a proper thought. Jesus.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maine and Nebraska are small enough, and partisan-aligned enough, that those states NOT being winner-take-all is vanishingly unlikely to have a significant impact on the election.

Also, I'm honestly not sure the Republicans can keep their lock on the House, especially if the Trump campaign discredits the current version of the Republican Party. Even if the House doesn't flip in 2016, a lot of Democratic challengers in 2018 will be able to honestly ask "what, do you wish Trump had won?"

Plus, the Republican policy of not allowing anything to happen for eight years in hopes of making Obama a one somehow not two term president has gotten Congress's approval rating down into the neighborhood of 10-15%. That is not a sustainable long term strategy. If they don't change after yet another presidential election in which their candidate loses the White House, I suspect it's going to have consequences.

Really, the fact that we have been one Supreme Court Justice short for months, with no end in sight, due to these assholes should be reason enough.

[bilateralrope]

Question since I'm no expert on how the U.S.-election system works. I seem to remember during the election of Gore VS Bush Gore got the majority of the actual votes, but Bush became President, because he got more districts (or those districts/states with more electors(?). Can the same happen here for Clinton and Trump?

The electoral college system is a bit strange:
How the Electoral College Works.
The Trouble with the Electoral College.

While it is just barely possible for a US presidential candidate to lose the popular vote and win the election by winning the 'right' states, it isn't very easy to do that and it doesn't happen often. It has only happened four times in American history, out of well over fifty presidential elections. And prior to the 2000 election, the last time before that was in 1888.

Once is too often for a system claiming to be democratic.

At least faithless electors haven't decided the election yet.

Gerrymandering isn't really an issue in Presidential elections, thank God, because the electoral college is winner take all for each state (those two exceptions aside).

I thought that the reason gerrymandering wasn't an issue in Presidential elections was that the borders of the states are fixed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Question since I'm no expert on how the U.S.-election system works. I seem to remember during the election of Gore VS Bush Gore got the majority of the actual votes, but Bush became President, because he got more districts (or those districts/states with more electors(?). Can the same happen here for Clinton and Trump?

The electoral college system is a bit strange:
How the Electoral College Works.
The Trouble with the Electoral College.

While it is just barely possible for a US presidential candidate to lose the popular vote and win the election by winning the 'right' states, it isn't very easy to do that and it doesn't happen often. It has only happened four times in American history, out of well over fifty presidential elections. And prior to the 2000 election, the last time before that was in 1888.

Once is too often for a system claiming to be democratic.

At least faithless electors haven't decided the election yet.

Gerrymandering isn't really an issue in Presidential elections, thank God, because the electoral college is winner take all for each state (those two exceptions aside).

I thought that the reason gerrymandering wasn't an issue in Presidential elections was that the borders of the states are fixed.

Yes, of course. Sorry, I was being incoherent there.

The point is that its winner take all for each state, and the state borders are fixed, so there's no opportunity for that kind of fuckery.

[Raw Shark]

How the FUCK is this guy considered to be a serious political candidate? WTF. He can't even articulate a proper thought. Jesus.

Because a lot of people vote for the candidate that reminds them the most of themselves? The, "Trump tells it like it is," meme isn't just code for, "Trump says hateful shit that I'm secretly thinking," but also, "Trump doesn't make me feel bad by sounding smarter than I am."

[Patroklos]

Also, I'm honestly not sure the Republicans can keep their lock on the House, especially if the Trump campaign discredits the current version of the Republican Party. Even if the House doesn't flip in 2016, a lot of Democratic challengers in 2018 will be able to honestly ask "what, do you wish Trump had won?"

The answer to that question depends on what happens within those two years. Obama, which had far higher buz and approve going in than either possible victor this time around, had a chamber flip against him inside his first term, then another in his second. Bush had similar issues.

Plus, the Republican policy of not allowing anything to happen for eight years in hopes of making Obama a one somehow not two term president has gotten Congress's approval rating down into the neighborhood of 10-15%. That is not a sustainable long term strategy. If they don't change after yet another presidential election in which their candidate loses the White House, I suspect it's going to have consequences.

That metric is meaningless. What matters is how much voters approve of their OWN congresscritter. Especially in the Senate where national poling on Congress is entirely irrelevant. In that regard most legislators aren't doing that badly

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/ameri ... ative.aspx

[Simon_Jester]

I am watching the debate.

How the FUCK is this guy considered to be a serious political candidate? WTF. He can't even articulate a proper thought. Jesus.

Every American anti-intellectual who isn't an ethnic minority votes for him. That's how.

There are a lot of American anti-intellectuals, for a lot of reasons. I could speculate on reasons, but if I included everything I thought was relevant I suspect most people wouldn't believe me.

While it is just barely possible for a US presidential candidate to lose the popular vote and win the election by winning the 'right' states, it isn't very easy to do that and it doesn't happen often. It has only happened four times in American history, out of well over fifty presidential elections. And prior to the 2000 election, the last time before that was in 1888.

Once is too often for a system claiming to be democratic.

Are we explaining or commenting on it?

Honestly, a fluke of the way votes are counted making it barely possible for a candidate to win despite having 0.5% less votes than the other candidate is not the most significant problem with the electoral college system. Because it is at least neutral- it favors both candidates equally and is a mathematically predictable outcome of fifty-one free and fair elections being held simultaneously.

The real problem with the electoral college is winner-take-all apportionment of the electoral votes, because that results in large chunks of the country being effectively ignored by the presidential candidates. If it isn't realistically possible for one side to 'swing' a given state away from the other, neither party has much incentive to pay attention to that state, or to the wishes of its inhabitants.

Because that's not neutral; it systematically favors very specific parts of the country, while denying other parts meaningful exposure.

Gerrymandering isn't really an issue in Presidential elections, thank God, because the electoral college is winner take all for each state (those two exceptions aside).

I thought that the reason gerrymandering wasn't an issue in Presidential elections was that the borders of the states are fixed.

Both of those put together. I think TRR was simply taking for granted that state boundaries are fixed. So to him, the only way Electoral College votes would be subject to gerrymandering is if they were each associated with specific districts inside of the state... which they aren't precisely because the winner takes all the electoral votes.

[bilateralrope]

Honestly, a fluke of the way votes are counted making it barely possible for a candidate to win despite having 0.5% less votes than the other candidate is not the most significant problem with the electoral college system. Because it is at least neutral- it favors both candidates equally and is a mathematically predictable outcome of fifty-one free and fair elections being held simultaneously.

The real problem with the electoral college is winner-take-all apportionment of the electoral votes, because that results in large chunks of the country being effectively ignored by the presidential candidates. If it isn't realistically possible for one side to 'swing' a given state away from the other, neither party has much incentive to pay attention to that state, or to the wishes of its inhabitants.

Because that's not neutral; it systematically favors very specific parts of the country, while denying other parts meaningful exposure.

Agreed. Which can't be good for voter turnout in those states.

[Simon_Jester]

Right.

See, a 'bug' in democracy that can result in a counterintuitive outcome isn't so bad as long as it's fair. Winning the majority of the electoral college while losing the popular vote is difficult to do in the modern era and it requires you to be very fortunate in winning certain states that are just slightly overrepresented in the College, due to what amounts to a rounding error. But anyone can do it by winning elections fair and square.

Whereas a bug in democracy that results in large regions of the country where there isn't even much point in the candidates bothering to show up... not so much. It's to the point where (for example) black voters in a "red state" are effectively ignored if there aren't enough of them to 'swing' the state, because the black voters overwhelmingly support Democrats, and in the presidential elections those electoral votes will never go to a Democrat so it's not worth campaigning with them.

[bilateralrope]

Right.

See, a 'bug' in democracy that can result in a counterintuitive outcome isn't so bad as long as it's fair. Winning the majority of the electoral college while losing the popular vote is difficult to do in the modern era and it requires you to be very fortunate in winning certain states that are just slightly overrepresented in the College, due to what amounts to a rounding error. But anyone can do it by winning elections fair and square.

I agree that it's less of a problem than other issues. At the same time, is there any good reason to maintain the electoral college system today ?

It just seems like needless bureaucracy.

Still, I'll drop this line of discussion as I doubt it's going to lead to any discussion that either of us hasn't seen before.

Whereas a bug in democracy that results in large regions of the country where there isn't even much point in the candidates bothering to show up... not so much. It's to the point where (for example) black voters in a "red state" are effectively ignored if there aren't enough of them to 'swing' the state, because the black voters overwhelmingly support Democrats, and in the presidential elections those electoral votes will never go to a Democrat so it's not worth campaigning with them.

Which then leads to the blacks seeing their vote does nothing. So they stop voting. Leading to even less attention being paid to them. Which is a feedback loop that doesn't lead anywhere good.

[Simon_Jester]

The best argument I know in favor of the electoral college is that there are large parts of the country which are predominantly rural, and rural voters are a small enough and divided enough minority that they would be largely ignored without disproportionate electoral votes. However, it is one of the federal responsibilities to be the government of the United States, not just the "united cities and suburbs," so the disproportionate weighting is therefore a form of compensation.

I'm not saying it's a good argument, but it's the best I've heard.