The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[The Romulan Republic]

And on that note, can we just fucking get rid of the undemocratic, anachronistic absurdity that is the electoral college?

[bilateralrope]

Remind me again why the electoral college is considered a better way to select the president than going with the popular vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because fuck democracy, apparently.

Or tradition.

I don't fucking know. Its pointless and idiotic at best, actively undemocratic and dangerous at worst.

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, I think I'd be okay with it if money changed hands under the table to get these guys to shut the fuck up and respect the vote. Yeah, its illegal and undemocratic, but so is what they're proposing to do, so what the hell.

[The Vortex Empire]

Looking like Florida gets to decide the President again. If Trump takes it his path is fairly plausible, just has to take back Nevada+New Hampshire, or Colorado to get the win. If he loses it he'd have to win Pennsylvania and Michigan to make up the gap, which is hardly likely. Let's hope it's not another 2000 and Florida doesn't fuck us again.

And I'll hazard a guess that those Washington electors are gonna be getting a call from Bernie telling them to cut that shit out.

[The Romulan Republic]

Looking like Florida gets to decide the President again. If Trump takes it his path is fairly plausible, just has to take back Nevada+New Hampshire, or Colorado to get the win. If he loses it he'd have to win Pennsylvania and Michigan to make up the gap, which is hardly likely. Let's hope it's not another 2000 and Florida doesn't fuck us again.

I doubt it.

Their are, according to fivethirtyeight's Polls-only model (and fivethirtyeight admits that their models are conservative compared to some), four states between 40 and 60% chances of going Democrat: Nevada, Florida, NC, and New Hampshire.

Trump has to win all of those to tie and have it decided by the House. Add one from Maine to get to 270. At least in theory. Faithless electors complicate the math a bit (this is also presuming Clinton does not pick up one from Nebraska, and Utah does not go to McMullen).

But Trump has to basically have his best case realistic scenario to barely win (sans the one from Maine) unless the model is off.

And I'll hazard a guess that those Washington electors are gonna be getting a call from Bernie telling them to cut that shit out.

But the thing is, the really crazy Busters (which I'm going to hazard a guess these assholes are) aren't listening to Bernie any more. They either think he's a traitor who sold out (possibly bribed), or they think he was coerced into endorsing Clinton. Yes, I've seen all of these positions from Buster types online.

I've even seen some try to claim that their's evidence Bernie was beaten up right before he endorsed Clinton at the convention.

The hard core retards went full conspiracy theorist denial because they couldn't face that they lost.

Edit: Actually, considering that Bernie said during the primary that he wouldn't be a spoiler, wouldn't run third party, and would support the Democratic nominee, I wonder weather the hard core Busters ever actually listened to him, or just saw what they wanted to see.

[Flagg]

Remind me again why the electoral college is considered a better way to select the president than going with the popular vote.

It's not as far as I can tell, just no one will change it. It made sense in the time before telegraphs. Also we have no real national elections, it's all done on the state level. So it would take a constitutional amendment and we can't even get a budget passed.

[Flagg]

Concerning that shitbird Comey: There never should have been an announcement considering investigating more emails. Why? Because it turned out there was nothing there. So it's clear that elements within the FBI were attempting to torpedo Clinton.

If they were really interested and concerned they would have done the investigation without a fucking public announcement and when it turned out they had jack and shit they would have said nothing.

But no, they announced more Clinton emails which was immediately seized upon. And even after she was cleared, Rapist Donnie Douchebag is still running email scandal (that doesn't exist, but reality never stopped them) ads pointing to Trump asslicker Comey's announcement.

[Flagg]

Looking like Florida gets to decide the President again. If Trump takes it his path is fairly plausible, just has to take back Nevada+New Hampshire, or Colorado to get the win. If he loses it he'd have to win Pennsylvania and Michigan to make up the gap, which is hardly likely. Let's hope it's not another 2000 and Florida doesn't fuck us again.

I doubt it.

Their are, according to fivethirtyeight's Polls-only model (and fivethirtyeight admits that their models are conservative compared to some), four states between 40 and 60% chances of going Democrat: Nevada, Florida, NC, and New Hampshire.

Trump has to win all of those to tie and have it decided by the House. Add one from Maine to get to 270. At least in theory. Faithless electors complicate the math a bit (this is also presuming Clinton does not pick up one from Nebraska, and Utah does not go to McMullen).

But Trump has to basically have his best case realistic scenario to barely win (sans the one from Maine) unless the model is off.

And I'll hazard a guess that those Washington electors are gonna be getting a call from Bernie telling them to cut that shit out.

But the thing is, the really crazy Busters (which I'm going to hazard a guess these assholes are) aren't listening to Bernie any more. They either think he's a traitor who sold out (possibly bribed), or they think he was coerced into endorsing Clinton. Yes, I've seen all of these positions from Buster types online.

I've even seen some try to claim that their's evidence Bernie was beaten up right before he endorsed Clinton at the convention.

The hard core retards went full conspiracy theorist denial because they couldn't face that they lost.

Edit: Actually, considering that Bernie said during the primary that he wouldn't be a spoiler, wouldn't run third party, and would support the Democratic nominee, I wonder weather the hard core Busters ever actually listened to him, or just saw what they wanted to see.

The DC electors have every right to do what they are doing. Washington DC residents have no real Congessional representation. That needs to change and if they are the deciding electors it will. Washington DC deserves statehood. They have more residents than some actual states, it's fucking ridiculous.

Also, don't use ableist language. It makes me sad to see you putting yourself down.

[The Romulan Republic]

Washington State, not Washington DC.

And I fail to see how heavily black and Democratic Washington DC would benefit from making Trump President, even if I believed that the ends justify the means (I don't).

[The Romulan Republic]

fivethirtyeight has Nevada leaning blue again in all models, and Florida and NC either leaning blue or less than one percent shy of it, depending on the model.

Considering that fivethirtyeight admits to being somewhat conservative in their projections, and the fact that some of the news about turnout and early voting is quite positive, I feel fairly confident in predicting that we win all those states.

So, I'm going to revise my prediction to Clinton 320, accounting for 2 faithless Buster electors and Trump getting one in Maine (where they have a Trumpian governor).

[Flagg]

Washington State, not Washington DC.

And I fail to see how heavily black and Democratic Washington DC would benefit from making Trump President, even if I believed that the ends justify the means (I don't).

Oh, those fuckers. Nice to know my voting for the Thunder Cunt won't count, assholes. Hope they get a year in jail.

And DC has 2 electors who abstain due to being taxed without Representation in Congress IIRC. Wyoming has less people yet gets full representation. But then blacks are 3/5 of a person.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Miguel Faria, who came over with with the families of other Batitsta cronies/supporters fleeing Castro, was a practicing doctor in Macon. And, an ardent racist and far-right winger.

Just to name an example.

As I said, not every white man without a college degree is an idiot racist, and not everyone with a degree is unracist. A clear correlation has been exposed, however. And I see this as a white man who is currently without a degree.

Point taken.

And, even if Trump started channelling J.B. Stoner, people would still flock to his banner.

[Q99]

Looking like Florida gets to decide the President again. If Trump takes it his path is fairly plausible, just has to take back Nevada+New Hampshire, or Colorado to get the win. If he loses it he'd have to win Pennsylvania and Michigan to make up the gap, which is hardly likely. Let's hope it's not another 2000 and Florida doesn't fuck us again.

And I'll hazard a guess that those Washington electors are gonna be getting a call from Bernie telling them to cut that shit out.

Nevada's pretty much gone. North Carolina could seal the deal for Hillary before Florida gets a chance.

[The Romulan Republic]

If NH and NC go blue early on, then we can probably pretty much call it a night.

[Lost Soal]

If NH and NC go blue early on, then we can probably pretty much call it a night.

North Carolina might depend on whether the Republicans actually obey the court orders to allow people to vote who legally can. There was a report on The Nation that the GOP in Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas, and North Carolina are ignoring court orders to restore voting rights.

Link

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm feeling pretty confident about the Presidential race now.

Senate, not so much.

[FireNexus]

It's weird that they have Democratic control so low, when the only Dem seat in any danger is Nevada and Dems are super close in Missouri and NC, and up in Indiana(edit: Bayh is down. My mistake.), Illinois, PA and Wisconsin. If Nevada goes the way it's looking, and for the reason it's looking that way, and GOP doesn't make a surprise win (or they do and Kander manages to badass his way into the Senate like he ought to) it seems like they're relatively safe.

I guess I'LL have to listen to the podcast they released yesterday while I do the dishes tonight to figure out their reasoning. It's mostly Harry's Enten, who likely would have been one of my friends in High School and is otherwise a personal favorite among pundits, so that's a positive. Here's hoping a 3-5 point polling error in favor of Clinton makes the whole thing moot.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, funny thing.

If you look at the states which are close (by which I mean less than 70% chance to go Democrat) on fivethirtyeight, I believe Trump would have to win every one plus one EC vote from Maine to get to 270.

I just read (sadly don't have a source) that their is an elector in Georgia who says he will not vote for Trump.

In that case, Trump has no path to 270 (unless a blue state elector defects to him). The best he can hope for is to have it settled by the House.

That said, I can't really approve, because fuck faithless electors. Although in this case you could argue that the guy in Georgia is just cancelling out one of the Washington Busters.

[FireNexus]

Depends on the popular vote. If the popular vote goes clinton and faithless electors give her the EC, I'm cool with that.

[Gaidin]

I'm on my phone so having a hard time searching. But is there even a Constitutional level ruling regarding faithless electors? Because last night I could find no history in the 170 odd existing cases in our history of any being punished for all in some places at least administrative punishments exist.

[Khaat]

During the 1836 election, Virginia's entire 23-man electoral delegation faithlessly voted against victorious Democratic Party Vice Presidential Candidate Richard Mentor Johnson[1] due to Johnson's openly admitted, publicized, long-term interracial relationship with his slave, Julia Chinn.
...
Despite 157 instances of faithlessness as of 2015, faithless electors have not yet affected the results or ultimate outcome of any other presidential election.

Twenty-one states do not have laws that compel their electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced. In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, like Michigan and Minnesota, specify that the faithless elector's vote is void.
...
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws that punish electors for actually casting a faithless vote.

in case you want the link

[Q99]

So, funny thing.

If you look at the states which are close (by which I mean less than 70% chance to go Democrat) on fivethirtyeight, I believe Trump would have to win every one plus one EC vote from Maine to get to 270.

I just read (sadly don't have a source) that their is an elector in Georgia who says he will not vote for Trump.

In that case, Trump has no path to 270 (unless a blue state elector defects to him). The best he can hope for is to have it settled by the House.

That said, I can't really approve, because fuck faithless electors. Although in this case you could argue that the guy in Georgia is just cancelling out one of the Washington Busters.

Eh, if that happens, then it goes to the House and Trump gets it.

[Tribble]

Remind me again why the electoral college is considered a better way to select the president than going with the popular vote.

Keep in mind that the current electoral college is quite a bit different than what the original drafters intended.

First, the electoral college system was intended to ensure that all states mattered as each state would be guaranteed a minimum number of electors. The idea was that a presidential candidate couldn't win just by catering to the states with the largest populations and ignore everyone else.

Perhaps more importantly though the electoral college was originally intended to prevent demagogues and party politics from taking over the election. It was believed that voters should not directly elect the president because they do not have the required knowledge or expertise to make an effective choice, and they would vote with the emotions of the day rather than common sense. Many of the drafters viewed a directly elected president with the same distain that a lot of people show for public referendums today- they believed it was best for the public not to be directly involved as that would inevitably lead to terrible choices. It was also believed that other politicians should not decide who gets to be president, as that would merely lead to political intrigue (which was why the idea of having congress choose the president was scrapped). So instead voters would elect representatives who they believed would be the best people for the job to elect the president. The whole point of the electoral college was that those representatives were supposed to be independent and impartial. They were not supposed to be "locked in" to any particular candidate or party, nor was there supposed to be things like "winner take all" states. The system was created before the political parties were really established and IMO it's likely that the original drafters saw the presidency as a truly separate position where multiple people would run for office rather than the president being affiliated with any particular party. I imagine it would have been entirely possible for the least "popular" public candidate to get elected if the electors felt that the other candidates were ill suited for the job. I wonder what would happen were that the case today?

It's debateable whether that version is better than the one at present, or whether or not the electoral college should simply be scrapped. I'm not entirely sure, though at the very least I think all states should get rid of the "winner take all" provisions. Some states have moved in that direction, but not all.

[General Brock]

Some thoughts to add to the above, a quick history of faithless electors.

A breakdown into parties and mechanisms locking-in the EC and reducing their independence emerged fairly early. In 1796 Federalist Samuel Miles switched and voted Thomas Jefferson instead of John Adams.

http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors

The election of 1796 was a critical election leading up to the Revolution of 1800, as popular and elite schisms developed over the Federalist vision. The election of 1800 was itself not unlike today's, with many remarkable parallels. Trump a good match for Thomas Jefferson right down to media malignment of Trump and his concerns of a stolen election. Hilary seems a pale surrogate for John Adams though; her aggression towards Russia (and the non-NATO world generally) seems far less justified and far more dangerous than Adam's antagonism towards France.

http://www.historytoday.com/rhys-jones/ ... ction-1800

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

A vote for Hilary is a vote for war. A key and core issue that really needs highlighting.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... r-war.html

https://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/

Presidents have very limited powers over domestic policies. Whatever they promise, is hostage to Congress, which can serve as a convenient scapegoat for failing to implement any otherwise-popular domestic policy. The 'most progressive Democratic platform ever' means nothing in exchange for more foreign wars.

http://harvardkennedyschoolreview.com/p ... -too-hard/

Hilary has also been revealed to have public and private political opinions, the private opinions closely matching whatever the military industrial complex and Wall Street want.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

Therefore, Hilary's more antagonistic posture against Russia and China are the only policies near-guaranteed to come to fruition. Even Green Party's Jill Stein acknowledges Hilary's foreign policy is more scary than Trump.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... ng-happen/

Trump thinks it would be great to get along with Russia and China, one of his most consistent themes.

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/donald-t ... na-1439574


That parties/factions would form (and therefore affect the independence of the EC) should have been a predictable outcome from the British Tory-Whig precedent.

http://www.regencyhistory.net/2015/04/t ... ories.html

In any case, its not clear if any of the penalties for being a faithless elector have Constitutional force and its expected that they would not stand up to legal challenge.

http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

Among the pledged states is North Carolina, considered a swing state vital to Trump.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-elect ... und-states

Most people consider Hilary to be the likely benefactor of an EC rebellion. This is not set in stone.

Extreme anti-Trump sentiment seems confined to Democratic partisans and a minority of faux-Republicans who are really neocons, neoconservatism's home being the Democrats, initially.

http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=9860

Wikileaks reveals strong Democratic connections with mainstream media fabrication of anti-Trumpism. A large number of undecided voters are undecided Republicans. Should they regain faith in Trump, or default to normal voting habits, they could swing the election decisively towards the Republicans.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wikile ... ils-media/

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-are-undecide ... ow-2439395

The key dates of the EC are listed on their website; they vote Dec. 16, 2016, and Congress meets on Jan. 6 2017 to count the votes. Not much time to digest the results of the election and extent of any rigging, but enough.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist ... dates.html

Allegations of rigged elections aren't unique to Trump and usually appear in a controversial race.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/19/8-t ... en-rigged/

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/u-s- ... rrupt.html

The notion is also popular 'common knowledge', with populist commentator Paul Craig Roberts going so far as to call it an American tradition.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10 ... g-roberts/

Trump 2016. Is it not exciting to live in interesting times?