I don't think Ralston said 6+. He's saying that it could be a double digit victory. There are about 100K+ more democratic ballots cast, with only about 80K+ potential votes in the rural area. There are still a ton of votes left in Clark County (Vegas) and the suburbs. So, 5 or 6 I believe would be if Trump wins independents 45-55. If Biden is leading with independents, as Ralston predicts, it could be a blowout. 

Personally, I wasn't quite frolicking, but Trump winning just seemed so inherently insane, that I figured Clinton would win. This time around I at least know that Trump winning is an actual possibility.

Then we were always headed for this direction.  Might as well buckle up. If not Trump it would be someone else.  Do we believe we will always have someone who plays by the rules.  Nope, there is always a season where stuff gets bat shit crazy and this is the times.  We will see if our system rise up to handle it or we better hope there is enough people who truly care to make a difference.

At this point, I believe we've seen many of the flaws in the system exposed and there are solutions on the table if we can get the right government in place. I see little value in allowing our institutions to be snapped in two. That seems like it is simply making the path to a solution much more harrowing. 

I like your optimism, but what do you think the solutions are?

Depends on the specific problem, as there are a lot of them. 

One problem is the Supreme Court. Lots of solutions have been passed around and while none of them are perfect, I do think term limits (long term) and court packing (short term) will help. My ideal solution would be to take the power to appoint judges away from the Executive Branch, but I think that would require a Constitutional Amendment, so its not happening.

Another problem is our voting rights are far too fragile for a functioning democracy. Another voting rights act which sets heavy restrictions on what can be done to limit voting (basically meaning that any laws which have the potential for voter suppression would have to be pre-screened to ensure that they are not discriminatory or encouraging disenfranchisement), and stronger federal systems in place dictating how federal elections are carried out (a lot of the mess right now is that states are rushing to try to figure this out in a patchwork way and no one knows where any of the lines are) I think would go a long way. 

This extends to our voting infrastructure, which is outdated in our technology and simply insufficient to serve many jurisdictions with many people having to wait hours in order to vote, especially if they are from poor or minority communities. We need to update our infrastructure and ensure that we are able to handle people voting. That means expanding the amount of polling places to ensure that no polling place is responsible for more people than it can handle, and expanding early and mail in voting to remove barriers to voting in ways that also reduce strain on the system.

There are a lot more problems, but I think these are the ones that we are bumping up against most strongly right now.

Yeah, that would definitely require a Constitutional Amendment, which IMO is part of the problem. I think Constitutional literalism is fine, but only when there is a realistic way to change the constitution. The framers were wise in many ways, but were not omniscient or perfect. The barrier should be high, but not impossible as it is in today's environment. It is a system where if you are a literalist or originalist, there literally cannot be progress in many areas. 

That being said, I'm not sure how not allowing the president helps the situation. What would be a better system? Although term limits are a good idea. Putting a limit on the term of sitting judges would be absolutely unconstitutional, but you could apply that to future judges. And they can be staggered so that each Presidential term, two new justices are appointed. Although, that might have to be tempered somehow, like by requiring more of the Senate to vote to confirm. 

I'm a little leery of giving the federal government too much power in establishing federal election policy. Considering the efforts made by Trump's administration to assault voting rights, I'm a little bit glad that the fed's power is limited in that regard.

Personally, I think the biggest issue is how much power party leaders have, and how deferential Congress has become to the Executive branch, especially the President, and lobbyists. Even if we assume members of Congress are well meaning, they simply do not have the time and staff to thoroughly investigate issues and come to a reasonable conclusion while also keeping up with their fundraising needs (another issue of its own). Salaries of Congressional staff are also so low that most good staff members leave quickly to work for the executive branch or lobbyists. 

Congress was designed as a check on Presidential power, and it's not functioning in that way. (Or at least only functions that way when there is a split between control of Congress and the Presidency). The best way to handle that IMO is an investment in Congressional Capacity, and measures to weaken the power of party leadership. Of course, I don't see either party readily agreeing to that. 

I don't believe it would be Unconstitutional to impose term limits. I'm not an expert on this, but from what I read, the Constitution basically dictates that Federal Judges are appointed for life, but it doesn't state where they must be appointed. That means that while you cannot remove a judge, you could theoretically take a Supreme Court justice and rotate them to a lower Federal Court without running afoul of the Constitution. 

As for how not allowing the President to choose judges helps, I think Presidents obviously have a desire to help themselves through the appointment of justices. I think if this responsibility was moved to an independent committee of experts in the field, designed to maintain a fixed composition of the court, that would eliminate some of the self serving nature of appointments. I do think it would create issues with the people having less of a say in appointments, but I honestly don't see another way which doesn't create huge issues and huge swings. 

As for Federal power, I understand what you mean, but this wouldn't be establishing a new power, it would be exercising an already existing power through legislation. I would certainly not advocate for unilateral executive power, though. I agree that executive powers should be shrunk, not expanded. 

It would be a problem regarding the Fifth Amendment's Due process clause. 

When someone has a job, and a reasonable belief that they will keep this job absent cause, that has been interpreted as a property right. Administrative agencies have not allowed to remove someone from a position in such circumstances, as it was held to be a violation of due process. 

Part of this is based on reasonable belief, and a Supreme Court Justice has a reasonable belief that they will be in their position for life. The fact that it can be interpreted another way probably wouldn't matter, since that has been the way it's been interpreted since the founding.

Of course, you definitely can argue that if Congress does it through a vote and a bill, that constitutes due process, and at that point, they can impose a term limit.

That brings us to the main problem though... Who ultimately interprets whether a law is constitutional? XD At the end, you'd need the Supreme Court to declare this constitutional. My hats off to the lawyer who successfully argues that case. 

As for Presidents picking lawyers to help themselves... Theoretically they need the consent of the Senate, which was a check on that. Of course, how effect that is is questionable. Obviously though that would require an Amendment either way. Having an expert panel raises the question of who staffs that.

Gee I get it... To be honest, I should've expected most of the people in this thread to be voters instead of observers like me who are not American. 

Because trending Democratic and flipping are two different things. The red majority in Texas is way too monumental to change in the span of one term. If Texas turns blue, it's almost a mathematical certainty other deep red states do as well. It's pretty much a "Red Shield" much like the Blue Wall the Dems touted. 

I think it could go either way, but the winner isn't going to reach far. I could see a victory with less than 280 votes. I think Trump would win by a hair's breadth (around 2 to 4 votes over the post) and Biden would barely scrap 300 if he does (even though the vote is going to be over 6 million in gap). 

Man, I recognize both candidates have pros and cons, which is why I tried to ask for an apolitical opinion. I do favor Trump slightly but not because Trump has good policies, but because if we ever had a shot of getting rid of bipartisan first past the post voting in the US, it's now. If the Dems lose, they'll know that 2016 was definitely not a fluke and they need drastic and radical change or they will collapse and spawn two smaller parties that will rapidly absorb votes from Green and GOP voters and lead to the collapse of bipartisanship which would allow for an actual tear down of the Electoral College. The issue is tearing down the EC with a two party system: by demographics alone, it would lead to a Dominant Party state with the Democratic Party taking on a position not different from that of United Russia. A popular vote system needs a third competitor so geography and demographics no longer determine the share of the vote like it does today. 

If they win, expect to see the Democratic Party put off many "radical" reforms that are already well over thirty five years overdue. That's why I want them to lose. 

OTOH, if the GOP loses, not much changes on their end and they go back to the Neoliberal approach that produced clones of Reagan with far less charisma. They win, and we already have a clear right wing party. Then the court falls on the Dems court. If they repeat this a third time, the people are just going to throw their arms up and leave, which is already a good thing since it means they will still tear down the bipartisan structure of the state, even if they do so without the Democratic Party's support or cloud. 

If Trump wins and things go well, expect the next election run to feature the DSA vs the Democratic Center Party vs the GOP. 

First off, Texas is not so monumentally red. Of the 30 or so states Trump won, Texas was the 9th closest. Trump's margin of victory there was about the same as it was in Iowa. It was within 10 points, less than half of what it was in 2000. It shifted towards the Democrats in 2016, despite almost every other state shifting right. Ted Cruz won the senate race there by 2% in 18. 

Your theory is a bit... odd. I'm not sure how you expect your scenario to lead to anything but decades of GOP control. The "radical" part of the democratic party is not large enough to be a major force without the moderate democrats as part of the party. And if Joe Biden isn't "center" enough to get GOP voters away from Trump, that faction of the party is not going to be able to garner much support. I'm not sure how you expect either of those parties to compete with the GOP if it's unified by a Trump win. Three parties won't work if one of them has 40+ percent of the vote. You'd have to get to a situation where the Democrat+DSA or whatever you think will happen together can prevent the republicans from getting 270 electoral votes, and also win enough state legislatures that they can somehow form a sort of coalition government when the vote goes to the house... Which seems... unlikely.

And, it's not likely that Trump will win by such a margin that the democrats will just give up as a party or split. It didn't happen when Reagan won twice, by way bigger margins than Trump possibly could, or when Bush won twice in a row. If Trump wins, it will likely be a slight electoral victory, and a popular vote loss, which isn't likely to make the Democrats so defeated that they'll simply give up, especially if they maintain control of at least one house of congress. It's more likely that the GOP would split if there was a Trump landlslide. Trump is such a polarizing figure who will refuse to let go of control of the party.

And... in the meantime there are dire consequences in regard to the ongoing Covid pandemic, the right to bodily autonomy, 4 more years of not doing anything to combat global warming, the potential loss of healthcare for millions, loss of rights for gay and trans people, and so on. We have someone utterly incompetent in charge of responding to whatever threat may emerge. This time it was Covid, who knows what it could be next time. Plus you have someone who has shown to have no plan to address the racial issues in the country, and has consistently made the violence cities are dealing with worse. If America's position in the world declines, then either Russia or China fills that gap, and I don't know if that's a good thing.

Let's say you're right and that if Trump wins, the Democratic party will become two viable parties at some point within the next decade. Maybe that's good for you watching from Spain. We actually have to live through for at least 4, and more likely 12+ years. And with the way Trump is handling things, a lot of people are not going to make it there.

Honestly, based on your views it seems like you sort of get the big picture in American politics, but don't really know the details. For instance, how red Texas is or how a three party dynamic would play out. Granted, you know way more about my country's politics than I do about yours, but I don't think you know quite enough to make the kinds of predictions you're making.