Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Presidential Election Thread

JWeinCom said:
In non polling news, Trump is pulling TV ads from certain states (for now at least) including Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio. This means one of two things. Either Trump is confident in those states, or he is running out of money.

Signs point to the latter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/us/politics/trump-election-campaign-fundraising.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/how-donald-trump-blew-1-billion-fundraising-lead/616156/
https://youtu.be/mLB2LFRSR3c



Around the Network
TallSilhouette said:
JWeinCom said:
In non polling news, Trump is pulling TV ads from certain states (for now at least) including Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio. This means one of two things. Either Trump is confident in those states, or he is running out of money.

Signs point to the latter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/07/us/politics/trump-election-campaign-fundraising.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/how-donald-trump-blew-1-billion-fundraising-lead/616156/
https://youtu.be/mLB2LFRSR3c

Probably. He also pulled money out of states like Pennsylvania and Michigan in order to focus on Ohio, and now he's pulling out of there too...

And a million dollars in DC. Wow... that's literally as valuable as burning money.

Really hard to see a path for victory without Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, which are all states that Trump is pulling out of for the time being. 



Bofferbrauer2 said:
An option is an option, no matter their chances in the end.

The casual demonization of anybody who votes "3rd party" tells you alot of "2 party" system and how it is "defended". I remember Bush Jr's FL "win" where after DNC rolled over to accept result "for sake of system" (i.e. 2 party system) despite all Dems believing it fraudulent... They still went around and demonized 3rd party voters to blame for result. It's easy to say non-proportionate/non-parliamentary system isn't conducive to multiple parties, although that rather ignores the many many jurisdictions where that does exist (of course, "exceptional America" can't be compared to normal countries).

But it's not even about that, everybody knows every election is hyper-polled to the Nth degree. If there is any reasonable chance of losing "because of 3rd party vote", well isn't it Dems' responsibility to do something about that? Like arrange pre-electoral pact... offer 3rd party the Vice Presidency, power ministries like State and Justice, choice of Supreme Court nomination, maybe cede some Senate/Congress races to them, in exchange for withdrawing from Presidency race and publicly supporting and campaigning for them. That would result in de facto coalition government... But of course, they don't WANT that, so prefer to lose to Republicans and keep things "safe" in 2 party system.

Of course a 3rd party could potentially refuse to cooperate like this, but obviously nothing of the sort is remotely considered by Dems. It's always weird how US so casually calls other countries it doesn't like "dictatorships" when they fairly often have MORE relevant, elected in office political parties than the US itself does. But again, "exceptional America" can't be compared to other countries, it is morally superior etc "by definition" (per 18th century slavers with property requirements for voting etc etc)

EDIT: same->sake (type-o) Last edited by mutantsushi - on 17 September 2020

mutantsushi said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:
<

An option is an option, no matter their chances in the end.

The casual demonization of anybody who votes "3rd party" tells you alot of "2 party" system and how it is "defended". I remember Bush Jr's FL "win" where after DNC rolled over to accept result "for same of system" (i.e. 2 party system) despite all Dems believing it fraudulent... They still went around and demonized 3rd party voters to blame for result. It's easy to say non-proportionate/non-parliamentary system isn't conducive to multiple parties, although that rather ignores the many many jurisdictions where that does exist (of course, "exceptional America" can't be compared to normal countries). But it's not even about that, everybody knows every election is hyper-polled to the Nth degree. If there is any reasonable chance of losing "because of 3rd party vote", well isn't it Dems' responsibility to do something about that? Like arrange pre-electoral pact... offer 3rd party the Vice Presidency, power ministries like State and Justice, choice of Supreme Court nomination, maybe cede some Senate/Congress races to them, in exchange for withdrawing from Presidency race and publicly supporting and campaigning for them. That would result in de facto coalition government... But of course, they don't WANT that, so prefer to lose to Republicans and keep things "safe" in 2 party system. Of course a 3rd party could potentially refuse to cooperate like this, but obviously nothing of the sort is remotely considered by Dems. It's always weird how US so casually calls other countries it doesn't like "dictatorships" when they fairly often have MORE relevant, elected in office political parties than the US itself does. But again, "exceptional America" can't be compared to other countries, it is morally superior etc "by definition" (per 18th century slavers with property requirements for voting etc etc)

That really wouldn't work, because third parties are generally not very popular. Putting the green party or libertarian party on the ballot as VP would lose more votes than it gains. And they can't just cede Senate races to the third party. If they tried that the second party would win. Supreme Court nominations require confirmations, so that's not a possibility unless the party has a strong hold on congress. The solutions you're putting forward aren't really practical.

The problem is the combination of the backwards electoral college system where someone could lose the popular vote by 2-3 million and still win the election. Ranked choice voting or some kind of parliamentary system would work better, but states would have to adopt them in unison which would be pretty much impossible. 

But, the system is what it is, and we have to deal with it. And a lot of third party voters are straight up doing stupid things. Like, Jill Stein voters care about the environment... And they helped get someone elected who would pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, allow for more oil drilling, decimate protections for endangered species, slow the needed transition to clean energy, appoint oil executives to cabinet positions, and block any efforts to combat global warming for at least 4 years. Good job guys. Hope making your statement against the system was worth it.



I have zero respect for the Green Party. If its elimination from the WI ballot helps elect more Democrats that can actually make a positive difference in this country (and the people who actually live in it), then so be it.

That said, I couldn't care less about their inclusion in Maine where ranked choice voting exists. I feel very good about the Senate race there, and the Green Party can't be a spoiler as long as there is RCV.



Around the Network
Moren said:
I have zero respect for the Green Party. If its elimination from the WI ballot helps elect more Democrats that can actually make a positive difference in this country (and the people who actually live in it), then so be it.

That said, I couldn't care less about their inclusion in Maine where ranked choice voting exists. I feel very good about the Senate race there, and the Green Party can't be a spoiler as long as there is RCV.

Eh... I would say that there is an interest in protecting the integrity of the electoral process. If the decision to not include the green party was truly arbitrary I would not support it. But the grounding seems solid enough.



"That really wouldn't work, because third parties are generally not very popular. Putting the green party or libertarian party on the ballot as VP would lose more votes than it gains."

But you're just asserting that with no evidence, merely reproducing the 2 party ideology that is opposed to other parties. The irony is Democrats are happy to say "even if you don't like our party/candidate, vote for us to stop the other guy/party". But then you insist Dem voters would not be willing to support a coalition "against other guy", even while their own party prevails at top level and only sharing minority of power (with somebody who is not a Republican, i.e. the main motive for many Democrat voters). DNC openly defends "deals in smoke filled backed rooms" to decide political candidates, but can't handle an openly publicized coalition?

"And they can't just cede Senate races to the third party. If they tried that the second party would win. "

Not even sure what you are saying. It is possible for candidates to withdraw, and there is no restriction on them then campaigning in favor of another candidate. Senator Sanders himself runs as Independent while Democrat party cedes to him. Assuming the second party would win is baseless, and there exists plenty of super "safe" seats for Democrats that would have very little risk of that (even assuming some Dem voters could not follow own advice and just vote pragmatically anti-Republican). Heck, there exist enough seats right now that are so safe for Democrats that a 3rd party could run against them, cannibalizing Democratic vote, and either 3rd party OR Dems would still reasonably win vs Republican... Not even accounting for tactical voting, of people seeing who is strongest and voting for strongest candidate against the Republicans etc. EDIT: Again, the US government supports those kinds of strategies overseas when it benefits its minions, this is all basic stuff in political science, but US domestic realm is kept in state of lobotomized prisoner, empire can't have it's core going rogue and getting it's own ideas...

"Supreme Court nominations require confirmations, so that's not a possibility unless the party has a strong hold on congress. "

Positions like this do depend on subsequent action of entire government and congress so can't be "assured" up front as easily, not that the broad concept depends on this specific position, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be included in deal. Congress makes deals over legislation all the time, and they aren't all "absolutely guaranteed". If the deal isnt followed thru with, that just publicly demonstrates the non-compliant party as traitor to those helped get them elected, and not reliable to make such deals in the future (or at least, not without much better conditions for other party that can't be overturned after the fact).

"The problem is the combination of the backwards electoral college system where someone could lose the popular vote by 2-3 million and still win the election."

I don't know what this has to do with anything, how would removing EC help 3rd party vote politically? I personally don't remotely care about EC, as it's distraction from other structural issues of US political system.

"Ranked choice voting or some kind of parliamentary system would work better, but states would have to adopt them in unison which would be pretty much impossible. "

This isn't even true, as states can separately adopt compensatory systems to account for total national vote, after all original system involving appointments by state governments. But again, I don't think limits of existing system are an excuse, as PRE-electoral pacts can and do bypass constraints of electoral system. That is why they are used in other countries, otherwise there is no reason to have PRE-electoral pact if individually going to election and assembling post-electoral coalition is just as effective.

"But, the system is what it is, and we have to deal with it. "

And yet US government policy, including Democrats, nakedly supports overthrow of constitutional order in many countries. Literally nobody "serious" (close to power) cares about the nuances of removing Ukrainian President in favor of neo-nazi coup*, or countless other examples. But gosh darn it, gotta stay between the lines of 2 party system! Meanwhile... "Destroy the REGEEEMES, my minions..." This makes sense if you are loyal to empire and see 2-party system as inherently comfortable. That isn't an absolute truth though, it's a propaganda construction about defending hegemony.

"And a lot of third party voters are straight up doing stupid things. Like, Jill Stein voters care about the environment... And they helped get someone elected who would pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, allow for more oil drilling, decimate protections for endangered species, slow the needed transition to clean energy, appoint oil executives to cabinet positions, and block any efforts to combat global warming for at least 4 years. Good job guys. Hope making your statement against the system was worth it."

Doing stupid things like voting for who they feel represents them, the nominal purpose of representative democracy?

"Meanwhile Democrats have never put forward a system which might avoid any problem from people voting for different parties, despite routinely controlling many States who could at least implement it locally. Which might itself lead to coalition majorities at national level, since only small numbe of seats would need to shift to break single party majority. Preference and interests of Democratic party is obviously what prevents that, not some malevolent moral failing of Green Party voters. More "you must support 2 party system because we have 2 party system" circular logic. "

Clinton is the one who sabotaged Copenhagen climate accord, disrupting China/India meeting in attempt to perpetuate hegemonic interests of US tech companies against those who would democratize green tech around the world for maximum efficacy, instead Clinton only tried to exploit climate agreement as way to globally mandate purchases of US tech and perpetuate global hegemony, undermining what would be most effective effort. The "pursuit of foreign interests" was explicitly warned against by American founders who saw empire as inherently opposed to sovereign democracy, and here we are. Democrats continue to support US military, Biden indicating plan to raise miltiary budget, when US military is the largest climate disrupting entity on Earth.

Dems openly host Republicans at their conventions, while continuing to demonize Green Party and their voters. How can one seriously believe a coalition with Green Party would crater the coalition vote, yet openly consorting with Republicans (i.e. the party that opposing is supposedly Dem's #1 goal and rationale for why 3rd party voters should support Dems) is fine? Obama appointed Republicans with no prompting, even with early full Democratic majority in Congress). Never mind perpetual worship of "bipartisan cooperation", frequently put into action by Dem-Repub cooperation in Congress when necessary for majorities/supermajorities (like treaties). There already is de facto Dem-Repub coalition/cooperation, despite "anti-Repub" being main rallying call of Dems... And somehow cooperation with Greens would lose Dem votes? Pretty clear what this is about: 2 party hegemony, that is to say a singular political monopoly that wears 2 masks. Dems roll over to allow Republicans to steal election, while keeping maximum hostility to anybody who even dreams of 3rd party within electoral system, never mind imagining political change outside of system (as they happily export against any country they don't like). "1.5 party system" might be better term.

Last edited by mutantsushi - on 17 September 2020

JWeinCom said:

EnricoPallazzo said:

Actually you can say the same thing about Biden and his voters.

This division made both sides absolutely ignore the flaws of their candidates and focus only on the flaws of their enemy. It's like "I dont care about winning, I only care about the other side losing".

You could say that. You could say anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. Give me an example of Biden doing something even remotely close to telling people that a virus wasn't a major threat when concrete evidence shows that he knew that to be a lie.

It is totally subjective what you think is a threat and what I think is a threat. We may have different views of the world and politics (we definitely have). I for example am more focused on the impact of external policy and the impact of US politics in the world as a whole, and also interested on the impacts of this election for the freedoms of the american people. Also I am much more focused on practical results instead of beautiful speeches made only to satisfy the media and social media warriors. So in the end it's all subjective.

In this regard for me they are both terrible absolutely terrible candidates and both parties could have much better options without all the extremism, especially on the left. I stand by my comment about Biden voters. The only good thing I could say about Biden is that at least I like his plans for his green deal. Based on the pools it seems he will win, I hope he can implement it.



EnricoPallazzo said:
JWeinCom said:

You could say that. You could say anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. Give me an example of Biden doing something even remotely close to telling people that a virus wasn't a major threat when concrete evidence shows that he knew that to be a lie.

It is totally subjective what you think is a threat and what I think is a threat. We may have different views of the world and politics (we definitely have). I for example am more focused on the impact of external policy and the impact of US politics in the world as a whole, and also interested on the impacts of this election for the freedoms of the american people. Also I am much more focused on practical results instead of beautiful speeches made only to satisfy the media and social media warriors. So in the end it's all subjective.

In this regard for me they are both terrible absolutely terrible candidates and both parties could have much better options without all the extremism, especially on the left. I stand by my comment about Biden voters. The only good thing I could say about Biden is that at least I like his plans for his green deal. Based on the pools it seems he will win, I hope he can implement it.

So, you can't back up your statement and you're going to change the topic? Got it.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 17 September 2020

JWeinCom said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

It is totally subjective what you think is a threat and what I think is a threat. We may have different views of the world and politics (we definitely have). I for example am more focused on the impact of external policy and the impact of US politics in the world as a whole, and also interested on the impacts of this election for the freedoms of the american people. Also I am much more focused on practical results instead of beautiful speeches made only to satisfy the media and social media warriors. So in the end it's all subjective.

In this regard for me they are both terrible absolutely terrible candidates and both parties could have much better options without all the extremism, especially on the left. I stand by my comment about Biden voters. The only good thing I could say about Biden is that at least I like his plans for his green deal. Based on the pools it seems he will win, I hope he can implement it.

So, you can't back up your statement and you're going to change the topic? Got it.

Not sure if you've noticed, but this sort of thing is very common among them. Once actual reason and facts and evidence is required they backpedal and twist things and change the topic. Basically, the next step in his evolutionary line is just to yell 'FAKE NEWS' every time he hears something he doesn't like.