2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kentonio said:
Black Americans are certainly important to winning the nomination, but they only account for 12.6% of the total population, and many of them live in the predominantly GOP south. If the Democrats keep losing touch with the white blue-collar voters then they're in serious shit. Biden might actually help bring some of them back with his relatability factor, but his policies aren't going to do shit for them. The Dems desperately need Bernie.
Click to expand...
This is correct. Until some kind of representational voting comes into play, the Presidential election in particular will become, oddly, only really about 5 states or so. Yet another reason the country is so divided, but the GOP have absolutely no incentive to 'fix' it.

Was reading some amazing figures on gerrymandering, I'll get the exact stats wrong, but between N Carolina, Wisconsin and I think Ohio dems won just over 50% of the vote, and only received less than a quarter of the seats. It's amazing.
 
Beachryan said:
Was reading some amazing figures on gerrymandering, I'll get the exact stats wrong, but between N Carolina, Wisconsin and I think Ohio dems won just over 50% of the vote, and only received less than a quarter of the seats. It's amazing.
Click to expand...

Yeah indeed. I always thought this was a really neat way of explaining gerrymandering to those who still don't get quite how fecked up it is.

Gerrymandering.png
 
Drifter said:
I watched that , and i have to say i don't get the hatred for this man .Everytime I've seen him he as been strong on progressive issues ,unlike Kamala.
Click to expand...

He’s definitely touching on all the right policy positions. I think the reason people were a bit apprehensive was there were already about 20 people in the race when he decided to jump in.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Click to expand...


He is definitely past it. Anyone that thinks this guy is up for the full campaigning from now to Nov.2020 is deluding themselves. He has no chance of beating Trump.

The comments are correct. If Bernie had fumbled this bad, MSNBC and CNN would be having entire segments about "Is Bernie unfit for the Presidency"
 
Florida Man said:
Isn't it depressing that the south is such a deciding factor in the Dem primaries but is absolutely useless in the general?
Click to expand...
In an overall poor system to elect a president, this I'd say is nonetheless a somewhat redeeming quality. Imagine if they had no real influence at any point in the process?
 
MTF said:
In an overall poor system to elect a president, this I'd say is nonetheless a somewhat redeeming quality. Imagine if they had no real influence at any point in the process?
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? The South has oversized influence in the entire political process and in general massive oversized influence on American politics with all the parliamentary rules and the Senate itself.

The problem is that the progressives that live in big urban areas are being systematically disenfranchised by the process so they have no real influence right now.
 
Raoul said:
He’s definitely touching on all the right policy positions. I think the reason people were a bit apprehensive was there were already about 20 people in the race when he decided to jump in.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But i don't get that feeling . No one seems to take him seriously as a progressive or are suspicious of him. But he is saying the right things.

Eboue said:
His record doesnt match up to the things he says.
Click to expand...

Got to read up on his record ,but if true i can understand the cold feeling towards him.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
What in the world are you talking about? The South has oversized influence in the entire political process and in general massive oversized influence on American politics with all the parliamentary rules and the Senate itself.

The problem is that the progressives that live in big urban areas are being systematically disenfranchised by the process so they have no real influence right now.
Click to expand...
Eboue said:
In a popular vote they would have more influence than they do now.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about the influence of the south as a whole, especially on legislative side, and I said nothing about what would be a preferable way to have the presidential elections.
 
MTF said:
I said nothing about the influence of the south as a whole, especially on legislative side, and I said nothing about what would be a preferable way to have the presidential elections.
Click to expand...

Then I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Certainly there is nothing redeeming about anything you are talking about.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Then I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Certainly there is nothing redeeming about anything you are talking about.
Click to expand...
The post I quoted was lamenting the fact that southern democrats are so influential in the primaries (supposedly he's lamenting that it leads to more conservative candidates) and that yet don't provide any help to the democratic nominee in the general, for reasons I think most on this thread understand.

I was pointing out that if the southern democrats had no influence in the democratic primaries, that would put them in a place of having no influence at all on the presidential elections, which is hardly a fairer outcome for them. That is the extent of my post.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
What in the world are you talking about? The South has oversized influence in the entire political process and in general massive oversized influence on American politics with all the parliamentary rules and the Senate itself.

The problem is that the progressives that live in big urban areas are being systematically disenfranchised by the process so they have no real influence right now.
Click to expand...

Those big urban areas are still going to vote for democrats regardless, no? In those areas whoever wins the democratic primary has practically won that seat then and there. Whereas in the South the stakes are higher therefore turn out needs to be high to elect a Democrat to office.
 
MTF said:
The post I quoted was lamenting the fact that southern democrats are so influential in the primaries (supposedly he's lamenting that it leads to more conservative candidates) and that yet don't provide any help to the democratic nominee in the general, for reasons I think most on this thread understand.

I was pointing out that if the southern democrats had no influence in the democratic primaries, that would put them in a place of having no influence at all on the presidential elections, which is hardly a fairer outcome for them. That is the extent of my post.
Click to expand...
Yeah I can vouch for that reply.

To add to that, one could also say that southern progressives and liberals have absolutely no voice so in a way, a significant group of voters will be left out regardless. Popular vote without electoral college should rectify that imo.
 
MTF said:
The post I quoted was lamenting the fact that southern democrats are so influential in the primaries (supposedly he's lamenting that it leads to more conservative candidates) and that yet don't provide any help to the democratic nominee in the general, for reasons I think most on this thread understand.

I was pointing out that if the southern democrats had no influence in the democratic primaries, that would put them in a place of having no influence at all on the presidential elections, which is hardly a fairer outcome for them. That is the extent of my post.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean like Progressives that live in California, New York and other states currently? Hey I'm so glad the system ensures my vote has no influence at all just so old South Democrat can be more empowered than 1 person, 1 vote.

The only system that is fair to everyone is popular election- 1 person, 1 vote. No electoral nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

The electoral college ensures that people in the most populous states have far less actually voter impact on Presidential elections than people in the smaller states. When you combine that with the Southern Strategy and a handful of other parliamentary quirks like the Senate itself and the result is that the Southern politicians as well as a handful of other small midwest states like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming end up with greatly outsized influence on national politics.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
The electoral college ensures that people in the most populous states have far less actually voter impact than people in the smaller states. When you combine that with the Southern Strategy and a handful of other parliamentary quirks and the result is that the Southern politicians as well as a handful of other small midwest states like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming end up with greatly outsized influence on national politics.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, I hate the E.C. too... I’m just wondering what us “Southern Democrats” have to do with it.
oneniltothearsenal said:
Hey I'm so glad the system ensures my vote has no influence at all just so old South Democrat can be more empowered
Click to expand...
My vote for president has essentially never counted.
 
Carolina Red said:
Well, yeah, I hate the E.C. too... I’m just wondering what us “Southern Democrats” have to do with it.

My vote for president has essentially never counted.
Click to expand...
Probably referring to the Democratic-voting conservatives that live in the south rather than all southern Democratic voters.
 
Carolina Red said:
Well, yeah, I hate the E.C. too... I’m just wondering what us “Southern Democrats” have to do with it.

My vote for president has essentially never counted.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was sloppy phrasing. I mean the conservatives that seem to dominate southern politics (like the old south political machines) rather than all Democrat voters in the south. Gerrymandering is a massive cause of what I mean by essentially allowing the more conservative party machines to manipulate things in their favor.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Yeah that was sloppy phrasing. I mean the conservatives that seem to dominate southern politics (like the old south political machines) rather than all Democrat voters in the south. Gerrymandering is a massive cause of what I mean by essentially allowing the more conservative party machines to manipulate things in their favor.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that makes a big difference. I agree with what you’re saying here then. That said, I think you and MTF are talking about 2 different parts of the elections process.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Oh you mean like Progressives that live in California, New York and other states currently? Hey I'm so glad the system ensures my vote has no influence at all just so old South Democrat can be more empowered than 1 person, 1 vote.

The only system that is fair to everyone is popular election- 1 person, 1 vote. No electoral nonsense.
Click to expand...

That sounds like crazy european socialism - next people will want health care and gun control ... commie talk ... USA USA USA

In fairness though the USA is such a diverse place not only in political outlook but also the economic outlook for different parts that it seems crazy there is only 2 political parties as im sure cant represent the vast majority of people - id guess it becomes more about voting to keep the party out you disagree with most
 
sun_tzu said:
In fairness though the USA is such a diverse place not only in political outlook but also the economic outlook for different parts that it seems crazy there is only 2 political parties as im sure cant represent the vast majority of people
Click to expand...

That's what has always sounded the craziest to me. Portugal has 10 million people and we have 7 parties in the parliament. How can hundreds of millions of americans be represented by just 2 parties?
 
maniak said:
That's what has always sounded the craziest to me. Portugal has 10 million people and we have 7 parties in the parliament. How can hundreds of millions of americans be represented by just 2 parties?
Click to expand...

Right! Norway has 5 million people and 9 parties represented. And it's not like those parties are completely unique to Norway, or wouldn't find some popularity in the US either:

- Red Party (communism/socialism)
- Socialist Left Party (socialism)
- Labour Party (social-democratic)
- Centre Party (agrarian/decentralization)
- Green Party (environmental)
- Liberal Party (social liberals)
- Conservative Party (conservative)
- Progress Party (classic liberal/libertarian/right populist blend)

That's roughly from left to right, though the Green Party are new and hard to pin down on a political scale, and the Progress Party run from centrist to far-right in policy and rhetoric.

The problem is that the US election system essentially ensures that there can only be two significant parties, at least nationally. Both when it comes to Presidential elections and Congress. Even then parties have come and gone, but a new equilibrium of two parties is always quickly established. I don't know exactly how local politics work in the US, but it's inevitable that two dominant national parties will mould local politics to conform to the two-party system. While the parties are big tent parties, so it's possible to find most flavours of politics in them, it's my opinion that they definitely do indirectly (or sometimes directly) suppress political diversity.
 
Florida Man said:
Is that possible to do without any drastic changes to the constitution?
Click to expand...

If states representing half the Electoral College +1 join together, they can guarantee that every President is elected by popular vote, with no need to change the constitution. There is such a pledge, but obviously up until now only states controlled by the Democrats have joined, and there are fewer of those than there should be because of gerrymandering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.