Donald Trump - GUILTY!

Let's be honest, a black woman running in the present USA is definitely losing.
 
Raoul said:
Postal has a slightly different connotation across the pond.
Click to expand...

OK thanks for that explanation.

Yes just asking what the Republicans will do in 2024 to counteract the effectiveness of the Democrats with the vote by mail last time, which seems to have swung it for Biden in the crucial 'swing' counties/areas, by finally finding a way to get their vote out they reaped the reward.

As I understand it both Biden and Trump recorded over 70 m votes, some sort of record?
 
Maticmaker said:
From a distance (i.e. over the other side of the pond) it looked to me like the Democrats won last time because they squeezed every ounce of advantage out of the 'postal ballot playbook to get their vote out/counted and caught Trump and GOP napping. So surely the question in 2024 will be, what in the intervening period have the Republicans learned or added to their game in this area?
Click to expand...

Voter suppression laws.

Maticmaker said:
Or can they ever win, i.e. if everybody who is eligible to vote does vote, in the crucial 'swing areas' because there are more 'natural' democrats than there are republicans in the US?
Just asking!
Click to expand...

Due to a variety of conditions from the Republican voter suppression laws to the fact working people only get an hour or two off for voting and even then it's on a Tuesday and not always easy for many of the poor/working class to vote, the best the Dermocrats can realistically hope for is voter turnout in the low 60% range.
 
Thanks @Raoul

I don't think the Dems did anything special when it came to mail in voting, it's just that we actually believed there was a pandemic occurring. It was never about "squeezing" more votes out using the mail i vote system, it was about empowering people to vote safely. Historically, depending on the state, mail in voting helped the GOP just as much. From here on out it will likely be a generation before the GOP as a whole trusts mail in voting again.
 
WI_Red said:
Thanks @Raoul

I don't think the Dems did anything special when it came to mail in voting, it's just that we actually believed there was a pandemic occurring. It was never about "squeezing" more votes out using the mail i vote system, it was about empowering people to vote safely. Historically, depending on the state, mail in voting helped the GOP just as much. From here on out it will likely be a generation before the GOP as a whole trusts mail in voting again.
Click to expand...

Its really hard to say how much of it was a fear of Trump and/or the need to vote without going outdoors due to COVID. We should know more during the mid terms.

As for Dems running in 24 - I would say Newsom and Terry McCauliffe would probably be in the mix, along with Harris, Pete, and one progressive to fill the Sanders role.
 
Ramshock said:
Aye thats the reason she loses George yep
Click to expand...

Harris isn’t particularly likeable and the corporate puppet shot isn’t wide of the mark. She’s not someone who is likely to bring people out to vote, especially without the “get rid of Trump” angle.
 
Raoul said:
Its really hard to say how much of it was a fear of Trump and/or the need to vote without going outdoors due to COVID. We should know more during the mid terms.

As for Dems running in 24 - I would say Newsom and Terry McCauliffe would probably be in the mix, along with Harris, Pete, and one progressive to fill the Sanders role.
Click to expand...

I don't see it with Newsom and McCauliffe's national profile is slim. Beyond that I think the candidate needs to not be a white dude. I think it is far past time for a woman president and if they are going to push Harris out they need to chose carefully. I say choose because the party will be the one who decides to open up the nomination and doing that essentially writes off Harris as damaged goods.
 
WI_Red said:
I don't see it with Newsom and McCauliffe's national profile is slim. Beyond that I think the candidate needs to not be a white dude. I think it is far past time for a woman president and if they are going to push Harris out they need to chose carefully. I say choose because the party will be the one who decides to open up the nomination and doing that essentially writes off Harris as damaged goods.
Click to expand...

I don't think the party hierarchy would have much say in it. If Dem and Independent voters are leaning towards a particular candidate then the party apparatus will probably follow suit. There's far too much at stake to allow Trump back in or even a generic R.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think the party hierarchy would have much say in it. If Dem and Independent voters are leaning towards a particular candidate then the party apparatus will probably follow suit. There's far too much at stake to allow Trump back in or even a generic R.
Click to expand...
Well they torpedoed Sanders for Hillary Clinton, so I can't agree.
 
Ramshock said:
Yeah but shes also black and a woman. Thats what will matter to most
Click to expand...
It would be naive to think those factors wouldn’t play any part, but there are also plenty of perfectly valid reasons people wouldn’t want her as their President and suggesting that her gender and race would be the only causes behind a failed run is disingenuous.
 
Raoul said:
Because they perceived her to be the more viable of the two options. Still, if Sanders had a bit more support, he would've beaten her.
Click to expand...
I don't think that was their reason at all. Sanders was polling better, and better against Trump than Clinton. Sanders wasn't gonna tow the party line. The parties are here to keep populist candidates like Sanders out of power.
 
Beans said:
I don't think that was their reason at all. Sanders was polling better, and better against Trump than Clinton. Sanders wasn't gonna tow the party line. The parties are here to keep populist candidates like Sanders out of power.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Warren/Sanders had some steam until they hit the establishment firewall that was South Carolina.
 
Rado_N said:
America had a black President for 8 years and then more people voted for Hillary than Trump.

Will her race and gender play a part in things? Yes. Will it be the main factor for most people? No.
Click to expand...

This sort of thing can influence a candidate’s perceived electability, which could be sufficient to tank a candidacy, especially when contrasted against a strong opponent.
 
Last edited:
Beans said:
I don't think that was their reason at all. Sanders was polling better, and better against Trump than Clinton. Sanders wasn't gonna tow the party line. The parties are here to keep populist candidates like Sanders out of power.
Click to expand...

He wasn’t going to tow the party line because he wasn’t a Democrat. He was ostensibly an outsider seeking to take over the party, despite never having been a member who contributed to its development. That sort of thing is obviously never going to be well received by existing party members.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Voter suppression laws.
Click to expand...

Thanks, for that...just what are these laws? Do they apply only to one type of voter and are they nationwide across all States, or just dependent on particular State laws?

oneniltothearsenal said:
Due to a variety of conditions from the Republican voter suppression laws to the fact working people only get an hour or two off for voting and even then it's on a Tuesday and not always easy for many of the poor/working class to vote,
Click to expand...

OK, so are these voter suppression laws, laws which only affect republicans, or only affect non-republicans.... not clear on that?

People actually get time off work to vote....really?

I can understand voting taking place on one day (in the UK its usually Thursday) but why is it not so easy for the poor/working class to vote, has there not always been a 'mail in' option, or was it the first time it was applied in 2020?

These questions may seem simple but I have never lived in the US so don't fully get the picture. I have over the years read many reports in the British Press about a number of US Presidential Elections, there always seemed to be a built in assumption (regardless of who won) in such reports that the Democrats never seem able to get their full voting potential out properly, whereas the Republicans nearly always did.

Has the 'mail in' situation changed that for good, now?
 
Maticmaker said:
Thanks, for that...just what are these laws? Do they apply only to one type of voter and are they nationwide across all States, or just dependent on particular State laws?

OK, so are these voter suppression laws, laws which only affect republicans, or only affect non-republicans.... not clear on that?

People actually get time off work to vote....really?

I can understand voting taking place on one day (in the UK its usually Thursday) but why is it not so easy for the poor/working class to vote, has there not always been a 'mail in' option, or was it the first time it was applied in 2020?

These questions may seem simple but I have never lived in the US so don't fully get the picture. I have over the years read many reports in the British Press about a number of US Presidential Elections, there always seemed to be a built in assumption (regardless of who won) in such reports that the Democrats never seem able to get their full voting potential out properly, whereas the Republicans nearly always did.

Has the 'mail in' situation changed that for good, now?
Click to expand...

They are by state as are all election laws. For example, most democrat voters come from urban and metropolitan areas while rural areas tend to vote Republican. So some states have laws restricting the number of voting locations by county. So an urban county with 800,000 people might have one voting location where people have to queue up for 3-4 hours or more while rural counties with 10,000 voters each have their own voting station. This makes it far easier for rural counties to vote while the poor and working class in cities have a much more difficult time accessing the polling. Its difficult because if work only allows 2 hours off to vote but the single voting station itself for the city is not close and there are lines that can be 3-4 hours, poor and working class have to manage missing work somehow to vote.

It's also believed that more Democrats will vote by mail as happened in 2020 so there are pushes to make all kinds of restrictions on voting by mail. Only some states, mostly the progressive ones like California, have allowed vote by mail while many states have always restricted it, particularly the Republican-controlled swing states. Republicans claim things like fraud by illegal aliens, which has never had any evidence, to limit vote by mail. 2020 seemed to make voting by mail more common but that's why there has been a big push from the GOP to restrict and limit it.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
They are by state as are all election laws. For example, most democrat voters come from urban and metropolitan areas while rural areas tend to vote Republican. So some states have laws restricting the number of voting locations by county. So an urban county with 800,000 people might have one voting location where people have to queue up for 3-4 hours or more while rural counties with 10,000 voters each have their own voting station. This makes it far easier for rural counties to vote while the poor and working class in cities have a much more difficult time accessing the polling. Its difficult because if work only allows 2 hours off to vote but the single voting station itself for the city is not close and there are lines that can be 3-4 hours, poor and working class have to manage missing work somehow to vote.

It's also believed that more Democrats will vote by mail as happened in 2020 so there are pushes to make all kinds of restrictions on voting by mail. Only some states, mostly the progressive ones like California, have allowed vote by mail while many states have always restricted it, particularly the Republican-controlled swing states. Republicans claim things like fraud by illegal aliens, which has never had any evidence, to limit vote by mail. 2020 seemed to make voting by mail more common but that's why there has been a big push from the GOP to restrict and limit it.
Click to expand...

And some states, like Colorado, have only mail in voting and have no issues with it. Funny that you don't see Boebert claiming her election was fraudulent.

To add on to what you have said about these laws. The most common pushback you get from R's is that "these laws are for everyone, how can the be racist?" To accept that reasoning is to ignore the differences in how people live and where they live. As you point out, laws like the ones in Georgia and Texas will have a massive detrimental effect on urban communities. The vast majority of minority voters in these states live in urban communities, while the vast majority of rural voters are white. To ignore this, especially given WHO is making the new laws, is shameful.
 
Maticmaker said:
People actually get time off work to vote....really?
Click to expand...

Some countries mandate that you be given a reasonable amount of time to go to the polls. Usually 3 to 4 hours. So the "time off" bit is largely dependant on when the polls close. I've been let off of work early in the past when polls closed at 8pm here. Now they close the polls at 9 or 10pm so that businesses don't have to let their day shifts go early (with pay).
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
They are by state as are all election laws. For example, most democrat voters come from urban and metropolitan areas while rural areas tend to vote Republican. So some states have laws restricting the number of voting locations by county. So an urban county with 800,000 people might have one voting location where people have to queue up for 3-4 hours or more while rural counties with 10,000 voters each have their own voting station. This makes it far easier for rural counties to vote while the poor and working class in cities have a much more difficult time accessing the polling. Its difficult because if work only allows 2 hours off to vote but the single voting station itself for the city is not close and there are lines that can be 3-4 hours, poor and working class have to manage missing work somehow to vote.

It's also believed that more Democrats will vote by mail as happened in 2020 so there are pushes to make all kinds of restrictions on voting by mail. Only some states, mostly the progressive ones like California, have allowed vote by mail while many states have always restricted it, particularly the Republican-controlled swing states. Republicans claim things like fraud by illegal aliens, which has never had any evidence, to limit vote by mail. 2020 seemed to make voting by mail more common but that's why there has been a big push from the GOP to restrict and limit it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply, it is very interesting to hear about these things especially that although voting for a national leader (Presidential Elections) the actual rules of engagement (so to speak) are determined at State level. As you say open to 'bias' in different ways. At one time in the UK voting by Mail (or 'postal' voting as we know it) was reserved only for those who are either incapacitated in some way and cannot get to a voting location usually some kind of disability, although now this kind of voting is allowed for a much wider range of people, e.g. elderly people who are fearful of going out alone after dark etc. and people now can choose to vote by mail, but there are lots of official checks undertaken to make sure it is all legitimate. There have been a few 'voter frauds' discovered, but since the UK has a countrywide system its less prevalent.
Certainly this explains why there was so much uproar at your last Presidential election, if every state has its own way of doing things and a massive increase in 'mail in' voting occurred. Chances are the loser was always going to cry 'foul'.

Thanks for the explanation much appreciated.
 
Maticmaker said:
Thank you for your reply, it is very interesting to hear about these things especially that although voting for a national leader (Presidential Elections) the actual rules of engagement (so to speak) are determined at State level. As you say open to 'bias' in different ways. At one time in the UK voting by Mail (or 'postal' voting as we know it) was reserved only for those who are either incapacitated in some way and cannot get to a voting location usually some kind of disability, although now this kind of voting is allowed for a much wider range of people, e.g. elderly people who are fearful of going out alone after dark etc. and people now can choose to vote by mail, but there are lots of official checks undertaken to make sure it is all legitimate. There have been a few 'voter frauds' discovered, but since the UK has a countrywide system its less prevalent.
Certainly this explains why there was so much uproar at your last Presidential election, if every state has its own way of doing things and a massive increase in 'mail in' voting occurred. Chances are the loser was always going to cry 'foul'.

Thanks for the explanation much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Nailed it. There are some dangerous loop holes in our Constitution when it comes to elections. For example, the Constitution says nothing about voting for president, only that States can make laws how they wish. If the States wanted to (and I think some did in the beginning) they could just let the State Legislatures pick who to give the Electoral College votes to. This is what the Arizona law is reaching for. Essentially it says "If we don't like the results we can claim, without proof, fraud and decide ourselves who won".
 
WI_Red said:
Nailed it. There are some dangerous loop holes in our Constitution when it comes to elections. For example, the Constitution says nothing about voting for president, only that States can make laws how they wish. If the States wanted to (and I think some did in the beginning) they could just let the State Legislatures pick who to give the Electoral College votes to. This is what the Arizona law is reaching for. Essentially it says "If we don't like the results we can claim, without proof, fraud and decide ourselves who won".
Click to expand...

Perhaps one of the perils of having a written constitution, although sometimes I wish we had a written constitution in the UK.
King Arthur with his 'round table' approach and King John with the Magna Charter were heading in the right direction, but some where along the road it all took a wrong turning.

Still, the USA is still a relatively young democracy, plenty of time for you to get it right...hopefully
 
Maticmaker said:
Perhaps one of the perils of having a written constitution, although sometimes I wish we had a written constitution in the UK.
King Arthur with his 'round table' approach and King John with the Magna Charter were heading in the right direction, but some where along the road it all took a wrong turning.

Still, the USA is still a relatively young democracy, plenty of time for you to get it right...hopefully
Click to expand...
The US constitution is becoming like the Bible or Quran where it’s written text is only interpreted rather than understood which leave it open to abuse, as we have seen on a number of issues.

The world changes massively from one century to the next, the idea that you could have a constitution that will consistently be applicable, fair and representative through the ages is naive at best.
 
Pexbo said:
The US constitution is becoming like the Bible or Quran where it’s written text is only interpreted rather than understood which leave it open to abuse, as we have seen on a number of issues.

The world changes massively from one century to the next, the idea that you could have a constitution that will consistently be applicable, fair and representative through the ages is naive at best.
Click to expand...

Very true!
Its whats happening all over, almost everything written down or indeed in many cases spoken, these days seems to be being 'interpreted' in various versions of the 'truth', e.g. after the emergence of 24/7 News cycles there are no News Readers on TV/multi-media news outlets now they are all News Editors, putting there own gloss/shine on the bits they think are relevant, skipping over or sometimes completely missing out vital elements.
The phrase "you pays your money you makes your choice" has never been more apt!
 
Maticmaker said:
Thank you for your reply, it is very interesting to hear about these things especially that although voting for a national leader (Presidential Elections) the actual rules of engagement (so to speak) are determined at State level. As you say open to 'bias' in different ways. At one time in the UK voting by Mail (or 'postal' voting as we know it) was reserved only for those who are either incapacitated in some way and cannot get to a voting location usually some kind of disability, although now this kind of voting is allowed for a much wider range of people, e.g. elderly people who are fearful of going out alone after dark etc. and people now can choose to vote by mail, but there are lots of official checks undertaken to make sure it is all legitimate. There have been a few 'voter frauds' discovered, but since the UK has a countrywide system its less prevalent.
Certainly this explains why there was so much uproar at your last Presidential election, if every state has its own way of doing things and a massive increase in 'mail in' voting occurred. Chances are the loser was always going to cry 'foul'.

Thanks for the explanation much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Three more examples (that others can correct/supplement as required).

States may ask for proof of identification to be able to vote. Republicans have been amping up these laws to try and make it more difficult for minorities to vote (e.g., poor Black are likely to vote for the Democrats but unlikely to possess certain types of ID).

Also, stopping people who are in prison or who have open fines from voting. Another thing that Republicans have realized hinders the Democrats more than them.

Finally, gerrymandering kinda fits here as well. It's the practice where state legislators create voting districts that are better for their party by creating oddly shaped districts that group people leaning one way together, so that party wins that one district by a huge margin and loses multiple other districts by a slight margin. (Basically they're maximizing the productivity of their voters.) Again something that Republicans have done predominantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.