TheCid

2020 Election

530 posts in this topic

Sen Johnny Isakson, R-GA is retiring end of 2019 due to health. This will result in TWO Senate seats on the ballot in GA in 2020.  Stacey Abrams has already declined to run for either Senate seat.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Sen Johnny Isakson, R-GA is retiring end of 2019 due to health. This will result in TWO Senate seats on the ballot in GA in 2020.  Stacey Abrams has already declined to run for either Senate seat.

I'm surprised Abrams stuck to her guns and declined to run once this second Senate seat came up for election in 2020.     She said she felt she was cheated in the election for Governor.   What better way to get-even then to run for the Senate especially since she wouldn't face a GOP incumbent.

Makes no sense unless she is holding out for a V.P. opening.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Sen Johnny Isakson, R-GA is retiring end of 2019 due to health. This will result in TWO Senate seats on the ballot in GA in 2020.  Stacey Abrams has already declined to run for either Senate seat.

& ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST..... :lol:

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

& ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST..... :lol:

 

giphy.gif

Yea,  I don't understand why Abrams is running away instead of for this now open Senate seat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I'm surprised Abrams stuck to her guns and declined to run once this second Senate seat came up for election in 2020.     She said she felt she was cheated in the election for Governor.   What better way to get-even then to run for the Senate especially since she wouldn't face a GOP incumbent.

Makes no sense unless she is holding out for a V.P. opening.

 

 

She could always be persuaded to change her mind.  Then again maybe the GA Dems have someone who may prove to be a more formidable candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like her campaign on election integrity.  She was up against an opponent who was the elections guru in the State, and he did not recuse himself from the process.  He removed thousands from the voter rolls, but usually in counties with a large percentage of African-Americans, college students, or other Dem-leaning contsituents.  And he “won”.  Let’s hope she can help end this type of blatant practice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Arturo said:

Personally, I like her campaign on election integrity.  She was up against an opponent who was the elections guru in the State, and he did not refuse himself from the process.  He removed thousands from the voter rolls, but usually in counties with a large percentage of African-Americans, college students, or other Dem-leaning contsituents.  And he “won”.  Let’s hope she can help end this type of blatant practice.

It isn't about liking what she is doing.    DUH!  What she is doing is good work. 

AND,  I understand why she didn't wish to run against an incumbent.   But now that there is a new opening I hope she reconsiders.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teure were two paragraphs from this article that stood out to me.  Some voters have more power than others in America's 'democracy.'

The electoral college is in trouble
Opinion   By E.J. Dionne  Read more »
 

 

And the system’s bias toward white voters only encourages Trump’s habit of dividing the country along racial lines. So in addition to being undemocratic, the electoral college encourages a particularly odious politician with no interest in uniting the country to do all he can to promote minority rule.

At some point, the majority will rise up. If Cohn’s worst-case-for-democracy scenario materializes, 2020 could be that year. Our founders admitted that the electoral college system they created in the original Constitution was defective by altering it with the 12th Amendment in 1804 . It’s time we followed their lead in showing the same willingness to scrap a system that is sending us headlong into a national crisis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

At some point, the majority will rise up. If Cohn’s worst-case-for-democracy scenario materializes, 2020 could be that year.

How can 2020 be "that year"?  That year for what?   Certainly NOT changing the EC since that would require 2\3 of the states.   Uh,  the same reason a candidate can lose the popular vote but win the election (the EC increases the power of the smaller states) is why the EC will not be changed;  these smaller states are a majority and they are NOT going to give up their undemocratic powers as granted by the Constitution.   (just like they wouldn't be willing to grant larger states more Senators).

So NO,  the EC is NOT in trouble as it relates to being changed.    Not even close!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

Teure were two paragraphs from this article that stood out to me.  Some voters have more power than others in America's 'democracy.'

The electoral college is in trouble
Opinion   By E.J. Dionne  Read more »
 

 

And the system’s bias toward white voters only encourages Trump’s habit of dividing the country along racial lines. So in addition to being undemocratic, the electoral college encourages a particularly odious politician with no interest in uniting the country to do all he can to promote minority rule.

At some point, the majority will rise up. If Cohn’s worst-case-for-democracy scenario materializes, 2020 could be that year. Our founders admitted that the electoral college system they created in the original Constitution was defective by altering it with the 12th Amendment in 1804 . It’s time we followed their lead in showing the same willingness to scrap a system that is sending us headlong into a national crisis.

Dionne, and you, have misrepresented the Electoral College by trying to show it is biased.  It is NOT.  The article clearly states that some states have significantly more white than minority voters and some are small population states.  Dionne says this is a bias, when it clearly is not.

The simple solution is to get more minorities to move to the small population states. 

He also errs in assuming that the bias permits Trump and GOP to dominate by getting more of the poor and middle class whites to vote.  Solution is for Dems to get their people to vote and to convince the poor and middle class whites to vote Dem.

 Please read the 12th Amendment.  It did not try to alter the Electoral College as such, rather than refine how it functioned.  The Founding Fathers did not believe the EC to be defective as Dionne claims.  If they had, they would have "repealed" it with the 12th Amendment.

The bottom line is that the Electoral College will be with us for a long, long time and probably forever.

To reiterate what I have said before, this is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not America.   This is not Europe.

Incidentally, the people who bother to vote have more power than the ones who don't.  That is one reason why the Dem base and minorities are not as "favored" as whites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Dionne, and you, have misrepresented the Electoral College by trying to show it is biased.  It is NOT.  The article clearly states that some states have significantly more white than minority voters and some are small population states.  Dionne says this is a bias, when it clearly is not.

The simple solution is to get more minorities to move to the small population states. 

He also errs in assuming that the bias permits Trump and GOP to dominate by getting more of the poor and middle class whites to vote.  Solution is for Dems to get their people to vote and to convince the poor and middle class whites to vote Dem.

 Please read the 12th Amendment.  It did not try to alter the Electoral College as such, rather than refine how it functioned.  The Founding Fathers did not believe the EC to be defective as Dionne claims.  If they had, they would have "repealed" it with the 12th Amendment.

The bottom line is that the Electoral College will be with us for a long, long time and probably forever.

To reiterate what I have said before, this is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not America.   This is not Europe.

I hope Dionne doesn't read your post.    The next thing folks like that will propose is busing people-of-color voters from the large states to some of these small states to vote in the general election.    Then Joe will be asked why he doesn't support such busing,  implying that Joe isn't racist but a NOT-racist-BUT.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I hope Dionne doesn't read your post.    The next thing folks like that will propose is busing people-of-color voters from the large states to some of these small states to vote in the general election.    Then Joe will be asked why he doesn't support such busing,  implying that Joe isn't racist but a NOT-racist-BUT.

 

 

I added this to my original post:  Incidentally, the people who bother to vote have more power than the ones who don't.  That is one reason why the Dem base and minorities are not as "favored" as whites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheCid said:

I added this to my original post:  Incidentally, the people who bother to vote have more power than the ones who don't.  That is one reason why the Dem base and minorities are not as "favored" as whites.

Looking at some graphs for voter turnout, there are some surprises, such as the race with the lowest turnout of eligible voters being Hispanic, with only 31.6%, followed closely by Asian at 32.1%. 60.8% of Blacks, and 64.8% of Whites round out the list.

Broken into age and gender groups, the lowest turnout is by males between ages 18-24 (41%), while the highest is males 75 and older (70.3%). Women generally have a higher % turnout than men (60.4% to 55.7%).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TheCid said:

I added this to my original post:  Incidentally, the people who bother to vote have more power than the ones who don't.  

In the election for President,  that isn't really true due to the EC.

E.g all of those CA votes for Clinton beyond the 50% needed to get all the CA EC electors:    One could say those voters had no power since their vote had zero impact on who would be President.    Their vote was as powerful as those that didn't vote at all; zero. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Looking at some graphs for voter turnout, there are some surprises, such as the race with the lowest turnout of eligible voters being Hispanic, with only 31.6%, followed closely by Asian at 32.1%. 60.8% of Blacks, and 64.8% of Whites round out the list.

Broken into age and gender groups, the lowest turnout is by males between ages 18-24 (41%), while the highest is males 75 and older (70.3%). Women generally have a higher % turnout than men (60.4% to 55.7%).

 

2 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

In the election for President,  that isn't really true due to the EC.

E.g all of those CA votes for Clinton beyond the 50% needed to get all the CA EC electors:    One could say those voters had no power since their vote had zero impact on who would be President.    Their vote was as powerful as those that didn't vote at all; zero. 

 

I was speaking in generalaities, not the EC specifically.  Although I think low voter turnout by minorities and Dem base does significantly effect the EC vote tallies.

See Lawrence's info above.  I think this shows more of where the problem is than the EC alone.

Another factor is that if the minorities and younger voters were to vote in same strength as old white people, they would better control state legislatures which control elections.  Then there would be less voter suppression which favors GOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original conception of the EC was even worse than it is now. The electors would be a group of

the "best and brightest" of the time who would parlay among themselves and then choose the

candidate who they thought would make the best president, regardless of who won the popular

vote. I don't think the EC ever made it from this theory into practice, but that was the idea of

the Founding Fathers who were suspicious of the "people," people who had less status and doremi

than themselves. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

The original conception of the EC was even worse than it is now. The electors would be a group of

the "best and brightest" of the time who would parlay among themselves and then choose the

candidate who they thought would make the best president, regardless of who won the popular

vote. I don't think the EC ever made it from this theory into practice, but that was the idea of

the Founding Fathers who were suspicious of the "people," people who had less status and doremi

than themselves. 

I.E.-- White men who didn't have enough money, status and power to own slaves.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vautrin said:

The original conception of the EC was even worse than it is now. The electors would be a group of

the "best and brightest" of the time who would parlay among themselves and then choose the

candidate who they thought would make the best president, regardless of who won the popular

vote. I don't think the EC ever made it from this theory into practice, but that was the idea of

the Founding Fathers who were suspicious of the "people," people who had less status and doremi

than themselves. 

The "people" are generally not bright though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

I.E.-- White men who didn't have enough money, status and power to own slaves.

Mostly true, though not all these well off men were slave owners, though quite a few were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

The "people" are generally not bright though. 

I would guess that intelligence is distributed among the people like the typical bell curve.

That's what one deals with in a democratic republic. With whatever faults that gives rise to,

I find it preferable to a small group of self-appointed "wise men."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Teure were two paragraphs from this article that stood out to me.  Some voters have more power than others in America's 'democracy.'

The electoral college is in trouble
Opinion   By E.J. Dionne  Read more »
 

 

And the system’s bias toward white voters only encourages Trump’s habit of dividing the country along racial lines. So in addition to being undemocratic, the electoral college encourages a particularly odious politician with no interest in uniting the country to do all he can to promote minority rule.

At some point, the majority will rise up. If Cohn’s worst-case-for-democracy scenario materializes, 2020 could be that year. Our founders admitted that the electoral college system they created in the original Constitution was defective by altering it with the 12th Amendment in 1804 . It’s time we followed their lead in showing the same willingness to scrap a system that is sending us headlong into a national crisis....I am for doing away with the electoral college but you first hafta get the egg sucking democrat politicians of California to go along with it.

:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

I.E.-- White men who didn't have enough money, status and power to own slaves.

Princess:  it is not always about slavery or race.  The Electoral College creation had nothing to do with slavery.  It was about protecting the interests of the small states so they would not be overwhelmed by the very populous large states.  

As for white men; of course, the whole Western world was run by white men at that period of time. And they were expanding into Asia and Africa.  There were a few queens or empresses, but they depended on white men to keep them in power and carry out their wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Vautrin said:

The original conception of the EC was even worse than it is now. The electors would be a group of

the "best and brightest" of the time who would parlay among themselves and then choose the

candidate who they thought would make the best president, regardless of who won the popular

vote. I don't think the EC ever made it from this theory into practice, but that was the idea of

the Founding Fathers who were suspicious of the "people," people who had less status and doremi

than themselves. 

All democracies are based upon the supposition that the "best and brightest" are the most capable and will rise to leadership positions.  Of course, not always the case and certainly not where favoritism or devout loyalty is the main criteria.

It is true that the Founding Fathers suspected absolute "democracy" where the "people" would have absolute control over the government.  The later French Revolution proved their suspicions correct.  They also did not trust Congress to elect the president.  So the EC is a compromise.  One that also balances out interests of small states vs. mega-states.

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy.

Incidentally, having parliament or some other governing body select the premier or prime minister, etc. is no more democratic than the EC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us