Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TheCid

2020 Election

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, TheCid said:

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.

That the "best and brightest" will rise to leadership positions is the theory but in actual practice

that rarely happens. And of course the phrase "best and brightest" is mostly associated with

the Kennedy administration which showed that the "best and brightest" could mess things up too.

The EC is the only office where the candidate is not elected by popular vote, which seems to do

okay for all the other offices. It's outmoded and it's time to get rid of it, however unlikely that is

to happen. Doing so would hardly give the "people" absolute control over the government. It's

kind of funny that the Founding Fathers would fear the "people" since so many "people" couldn't

vote anyway. I don't know if the French Revolution proves anything about the bad effects of

the "people" having control over the government. Except for the occasional influence of the

people of Paris, the French Revolution was guided by small groups of people, especially so at

the time of the Reign of Terror. I would say that a parliamentary system is more democratic

than the EC as the party that manages to have a majority is elected by voters and those voters

also usually know who the PM is going to be. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

That the "best and brightest" will rise to leadership positions is the theory but in actual practice

that rarely happens. And of course the phrase "best and brightest" is mostly associated with

the Kennedy administration which showed that the "best and brightest" could mess things up too.

The EC is the only office where the candidate is not elected by popular vote, which seems to do

okay for all the other offices. It's outmoded and it's time to get rid of it, however unlikely that is

to happen. Doing so would hardly give the "people" absolute control over the government. It's

kind of funny that the Founding Fathers would fear the "people" since so many "people" couldn't

vote anyway. I don't know if the French Revolution proves anything about the bad effects of

the "people" having control over the government. Except for the occasional influence of the

people of Paris, the French Revolution was guided by small groups of people, especially so at

the time of the Reign of Terror. I would say that a parliamentary system is more democratic

than the EC as the party that manages to have a majority is elected by voters and those voters

also usually know who the PM is going to be. 

 

"The EC is the only office where the candidate is not elected by popular vote"  Actually the EC electors are elected by popular vote.  The official ballot is for a slate of electors, not the presidential candidates themselves.  Used to be a lot clearer with the old paper ballots where the electors were listed right below the candidates names.  Not sure how Founding Fathers intended for electors to be selected, but the parties now pick their slates.  Not sure how.

"Except for the occasional influence of the people of Paris, the French Revolution was guided by small groups of people, especially so at the time of the Reign of Terror."  Long time since I took The French Revolution course, but as I recall, the "citizens" had a lot more input initially all over the country.  It was about as democratic as you could get back then, but of course the ambitious, greedy and power hungry soon found a way to manipulate themselves into power.  Hence, Napoleon.

"I would say that a parliamentary system is more democratic than the EC as the party that manages to have a majority is elected by voters and those voters also usually know who the PM is going to be."  The party that has the majority and is elected by the voters usually (not always) has the presidency as well.  Personally I think having a system where the majority party may not have the leader is more "democratic."  The voters get to choose the House, the Senate and the President separately.

While the voters may know who the PM is going to be, doesn't he/she still have to be "elected" or chosen by the party members that are elected?  So, couldn't they decide to pick someone else altogether?  Regardless, the voters do not get to vote for the PM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the electors are elected by popular vote, but in the EC system the national

popular vote winner can still lose the election. 

The people of Paris had special influence as the various parliamentary bodies that

existed during the revolution sat in Paris and were in close contact with Parisians

whether or not they wanted to be. From what I recall, most of the leaders were middle

class types even if their politics were sometimes radical. Of course Napoleon was the one

who put an end to the revolution, turning it into a dictatorship. 

Most of the time voters know beforehand who the PM is going to be if that party wins a

majority. Of course if they don't win an outright majority they have to find smaller parties

to join in and the voters have no say over how that will turn out.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 The people of Paris had special influence as the various parliamentary bodies that

existed during the revolution sat in Paris and were in close contact with Parisians

whether or not they wanted to be. From what I recall, most of the leaders were middle

class types even if their politics were sometimes radical. Of course Napoleon was the one

who put an end to the revolution, turning it into a dictatorship. 

And a damn good one too. Got rid of Antisemitism and the old Feudalist ways across Europe before Britain's monarchs stopped things.

Share this post


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

And a damn good one too. Got rid of Antisemitism and the old Feudalist ways across Europe before Britain's monarchs stopped things.

I don't know about that. Almost endless wars, authoritarianism at home, appointing relatives to be

rulers over other countries, the partial reintroduction of slavery. I'll stick with the Jacobin Club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I don't know about that. Almost endless wars, authoritarianism at home, appointing relatives to be

rulers over other countries, the partial reintroduction of slavery. I'll stick with the Jacobin Club.

After the French Revolution had ended slavery and given women civil rights, Napoleon reversed both.

In the Napoleonic Code women had virtually no rights. You might say Napoleon had a low opinion of women, particularly independent, literary women like Madame de Stael. She was a famous romantic writer and critic of Napoleon's  misogyny. Whenever he could he tried to kick her out of Paris and she did spend a lot of time in exile.

Yet Napoleon could be interested in women like Marie Walewska who had a political agenda and got close to him for her own purposes. All this led to an illegitimate child and a MGM movie called "Conquest" starring Greta Garbo and Charles Boyer.

Share this post


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

I don't know about that. Almost endless wars, authoritarianism at home, appointing relatives to be

rulers over other countries, the partial reintroduction of slavery. I'll stick with the Jacobin Club.

Literally all of those things could be applied to the British of the time, except they did it even worse.

Share this post


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

Literally all of those things could be applied to the British of the time, except they did it even worse.

You seem to admire Napoleon greatly.

I hope you had a chance to go into Les Invalides in Paris.

I haven't gone in there since I was a college student, but I can remember how much it impressed me.

But as an adult, I used to pass it a great deal  going  to the American Church Community Center. And it still impressed me. 

Also, I lived in the provinces in the town where Napoleon did his debarkation for the Conquering of Europe. It was in the Alps. And his vast barracks that he built is still there, and it's used as an exposition fairgrounds. Plus the town displays that portrait of him by David: "Napoleon Crossing the Alps"-- though I'm sure he didn't do it on horseback. LOL

Share this post


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

After the French Revolution had ended slavery and given women civil rights, Napoleon reversed both.

In the Napoleonic Code women had virtually no rights. You might say Napoleon had a low opinion of women, particularly independent, literary women like Madame de Stael. She was a famous romantic writer and critic of Napoleon's  misogyny. Whenever he could he tried to kick her out of Paris and she did spend a lot of time in exile.

Yet Napoleon could be interested in women like Marie Walewska who had a political agenda and got close to him for her own purposes. All this led to an illegitimate child and a MGM movie called "Conquest" starring Greta Garbo and Charles Boyer.

He treated women like any male egomaniac of his time would have, so there's not much of a

surprise there. Divorced wife number one when she didn't bear an heir and had numerous affairs

with other women. Kind of un sleazebag.

Share this post


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

Literally all of those things could be applied to the British of the time, except they did it even worse.

I don't know which country was worse, but they both were bad, so I wouldn't

laud either one. 

Share this post


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

There is hope for some conservatives yet.

Here are 14 reasons I’ll vote for any Democrat over Trump
Opinion   By Max Boot  Read more »

Since he lives in New York state his vote won't effect the election, just as mine won't.  As for the 14 reasons, despicable but typical Trump.  What we need is for the "conservatives" who voted for Trump in the swing states to change their vote.

I saw one of the news networks the other night was calling S.C. a swing state in the Senate races.  Lindsay Graham threatened by a Dem candidate.  Not very likely.

Share this post


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

I saw one of the news networks the other night was calling S.C. a swing state in the Senate races.  Lindsay Graham threatened by a Dem candidate.  Not very likely.

Did the Dems make any gains in your state (S.C.) in the 2018 House elections?    That might provide some insight as it relates to if Dems can make House or Senate gains in S.C. in 2020.

Here in CA in 2018, Dems beat GOP incumbents in 4 out of the 5 "battleground" districts.  One was here in the Orange County with Katie Porter.    My guess is that Dems will hold these seats in 2020 since any vote for a member of the GOP is consider support for Trump, and Trump hate is strong in this once very conservative district.

(very conservative from a CA perspective not,  per se,  a national one).

 

Share this post


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

Did the Dems make any gains in your state (S.C.) in the 2018 House elections?    That might provide some insight as it relates to if Dems can make House or Senate gains in S.C. in 2020.

Here in CA in 2018, Dems beat GOP incumbents in 4 out of the 5 "battleground" districts.  One was here in the Orange County with Katie Porter.    My guess is that Dems will hold these seats in 2020 since any vote for a member of the GOP is consider support for Trump, and Trump hate is strong in this once very conservative district.

(very conservative from a CA perspective not,  per se,  a national one).

 

The only Dem gain in US House was the Charleston area district.  Mark Sanford was the incumbent and had held the seat for a few terms before he became governor.  On primary day, Trump tweeted out not to vote for Sanford, but to vote for his opponent and she won the GOP nomination.  Then the Dems took the seat, but it won't last.  The seat has been firmly GOP for decades.  The demographics in Charleston are changing and that is where the Dem scored most votes, but there are other GOP dominated counties in the district.  5 other districts are firmly GOP due to gerrymandering and voter suppression. One district is the token minority-majority district.  James Clyburn has held it for decades.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

On primary day, Trump tweeted out not to vote for Sanford, but to vote for his opponent and she won the GOP nomination.  Then the Dems took the seat, but it won't last.  The seat has been firmly GOP for decades.

My district has also been firmly GOP for decades.   Weeks after this happened I also said 'but it won't last',  but I now believe it will last at least until Trump is gone:  If Trump loses in 2020 than I can see the GOP winning back my district in 2022. 

As for Charleston and that district;  it was my understanding they were becoming more "moderate" with much having to do with changing demographic (but also the business community not wishing to lose revenue to get a "win" on a social issue supported by state politicians).

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

My district has also been firmly GOP for decades.   Weeks after this happened I also said 'but it won't last',  but I now believe it will last at least until Trump is gone:  If Trump loses in 2020 than I can see the GOP winning back my district in 2022.

As for Charleston and that district;  it was my understanding they were becoming more "moderate" with much having to do with changing demographic (but also the business community not wishing to lose revenue to get a "win" on a social issue supported by state politicians).

    

Charleston has always been "different."  Phrase used to be there is the state of South Carolina and then there is Charleston.  Example:  S.C. used to prohibit liquor by the drink, except at private clubs such as VFW, Moose Lodge, etc.  However, Charleston had bars in every major hotel and restaurant, as well as lots of bars period.  I remember going into one at the ripe old age of 18 and ordering my first mixed drink.  No problem since selling it was illegal, why worry about ages.  And these were nice bars with piano players, singers, etc.

I believe that if Trump had stayed out of it and Sanford had won the nomination, he would have won easily.

There is also the question of how much the demographics are changing on the whole coast with all the Northern and Midwestern retirees moving in.  Of course some of them are firmly GOPers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate suddenly looks like it's up for grabs in 2020

Democrats need to net only four seats to get to a 51-49 majority in the Senate, and the list of seats that Republicans need to defend is growing.

 

".....The Senate campaign map that is coming into view is looking more and more like a "good news," but not "great news" situation for Democrats. The party needs to net only four seats to get to a 51-49 majority in the Senate and the list of seats that Republicans need to defend is growing — but there are not a lot of easy marks.

 

In essence, the Democrats' path to recapturing the Senate seems to be growing clearer, but it’s not necessarily growing easier......

 

.....Still, they are places the party is going to have to spend its own money and time if it wants a good shot at winning back the Senate.

It’s not an easy path.

But as the list of seats the GOP is defending in the Senate grows, the Democrats aren't complaining. Another week, another potential road to 51.

And, all of this, of course, ignores the true Democratic hopes for 2020. If a Democrat wins the White House, the magic number for net pickups drops to three. It only takes 50 seats to secure the Senate control with a tie-breaker vote from a supportive vice president."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/senate-suddenly-looks-it-s-grabs-2020-n1048706?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

:unsure:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest of Mr6666's article cited above.

CO, ME, AZ are possible with TX, NC, IA and GA (2) being maybe possible.  AZ may be the most likely of these.  I doubt ME (Susan Collins) will change.  

MT, KS, KY and SC are listed as long shots.  Very, very long shots.  For SC, Lindsay Graham will coast to reelection unless some miracle occurs and I don't see that happening.  As for the other states, don't know that much but doubt they will change either, especially McConnell in KY.  Kansas may be most likely of these four to change.

NH, MN, NM, MI and AL are Dem seats up for contention.  I expect AL to revert to GOP again as Jones only won because the GOPers had a terrible candidate (Roy Moore).  Moore could win the GOP nomination again, but even then he might squeak past.

The Dems and others are spending a lot of money in S.C. that would be better spent elsewhere.  Probably the same for other states as well.

Regardless, even if Dems win control of Senate, White House and House, there is no guarantee any of the "progressive" agenda will make it to the White House.  Some of the Dem House and Senate members are in states/districts that will vote them out in a heartbeat if they are even close to "liberal."

The last Dem Senator in GA voted with the Republicans in almost all situations.

Most importantly, if the Dems pi$$ away this election as they did in 2016 and Trump and the GOPers and their supporters push hard the GOP wins again.  One thing about the GOPers, they can motivate their voters to get out and vote whereas, the Dems have too many spoiled children who prefer to protest by not voting or even voting GOP.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

This one is interesting.  I've cited a couple of excerpts below from it.

One thread that kept coming up in the article was that the Democrats better do an excellent job of presenting their platform, choosing an acceptable candidate, focusing on winnable states and GETTING THEIR PEOPLE TO VOTE.  Also need to focus on not losing states they won in 2016.

Just four states are likely to determine the outcome in 2020. Each flipped to the Republicans in 2016, but President Trump won each by only a percentage point or less. The four are Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. Many analysts point to Wisconsin as the single state upon which the election could turn.

One obvious wild card is the identity of the Democratic nominee and how that shapes the general election debate. Will that nominee be running on a platform that moderate voters see as too far left? Will that nominee be able to energize the party’s woke base and still appeal to white working-class voters?

While many Democrats are optimistic that the gains in the 2018 midterms foreshadow success in 2020, a report earlier this year by the progressive firm Catalist noted, “It is not safe to assume that Democratic gains from 2016 to 2018 will hold.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L.A. Times has an article about black voters in Michigan and the Detroit area;    What is funny is that it states all the Fox \ right wing talking points about such voters.    These were black voters that voted for Obama twice but didn't vote at all in 2016.   Trump won Michigan by only 12,000 votes.

That they "loved" Obama and voted for him, because he was like them.  (black).

They didn't feel the "love" towards Clinton.   One reason was Bill Clinton and the 1996 crime bill.

If they don't feel the "love",  they generally don't vote.

I found it funny that this article,  written by someone on the left,  reinforces these stereotypes of the black voter.   It isn't flattering but instead makes them look silly and ignorant.

Of course NOW they all regret NOT voting in 2016.   Most said they plan to vote for the Dem,  PERIOD,  but a few were still looking for the "love".    (code for Booker or Harris).

The above is a big reason Dems candidates often lead in polling but lose elections. 

Most GOP voters, especially older ones,  instead following this:

Vote for your candidate of choice in the primary.

Vote for your parties' candidate and \ or the lesser evil.   No "love" is required!!!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

L.A. Times has an article about black voters in Michigan and the Detroit area;    What is funny is that it states all the Fox \ right talking points about such voters.    These were black voters that voted for Obama twice but didn't vote at all in 2016.   Trump won Michigan by only 12,000 votes.

That they "loved" Obama and voted for him, because he was like them.  (black).

They didn't feel the "love" towards Clinton.   One reason was Bill Clinton and the 1996 crime bill.

If they don't feel the "love",  they generally don't vote.

I found it funny that this article,  written by someone on the left,  reinforces these stereotypes of the black voter.   It isn't flattering but instead makes them look silly and ignorant.

Of course NOW they all regret NOT voting in 2016.   Most said they plan to vote for the Dem,  PERIOD,  but a few were still looking for the "love".    (code for Booker or Harris).

The above is a big reason Dems candidates often lead in polling but lose elections. 

Most GOP voters, especially older ones,  instead following this:

Vote for your candidate of choice in the primary.

Vote for your parties' candidate and \ or the lesser evil.   No "love" is required!!!

 

 

 

 

When I ran for city council, one of the poll managers told me not to bother visiting black voters as only about 10 ever voted.  Not 10 per cent, but 10 total.  Black population was about 30% or more.  He was right.  With only one polling place and being there all day I counted.  I did go house to house and otherwise contacted some of the blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...