|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 7, 2024 14:56:01 GMT
Like the situation where the candidate with the most votes loses? Is that what the middle of the country cared about in 2016 when Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes? Well this helps me explain my point about why the Electoral College is a good system. As you note, Clinton (H) lost the election but had 2,880,691 votes more than Trump. The US is a collection of states. What's important to someone in Georgia is very different to someone in New York. If the President was elected on total votes then the 8.7m people in California who voted for Clinton mean everyone who voted in Wyoming, Maine, New England, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Hawaii, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, New Hampshire and the District of Colombia (15 states/districts) would basically be cancelled out by one larger state. That's how the Electoral College brings balance to the Presidential election - each state is important for it's own individual reasons and without it the candidates would just focus on the larger states... If you take your principle to its logical conclusion then each state would have one vote for president. |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Nov 7, 2024 19:22:32 GMT
Anyone think David Lammy will now be given the sack. How on earth can the foreign secretary of The UK, one of if not the closest ally of the US, represent the UK in America having referred to their President as a neo-Nazi sympathizing sociopath, a dangerous clown and a racist KKK and Nazi sympathizer. To be fair to Lammy most of Trumps last cabinet have said similar Thing is if Trump refused to work in the US with anyone who had insulated him he'd be a sole trader. It's his choice who he is prepared to work with. Lammy and Co are representing the UK so it's not a good look when they rock up for example to agree a trade deal having insulted the very man who could or could not agree a deal. Thankfully the Tories set the balls in motion and we're not dependent on Lammy and Starmer to start the process from scratch. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Nov 7, 2024 20:15:05 GMT
To be fair to Lammy most of Trumps last cabinet have said similar Thing is if Trump refused to work in the US with anyone who had insulated him he'd be a sole trader. It's his choice who he is prepared to work with. Lammy and Co are representing the UK so it's not a good look when they rock up for example to agree a trade deal having insulted the very man who could or could not agree a deal. Thankfully the Tories set the balls in motion and we're not dependent on Lammy and Starmer to start the process from scratch. So if there’s a trade deal with the US, is it a Tory success or a Labour one, in your view? |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 8, 2024 10:50:03 GMT
Well this helps me explain my point about why the Electoral College is a good system. As you note, Clinton (H) lost the election but had 2,880,691 votes more than Trump. The US is a collection of states. What's important to someone in Georgia is very different to someone in New York. If the President was elected on total votes then the 8.7m people in California who voted for Clinton mean everyone who voted in Wyoming, Maine, New England, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Hawaii, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, New Hampshire and the District of Colombia (15 states/districts) would basically be cancelled out by one larger state. That's how the Electoral College brings balance to the Presidential election - each state is important for it's own individual reasons and without it the candidates would just focus on the larger states... If you take your principle to its logical conclusion then each state would have one vote for president. Nope. The Electoral College makes sure each state's voice is heard, but also heard proportional to the size of their population. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 8, 2024 11:23:45 GMT
If you take your principle to its logical conclusion then each state would have one vote for president. Nope. The Electoral College makes sure each state's voice is heard, but also heard proportional to the size of their population. It's still all or nothing, would be better if votes were proportionate to the voting. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 8, 2024 15:42:49 GMT
If you take your principle to its logical conclusion then each state would have one vote for president. Nope. The Electoral College makes sure each state's voice is heard, but also heard proportional to the size of their population. If you take the fairness of THAT principle to its logical conclusion, it should be one person, one vote, not a college. |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Nov 8, 2024 21:18:56 GMT
To be fair to Lammy most of Trumps last cabinet have said similar Thing is if Trump refused to work in the US with anyone who had insulated him he'd be a sole trader. It's his choice who he is prepared to work with. Lammy and Co are representing the UK so it's not a good look when they rock up for example to agree a trade deal having insulted the very man who could or could not agree a deal. Thankfully the Tories set the balls in motion and we're not dependent on Lammy and Starmer to start the process from scratch. There’s no chance of a trade deal under protectionist Trump. Get used to it , we’re just a little island all on our own now. whoop whoop 🙌🏽 the rapist got in 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 9, 2024 2:35:51 GMT
Nope. The Electoral College makes sure each state's voice is heard, but also heard proportional to the size of their population. If you take the fairness of THAT principle to its logical conclusion, it should be one person, one vote, not a college. ...and it's very rare that one extreme or another is better than a compromise in the middle, which is what the Electoral College is The US is a Federal Republic. Each state needs to have a say but larger states need to have a bigger say. The Electoral College works because we see candidates fighting to win over voters in states with 3-10 Electoral College votes. If it was a straight count they would just focus on polices and/or turnout in the larger cities, rather than policies that benefit the whole country... The "tyranny of the majority" is the reason Adams and the other Founding Fathers broke the government into three branches, and chose ways to elect leaders in all three branches that gave all states a proportional say.... |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 9, 2024 2:48:10 GMT
Nope. The Electoral College makes sure each state's voice is heard, but also heard proportional to the size of their population. It's still all or nothing, would be better if votes were proportionate to the voting. It sounds like what you're arguing for there is a Electoral College system amongst the districts that make up each state, as opposed to the current Electoral College system amongst the states that make up the country. Which is an interesting call because states can do what they want with their electoral votes and a couple do split them - but despite it being possible (and quite a few attempts to change the systems) overall it works pretty well, makes sure smaller states are heard and in well over 200 years the popular vote has only been different to the Electoral College vote five times... |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Nov 9, 2024 12:08:17 GMT
The media companies driving engagement. You can read I assume? Not sure why you feel the need to be so rude? That’s twice now and especially after you’ve just complained about Yatton being a keyboard warrior. Pot kettle black pal. In the past I’ve ignored trump nonsense and will continue unless it’s something politics and not just his extreme opinions. Apologies gassy. I just met you in the middle since "what are you going on about" was received as equally rude. As for your mate, he/she is a keyboard warrior and a Dam bellend. That is a fact proven across this board and gasheads.org. But yeah, I guess that was a bit snappy from me.🤚 Yatton, I wont reply to whatever bollox you respond with, because it's clear to the pair of us there's no common ground. GFY 🖕 |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Nov 9, 2024 13:57:05 GMT
Not sure why you feel the need to be so rude? That’s twice now and especially after you’ve just complained about Yatton being a keyboard warrior. Pot kettle black pal. In the past I’ve ignored trump nonsense and will continue unless it’s something politics and not just his extreme opinions. Apologies gassy. I just met you in the middle since "what are you going on about" was received as equally rude. As for your mate, he/she is a keyboard warrior and a Dam bellend. That is a fact proven across this board and gasheads.org. But yeah, I guess that was a bit snappy from me.🤚 Yatton, I wont reply to whatever bollox you respond with, because it's clear to the pair of us there's no common ground. GFY 🖕 The irony 🙄 Yet again you come on here attacking me and throwing round insults after your previous calls for niceties 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Nov 9, 2024 13:59:01 GMT
Elon Musk arranging Vans & coaches to pick up the Amish community and take them to the polling stations in Pensylvania is absolutely genius 👏
|
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Nov 9, 2024 20:40:22 GMT
There's an awful lot of this sort of thing here and especially on the other forum at the moment. We all know who won and we all can think of reasons. The self congratulations have reached epic proportions. I hate to think how the Trumpers would have reacted if they'd lost, because they are taking the victory to heart in a rather intense and concerning way, given that it's a foreign country and none of us have any say in it. It's a little bit hysterical. They’re literally cheering on a rapist getting back in power. Alongside a bloke who is the Russians preferred candidate . Just imagine asking your atypical Tory voter 15 yrs ago if those had been their preferred choices ? It’s just weird how much they’ve twisted their own logic. ps no need to reply anti vaccine boy….. your opinion doesn’t count 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Nov 9, 2024 22:06:41 GMT
Not sure why you feel the need to be so rude? That’s twice now and especially after you’ve just complained about Yatton being a keyboard warrior. Pot kettle black pal. In the past I’ve ignored trump nonsense and will continue unless it’s something politics and not just his extreme opinions. Apologies gassy. I just met you in the middle since "what are you going on about" was received as equally rude. As for your mate, he/she is a keyboard warrior and a Dam bellend. That is a fact proven across this board and gasheads.org. But yeah, I guess that was a bit snappy from me.🤚 Yatton, I wont reply to whatever bollox you respond with, because it's clear to the pair of us there's no common ground. GFY 🖕 Which was in response to, “The media companies know that people like you lot can't get enough of Trump” - after all I had said was that I don’t want to hear about Trump in the news. Anyway, he said she said. Decent point today |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 13, 2024 11:20:47 GMT
Basically now just a long weekend to go. What's changing? Nevada ( 6 electoral college votes) Nate Silver average: Trump 50.1% (+0.2%) Harris 49.9%
Arizona (11 electoral college votes) Nate Silver average: Trump 51.1% (+0.2%) Harris 48.9%
Georgia (16 electoral college votes) Nate Silver average: Trump 50.9% (-0.1%) Harris 49.1%
Pennsylvania (19 electoral college votes) Nate Silver average: Trump 50.2% (-0.1%) Harris 49.8%
Michigan (15 electoral college votes) Nate Silver average: Harris 50.5% (+0.5%) Trump 49.5%Wisconsin ( 10 electoral college votes) Nate Silver average: Harris 50.4% (+0.4%) Trump 49.6%
North Carolina (16 electoral college votes) Nate Silver average: Trump 50.7% (+0.2%) Harris 49.3%
To win Harris needs 44 of these electoral college votes (or Trump needs 51). Harris needs to Hold Michigan and Wisconsin and flip Pennsylvania to tie the Electoral College (at which point basically the party that controls the Senate will get to pick the President). To win outright she needs to flip another or two larger ones (ie Nevada and Georgia). It was all headed in Trump's direction but Harris has started to claw back some ground and so still very much the toss of a coin.... How close was the 'best' election predictor? Prediction - Nevada: Trump 50.1% Harris 49.9% Result - Nevada Trump 51.6% Harris 48.8% Correct result, margin of error 1.5% Prediction - Arizona: Trump 51.1% Harris 48.9% Result - Arizona: Trump 52.9% Harris 47.1% Correct result, margin of error 1.8% Prediction - Georgia: Trump 50.9% Harris 49.1% Result - Georgia: 51.1% Harris 48.9% Correct result, margin of error 0.2% Prediction - Pennsylvania: Trump 50.2% Harris 49.8% Result - Pennsylvania: Trump 51.0% Harris 49.0% Correct result, margin of error 0.8% Prediction - Michigan: Harris 50.5% Trump 49.5% Result - Michigan: Trump 50.7% Harris 49.3% Wrong result, margin of error 1.3% Prediction - Wisconsin: Harris 50.4% Trump 49.6% Result - Wisconsin: Trump 50.4% Harris 49.6% Wrong result, margin of error 0.8% Prediction - North Carolina: Trump 50.7% Harris 49.3% Result - North Carolina: Trump 51.7% Harris 48.3% Correct result, margin of error 1.0% Not bad all in all - got the correct result in five of the seven swing states and so called the election correctly overall. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 15, 2024 6:20:49 GMT
In what's probably more important than the Presidential election, the Republicans lead the House by 219-212 with 4 seats left to declare. They will probably break even based on the incumbents and the history of the seats, so Republicans will lead the House, but with only a seven seat majority. That's important because it only takes four Republicans to vote against their party and the majority is gone, plus in two years time all 435 Representatives have to get re-elected - in the equivalent mid-terms during Trump's first term, Democrats made a net gain of 41 seats in the House of Representatives and changed the momentum of his Presidency for the second two years.
In the Senate, Republicans will hold a 53-47 majority. That's important for the opposite reason - only a third of Senate seats are contested in 2026 and based on which seats are up for election they are unlikely to lose control.
So Trump has four years as President, four years with a Republican Senate but potentially only two with a Republican House. Whilst he doesn't need the House to pass some laws (which he can do by Executive Order) he's got to keep moderate Republican representatives and voters onside otherwise the last two years of his Presidency get a lot harder...
|
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Nov 15, 2024 7:49:40 GMT
As Foreign Secretary Lammy won't be dealing with Trump directly, that'll be Starmer. Trump sees things as a business transaction, if it's good for him then he'll look past previous indiscretions. Look at Vance. No, this is being made a bigger issue for political point scoring. Trump 1 - 1 Lammy (2-1 AET) After extra time? They`re both so fat, it would take until Halley`s comet comes back round, for them to score three goals between them. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 15, 2024 10:03:41 GMT
Trump 1 - 1 Lammy (2-1 AET) After extra time? They`re both so fat, it would take until Halley`s comet comes back round, for them to score three goals between them. Fair point, Lammy makes Trump look sensible and coherent, 2-0 inside 90 minutes... |
|
