Rock the Vote '24: update (09/10) - It's "Debate Night" - do yourself a favor and play a video game instead

[thewhyteboar]

8 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

What I really want her to do during the debate is to directly challenge him to name the six states where "post-birth abortion" is "legal".  

He'd say something like "It's legal in East Jersey," Kamala would say that's not a real state, and then The New York Times would have a headline saying something like "Kamala wrong, there IS an eastern part of New Jersey. 17 Pinocchios."

[Chris-]

1 hour ago, thewhyteboar said:

Don't like those PA numbers.

 

[Kal-El814]

37 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

What I really want her to do during the debate is to directly challenge him to name the six states where "post-birth abortion" is "legal".  

 

Honestly at this point I’m not sure the main is capable of answering a direct question about anything policy related at all, and if he does it’s likely going to be inaccurate.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Honestly at this point I’m not sure the main is capable of answering a direct question about anything policy related at all, and if he does it’s likely going to be inaccurate.

 

It doesn't matter if he answers the question or not: it's just that it's actually asked.

[Keyser_Soze]

43 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

He'd say something like "It's legal in East Jersey,"

 

They are legal in those luxury hotels the illegal immigrants are staying at.

[outsida]

36 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

It doesn't matter if he answers the question or not: it's just that it's actually asked.

This keep asking Trump questions 

[Kal-El814]

37 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

It doesn't matter if he answers the question or not: it's just that it's actually asked.

 

Oh absolutely, agreed.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

What I really want her to do during the debate is to directly challenge him to name the six states where "post-birth abortion" is "legal".  

Such a nasty question, unbelievable how nasty they just let people say this low iq stuff

[CitizenVectron]

Okay so I was curious and did some playing around. Let's assume this is how the electoral map is redistributed for the 2032 election:

 

 

Let's also assume that the swing states stay the same (ignore the EV values):

 

 

 

Here is how that would change the GOP, DEM, and SWING states starting values:

 

2024:

• GOP - 219
• DEM - 216
• SWING - 103

2032:

• GOP - 230
• DEM - 205
• SWING - 103

 

The Republicans start a lot closer to victory than they currently do, meaning the Democrats need to win by even larger numbers. Assuming the Democrats carried the blue wall states of WI, MI, and PA, that only gets them to 246 in 2032, as opposed to 270 now. 

 

This means that the Democrats would also need to carry NV and AZ to win (274), or one of NC or GA (273).

 

However, if the blue wall continue to trend Republican and flip by 2032 (which signs point to), then map gets very grim for Democrats. Let's assume 2032 has the following swing states (ignore numbers on map):
 

 

In that case, the Republicans start at 272, compared to 263 today. This means that trading the rustbelt for the sunbelt isn't enough, the Democrats need to at least hold one rustbelt state, and win the sunbelt swing states. It's entirely possible the Democrats win the popular vote by 5-8% and still lose the election in that theoretical case. I think that Texas needs to be in play in 2032 for the Democrats to stand a chance at winning, and in that case it's Texas alone that decides the election, since either side could win/lose 3-4 states and not have it matter.

 

Obviously other things could change as well, but I can't see many other options for new swing states that benefit Democrats. Plus if it comes down to Texas, you just know that the state legislature is going to change how their EVs are awarded to make it even harder for Democrats to win (e.g. the EVs are awarded to the winner of the most counties won, rather than popular vote in the state, etc).

[5timechamp]

2 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

I’m scared of her having to rely on any state with a Republican governor or legislature. Shenanigans will ensue. 

 

who will be the Mike Pence last minute hero that preserves Democracy this time

[CitizenVectron]

Obviously not a surprise:

 

Exclusive: Biden administration to accuse Russia of sustained effort to influence 2024 election | CNN Politics

WWW.CNN.COM

---

The Biden administration on Wednesday plans to accuse Russia of a sustained effort to influence the 2024 US presidential election by using Kremlin-run media and other online platforms to target US voters with disinformation, six sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

Okay so I was curious and did some playing around. Let's assume this is how the electoral map is redistributed for the 2032 election:

 

 

Let's also assume that the swing states stay the same (ignore the EV values):

 

 

 

Here is how that would change the GOP, DEM, and SWING states starting values:

 

2024:

• GOP - 219
• DEM - 216
• SWING - 103

2032:

• GOP - 230
• DEM - 205
• SWING - 103

 

The Republicans start a lot closer to victory than they currently do, meaning the Democrats need to win by even larger numbers. Assuming the Democrats carried the blue wall states of WI, MI, and PA, that only gets them to 246 in 2032, as opposed to 270 now. 

 

This means that the Democrats would also need to carry NV and AZ to win (274), or one of NC or GA (273).

 

However, if the blue wall continue to trend Republican and flip by 2032 (which signs point to), then map gets very grim for Democrats. Let's assume 2032 has the following swing states (ignore numbers on map):
 

 

In that case, the Republicans start at 272, compared to 263 today. This means that trading the rustbelt for the sunbelt isn't enough, the Democrats need to at least hold one rustbelt state, and win the sunbelt swing states. It's entirely possible the Democrats win the popular vote by 5-8% and still lose the election in that theoretical case. I think that Texas needs to be in play in 2032 for the Democrats to stand a chance at winning, and in that case it's Texas alone that decides the election, since either side could win/lose 3-4 states and not have it matter.

 

Obviously other things could change as well, but I can't see many other options for new swing states that benefit Democrats. Plus if it comes down to Texas, you just know that the state legislature is going to change how their EVs are awarded to make it even harder for Democrats to win (e.g. the EVs are awarded to the winner of the most counties won, rather than popular vote in the state, etc).

Theres so guarantee or even pattern that WI PA and MI are trending Republican. They regularly elect both republicans and democrats to state and federal office. And whomever wins those wins the presidency anyway, so no great change

[mclumber1]

I really do wish the House was expanded.  I don't think ~750,000 people can be accurately represented by 1 person.  I think there should be 1 Rep for every 200,000 residents.  Not only would this result in a more representative House of Representatives, but it would make the Electoral College more representative as well.  With a population of ~350 million, there would be about 1750 Representatives nationwide, with 1843 electoral votes if I did my math right. 

[Reputator]

20 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I really do wish the House was expanded.  I don't think ~750,000 people can be accurately represented by 1 person.  I think there should be 1 Rep for every 200,000 residents.  Not only would this result in a more representative House of Representatives, but it would make the Electoral College more representative as well.  With a population of ~350 million, there would be about 1750 Representatives nationwide, with 1843 electoral votes if I did my math right. 

 

Wow you'd need a skyscraper to house them all.

[skillzdadirecta]

8 hours ago, Air_Delivery said:

She was actually kinda hot when Newsom dated her. She looks terrifying now with all that plastic surgery. 

She looks like she does a LOT of drinking.

[mclumber1]

5 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

Wow you'd need a skyscraper to house them all.

 

It's less than 2000 people.  A basketball arena holds like 15000.  

 

Also, there is little reason to have our reps in one location.  Let them conduct 98% of their duties, including voting on bills, from their home district offices.

[SaysWho?]

13 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

It's less than 2000 people.  A basketball arena holds like 15000.  

 

Also, there is little reason to have our reps in one location.  Let them conduct 98% of their duties, including voting on bills, from their home district offices.

 

On paper, that makes sense, but then it's very difficult to establish relationships with your colleagues and create bipartisan legislation, I'd think.

[Xbob42]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

I really do wish the House was expanded.  I don't think ~750,000 people can be accurately represented by 1 person.  I think there should be 1 Rep for every 200,000 residents.  Not only would this result in a more representative House of Representatives, but it would make the Electoral College more representative as well.  With a population of ~350 million, there would be about 1750 Representatives nationwide, with 1843 electoral votes if I did my math right. 

Or just get rid of the stupid system that's just weird proxy voting. 

[MarSolo]

The fact that Joe Biden won the popular vote by 7 million votes but still could have lost via the Electoral College if 100,000 people across several states voted differently shows me this system just doesn’t work.

 

It would basically tell 7 million people their votes didn’t matter.

[mclumber1]

47 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

On paper, that makes sense, but then it's very difficult to establish relationships with your colleagues and create bipartisan legislation, I'd think.

 

Companies have been successfully using remote work for years now.  During COVID, courts were holding trials via Zoom.  I don't see why Congress could employ a system where most of the work they do is remote.  

 

[CitizenVectron]

1. Expand the house to between 100,000-200,000 pop per rep, increase term to 4 years
2. Eliminate the senate
3. Change Presidential election to national popular vote

Boom, you've got a working system that's pretty close to functional democracies like Canada or Germany or the UK. And yes, I consider the UK to be far more functional than the US.

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Companies have been successfully using remote work for years now.  During COVID, courts were holding trials via Zoom.  I don't see why Congress could employ a system where most of the work they do is remote.  

 

 

The thing with the courts: a clip went viral of a prosecutor finding out that the abusive boyfriend was in the same room as the woman. It had its own drawbacks, but I'm glad we could still do trials.

 

Companies have a single directive, whereas Congress consists of representatives of different economic/regional/social demographics and their own wants/needs from their constituents. It's important, I think, for them to be together so they can create relationships and work together. I think technologically, I can see more remote working there with representatives in their district/state more often, but 2021/2022 reminded me what Congress is like when there's a lot of bipartisan work getting done.

[mclumber1]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

1. Expand the house to between 100,000-200,000 pop per rep, increase term to 4 years
2. Eliminate the senate
3. Change Presidential election to national popular vote

Boom, you've got a working system that's pretty close to functional democracies like Canada or Germany or the UK. And yes, I consider the UK to be far more functional than the US.

 

Very difficult to do. 

1 would require a Constitutional amendment because you are changing how long they serve a term for.

2 is arguably impossible given the way the Constitution was written to protect the Senate.

3 Would require a Constitutional amendment. 

 

Simply expanding the House would require a bill passed by both houses of Congress and have it signed into law by the President.  

 

[Xbob42]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

 

Very difficult to do. 

1 would require a Constitutional amendment because you are changing how long they serve a term for.

2 is arguably impossible given the way the Constitution was written to protect the Senate.

3 Would require a Constitutional amendment. 

 

Simply expanding the House would require a bill passed by both houses of Congress and have it signed into law by the President.  

 

What if we said fuck this ratty old paper and ran the nation how we wanted rather than how some fucks from hundreds of years ago said.

[CitizenVectron]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Very difficult to do. 

1 would require a Constitutional amendment because you are changing how long they serve a term for.

2 is arguably impossible given the way the Constitution was written to protect the Senate.

3 Would require a Constitutional amendment. 

 

Simply expanding the House would require a bill passed by both houses of Congress and have it signed into law by the President.  

 

 

Well yeah I'm just saying what should be done, not what will be. At this point the US Constitution is a religious document, not a governing one, and the US will collapse or change into a different state(s) before the Constitution is changed.

[Xbob42]

This document must be observed and obeyed, no matter the cost!

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Very difficult to do. 

1 would require a Constitutional amendment because you are changing how long they serve a term for.

2 is arguably impossible given the way the Constitution was written to protect the Senate.

3 Would require a Constitutional amendment. 

 

Simply expanding the House would require a bill passed by both houses of Congress and have it signed into law by the President.  

 

 

1. president does an official action

2. president does an official action

3. president does an official action

[Xbob42]

Disobeying the constitution is just soooo hard and impossible, until Trump gets in there, does it, and everyone looks around at each other like "Wait, you can just do that? Surely someone will stop him!"

Stop fucking saying things are impossible that very clearly are not!

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Disobeying the constitution is just soooo hard and impossible, until Trump gets in there, does it, and everyone looks around at each other like "Wait, you can just do that? Surely someone will stop him!"

Stop fucking saying things are impossible that very clearly are not!

 

fucking chafes my ass so bad that fucking DeJoy is still at USPS, if Trump wanted Biden's postmaster general what do we think would happen, fired yesterday or endless hangwringing and scolding about how akshually Trump only controls the USPS board of directors and oh gee even his nominees aren't doing anything about DeJoy, and you know Trump had to put in a Democratic commissioner because norms and fairness

[Jason]

 

[Xbob42]

Holy shit. This is the kind of bombshell that ends a war!

[outsida]

11 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Omg, I guess we’ll just have to go with Fascism…

[Firewithin]

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

Disobeying the constitution is just soooo hard and impossible, until Trump gets in there, does it, and everyone looks around at each other like "Wait, you can just do that? Surely someone will stop him!"

Stop fucking saying things are impossible that very clearly are not!

he wont even need to disobey, he is just gonna torch that shit in a trash can and be done with it since well have a king now 

[Spork3245]

[Spork3245]