snafu

No, I love my idea -- though I don't think it is strictly my idea (I think Maine and Nebraska split their EC votes). Ask me about Court packing...

The number of Electors is based upon the number of congressional districts, plus 2 Senators. If you're talking about Senators throwing off that number, there are probably an equal number of conservative "small population" states such that they'd cancel each other out (like Rhode Island vs. Wyoming). The counterpoint to your swing-state focus is that no candidate would bother to campaign or visit non-populated areas when the most eyes and ears are concentrated in cities. Talk about disenfranchisement. Is the 3/5th compromise still an issue today? Everyone's vote is counted 1:1. Arbitrary areas of land? People vote. People who live in our country and who's lives are just as affected by federal legislation no matter where they live. There's a census every ten years. Federal budget dollars go to where the people are. Congress controls the purse strings. NYC has 13 Congressional seats. Don't worry too much about the residents of the City getting shut out. Ask most any Western New Yorker what they think about that. Way back when, @Nanker and I had a discussion about the EC. I was assigned the "con" side. Arguing against the EC was difficult for me and my only proposal to tweak it was similar to what you're saying. Count the popular vote for President for EACH Congressional district -- not county by county like they do now -- and assign the elector to go vote as the district voted. Assign the two Senator-electors to vote for the statewide winner.

This is a great point. I mean, he can get the same result from a free barber school cut. It certainly calls into question his judgment skills. These conditions have held before -- but there was no call to pack the Court. Why would that be different today? Why remove all checks and balances? That can't be true if Biden supports packing the Court.

Do you think the Electoral College is a form of tyranny? It is in place to permit States to have their individual voices -- in proportion to their population and representation in Congress. This is still important, even though (1) the Executive branch has grown larger and more influential than the Legislative, and (b) Federal powers have eaten away at traditionally local governance. I'm sure you realize that different states and regions have different expectations from their governments.

Do you realize how much of a hypocrite you are by saying this?

Sure, Covid-19 is a huge issue on this election. It certainly isn't the only issue, and an honest voter should see that while the Federal response could have been much better, so should the responses of each state. Do you want Trump to be the ineffective criminal liar dictator who imposes his fascist will on all states at the same time, or not? Harris' credentials are also an issue. Perhaps not 900 lbs, more like 650 lbs.

A significant number of moderates may vote for Biden, but they also may be put off by the fact that his running mate is in the top ten most left-leaning Senators (#8 by "progressive punch", #1 by "non-partisan" "yougov"). Especially this election, when Biden's age is an openly discussed factor.

Right on!

See this is interesting. Just because Obama did these things doesn’t make them good things to have done. Every President does good things and bad things. You chose three of the worst.

Don’t sneeze while peeing. It can get uncomfortable.

I will go back and read the other responses, I'm sure that I'm likely repeating what others have said already. (1) I don't think Trump has lost voters from his base. Maybe picked up as many people who believe that he can do the job when they didn't believe it before 2016. But he's probably lost as many voters who can't take his personality and think he blew it with his Covid-19 response. (2) I don't think the MSM was lying in 2016 about Clinton. I think everyone was completely on cruise control with Clinton as a shoo-in. (3) I think Trump haters who didn't vote for Clinton in 2016 will vote for Biden in 2020. Trump won't lose too many voters. But Biden will pick up those complacent voters that didn't turn out for Clinton. If Biden picks up enough in the swing states, then Biden wins. Feels to me like Trump "maxed out" his votes in 2016, and even if he repeats his numbers, there's a lot of people who sat on the sidelines in 2016 that regret it and won't make that mistake again. It really depends on where those people live.

None of what I said was about Trump’s achievements or lack thereof, or intended to be so. None of it. And you actually add to my point. At least Trump, and every other candidate for President I’ve ever seen, has said what they would do in office. Whether they got their platform accomplished is not the issue. I’m talking about going into office with a clear picture of what a President wants to do. I’m talking about voters agreeing with those policies and voting because of those policies. Without that — and coupled with “he’s not that guy”, I’m asking whether Biden actually has a mandate to govern? I say he wouldn’t. I also recognize that voters like you don’t seem to be bothered by this.

No, what I’m getting at is the fact that people are voting for Biden as anyone but Trump. Biden has a platform on his website, but he won’t commit to an environmental plan. He won’t commit to anything other than a public option for healthcare. He won’t commit to not packing the Court. If nobody knows what he actually stands for then what are they voting for him to actually do? Then once he’s in and does stuff, where’s the public support for it? That’s not a mandate. You describe the power of the office, but power comes from the governed, it isn’t foisted upon us.

Simple question, because a lot of people give this exact reason for voting for Biden (because he’s simply not Trump): If that’s the primary reason to vote for Biden and he wins, do you think he has a mandate to govern?

I think Cal Cooledge used to go through the federal budget line by line. I like that, though it probably wasn’t 14,000 pages long back then. More like a phone number on a cocktail napkin.

You lost me at #7. He should have donated it if he were a true patriot.

Yeah, I got your point. You're still mistaken.

Not at all. Not everything is about you. Did I? Can you find that? If I did, it wasn't intentional. And even so, it may have been buttressing a larger point I was making (like in the post you just quoted). But you probably couldn't figure that out (like your post just now). As you like to say: carry on.

Brennan has made a lot of statements about Trump. I wonder what he would have said about Clinton if she had won. Fortunately, we will never know.

Throw some thin sliced radishes in there. A very nice addition.

Okay.

Uh huh.

Apologies, I took you for a Communist. So if you're not a Communist, you won't take it personally. You may not be, but once that slide to the far left starts there will be people (perhaps not you) who will want to slide all the way. I started off by saying that this is my opinion and that I hope I am badly mistaken.

(1) you've got proof of your first two sentences? (2) don't put words into my mouth or motives into my head. I won't do that to you -- follow? I'm not using Soviet-style Communism as a lazy slur. I'm using it as an active slur. You do realize that your positions are fringe, yes? Why would the fringe of this country have control over the vast majority of people who don't agree with them? You could go find a Vermont or Colorado commune to join your like-minded folk. Nobody will bother or begrudge you.

My point was and is that people like to twist the stupid things Trump says into signals for his non-existent, fiction of the mind, storm troopers to beat his political opponents into submission. I hear what he says. I shake my head and say, "that was stupid". WhoTF takes his stupid quotes as a call for action?