Rdskns2000

Pres. Election:11/3/20(Donnie vs Bernie)- On to South Carolina 2/29 & Super Tuesday: 3/3

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

.....

 

But I have the right to vote and support the candidate that best aligns with my views during the primaries.

Psst, you have that same right in the general election too.

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


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

Why is Schultz listed in that ranking? He is running as an independent not a Dem.

 

This is a freaking excellent point.  My answer is because 3 of the 13 rankers are Republicans, and they want to push his candidacy as much as possible. 

 

Edit:  Also, because technically the list is ranking "the best person to beat Trump."

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

T...

 

Edit:  Also, because technically the list is ranking "the best person to beat Trump."

If this is the case why is Harris at the top of the list (or anywhere near the top for that matter)? On that list shouldn't Schultz, Bloomberg, and Hickenlooper be 1-3.  Maybe they intended to mean the candidate most likely to beat Trump in November.

Share this post


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

I think Brown is needed to stay in his seat.  No point risking a seat in the senate in a battleground state.   We haven't really seen much from him anyway to know how he would do on the national stage.

 

I generally agree but I think the temptation to have him on the ticket will be incredibly strong. I could see Mitch Landrieu as a Harris VP choice as well.

Share this post


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

 

There are smart, charismatic, honest leaders on that list. Not really sure what you are looking for in a candidate. 

 

I'm looking for someone that I feel like can win. Right now I'm looking for a Dem governor from middle America who sounds like an adult. 

 

Don't get me wrong. I won't vote for another Republican as long as Jacob Wohl is alive. They're all complicit imo. I'd vote for Harris or whoever. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, how much of a difference would it make if instead of abolishing the electoral college system outright, it shifted to a representative system.  Now, from my understanding, currently all the electoral college votes don't have to be awarded to the winner of the state anyway, but it pretty much always happens out of the "spirit of the law?"

 

What would happen if the electoral college votes were divided up based on percentage of popular vote from the individual state?   I assume in most elections it wouldn't have made much of a difference in determining the winner anyway, but what about the closer races where a handful of states were solidly purple?  

 

Maybe the law could be further detailed for example if neither candidate gets over 50% of popular vote in the state, then you divide the electoral college up proportionately? 

 

The reason I ask is because I was thinking of ways to lessen the impact of a guy like Schultz running if say in a state like Ohio, he gets 5% of the popular vote, and then neither Trump vs.  (D opponent) achieve 50%   Seems like this might be a way that could reduce the "spoiler" aspect of a 3rd party candidate?

 

I could be totally overlooking something though?

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

The only way to lessen the impact of 3rd party candidates while still keeping them on the ballot is ranked choice voting which we should adopt for all elections 

 

 

The great thing is it would lessen their impact as a spoiler candidate while also making them a more viable option (because you can vote for them if you think they are best without “throwing your vote away”)

 

which is why we’ll never get it

 

theyd rather randomly be spoiled than make third party a viable option every year. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Speaking of Bernie...this doesn't seem like a socially progressive position to take. 

 

 

 

For 1988 it was. Ya know when the book Challenging the boundaries of reform was written.

 

I luv Bernie but he's wasting his and everyone elses time. Dems will resoundingly reject him in 2020. If not sooner.

Edited by clietas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

For 1988 it was. Ya know when the book Challenging the boundaries of reform was written.

 

I luv Bernie but he's wasting his and everyone elses time. Dems will resoundingly reject him in 2020. If not sooner.

 

Yes, it's around 30 years ago. And no I haven't seen Bernie evolve on this issue (it appears he's still stuck on the idea that gay people aren't being targeted by the GOP). 

 

I hate the "but Hillary" comments that other posters use here (not you clietas) but at least with the Clintons their views on LBGTQ rights started to evolve (change, whatever) in the late 90s. 

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

If she can sell that to FOX she can win the presidency. I dont care how little she knows about the job. She could actually do what Trump said and surround herself with people that can help her visions fit this country. 

 

Obviously its not gonna happen. But getting that fox news base to actually agree with HER on THAT?? Booyyyy when her time does come they are gonna be so scared of this woman. 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.