PA, MI, WI, NC, FL, AZ

GodLovesCats · Feb 9, 2020

Lady Donna Marie said:
I'm guessing electoral count? Not sure since I am not a Democrat if even that matters for the EC meaning.

Electoral College, of course. Everyone who can remember 2016 knows what that is and how it works.

JohnAshton · Feb 9, 2020

If the Dems can make the EC a non-player, the GOP will have to reform or die.

GodLovesCats · Feb 9, 2020

HTacianas said:
I don't see enough states changing their electoral system to get that done.

To get what done? A Constitutional amendment is the only way to get rid of the EC and just use popular votes.

JohnAshton · Feb 9, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
To get what done? A Constitutional amendment is the only way to get rid of the EC and just use popular votes.

Nope. The NPV will go around the EC, constitutionally and legally. No amendment necessary.

BobRyan · Feb 9, 2020

mark46 said:
Bloomberg is spending hundreds of millions in the general election effort in the these states, six states won my Trump isn 2016. Democrats must defend in MN, CO and NV.

Taking back PA, MI, and WI and keeping MN, CO and NV is enough to win. AZ is a replacement for WI or MN if the Democrats can win there.

WHICH DEMOCRAT CAN WIN IN THE RUST BELT?
IMO, there are two tickets that have a good chance of winning the rust belt: Biden-Klobuchar and Bloomberg-Klobuchar. The ticket would need, and would get, the support of the Obama's in the black communities, especially in Detroit and Philadelphia. I would expect Steyer to agains spend the money he did in 2018. The focus of his money is likely to be on House races, but he would help the ticket by focusing in other states than Bloomberg is focusing.

Of course, Trump is looking forward to running head-to-head against Sanders or Warren in the Rust Belt. He may very well get his wish.

Democrats have already provided many millions of dollars of free campaign for Trump in the form of the Senate Impeachment trial and the State of the Union antics they put on for all to see. Not to mention their extreme left "initiatives" that don't sit all that well with moderate democrats.

GodLovesCats · Feb 9, 2020

JohnAshton said:
Nope. The NPV will go around the EC, constitutionally and legally. No amendment necessary.

The Constitution is where the EC comes from, so eliminating it requires removing that section of the USC.

GodLovesCats · Feb 9, 2020

Bob, why do you say that in a thread that has nothing to do with the Senate trial? We are talking about the DNC here, not the House of Representatives.

And if you know a single thing about impeachment, it is that the Senate did not impeach Trump.

Desk trauma · Feb 9, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
The Constitution is where the EC comes from, so eliminating it requires removing that section of the USC.

The states involved in the NPV initiative would not be doing away with the EC or not participating in it, they are pleading their electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The constitution leaves it up to the states how to handle their EC votes.

mark46 · Feb 10, 2020

Desk trauma said:
The states involved in the NPV initiative would not be doing away with the EC or not participating in it, they are pleading their electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The constitution leaves it up to the states how to handle their EC votes.

???
pleading?
State laws require electors in these states to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. If states comprising a majority of the Electoral votes enact such laws, the president will subsequently be elected by popular vote, until states change their laws to pull out of the agreement. It is really that simple.

mark46 · Feb 10, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
The Constitution is where the EC comes from, so eliminating it requires removing that section of the USC.

The Electoral College would not be removed. Consider the extreme. Let us say that ALL the states agreed that the president should be elected by popular vote. Rather than going through a long, burdensome amendment process, each state state would simply enact a law saying that their electors MUST vote for the winner of the popular vote.

Then the Electoral College would meet, as always. The electoral vote would 100% to 0%, all states having voted for the winner of the popular vote. The popular vote would be the "real" election.

I think that this might happen in the next couple of decades. However, as politics shift, I suspect that some states will change their minds and we'll go back to the old system.

Desk trauma · Feb 10, 2020

mark46 said:
???
pleading?

How did that one typo throw you off so much that you ignored all the other words in my post?

Hank77 · Feb 10, 2020

hislegacy said:
Remind me again, what percentage of Democratic voter does Bloomburg have currently? 9%?

He hasn’t qualified for any debate to date, the DNC had to change the rules (after getting rid of Booker), for him to even continue.

Who believes he can buy the Presidency?

Bloomberg doesn't have to be in any debates to continue. He's gotten to a higher percentage in the polls than some candidates did after being in debates. I think the DNC wants him in the debates because he is making them nervous. I'm not saying the other candidates want him in the debates just the DNC.

What do you mean by 'buying the Presidency?'

Hank77 · Feb 10, 2020

chevyontheriver said:
Billionaires can buy all sorts of shiny things.

If given a choice between Bernie and Bloomburg, or Warren and Bloomburg, I think the DNC wants Bloomburg and will change the rules until he is nominated.

Why do you think the DNC wants Bloomberg?

Hank77 · Feb 10, 2020

Silmarien said:
Eh... Biden we'll probably tolerate, but if Bloomberg is on the ticket, I think there will be lots of abstentions if not outright protest votes for Trump from the progressive wing of the party.

Why? What don't you like about Bloomberg and his solutions to problems?

Hank77 · Feb 10, 2020

Silmarien said:
Yeah, I would hope so. But specifically in terms of Democratic strategy, not angering the progressive wing to the point where it will turn and vote against you should be a concern. Though I'm not sure that it actually is.

If the progressives want change they had better swallow their pride and vote for whoever is nominated.

chevyontheriver · Feb 10, 2020

Hank77 said:
Why do you think the DNC wants Bloomberg?

I think the DNC doesn't want Bernie, Warren, or any other socialist. They would prefer Bloomburg. Actually I suspect they want mayor Pete, but would take Bloomburg over Bernie. Hard socialism is a step too far for the present DNC.

Hank77 · Feb 10, 2020

chevyontheriver said:
I think the DNC doesn't want Bernie, Warren, or any other socialist. They would prefer Bloomburg. Actually I suspect they want mayor Pete, but would take Bloomburg over Bernie. Hard socialism is a step too far for the present DNC.

You could be right. I know they are wanting to pick up right-leaning Independents that didn't vote for Trump and either sat out or voted a write-in or a minor party. I've been thinking that the DNC is worried the Bloomberg will win so maybe I'm wrong.

Kentonio · Feb 10, 2020

mark46 said:
WHICH DEMOCRAT CAN WIN IN THE RUST BELT?
IMO, there are two tickets that have a good chance of winning the rust belt: Biden-Klobuchar and Bloomberg-Klobuchar. The ticket would need, and would get, the support of the Obama's in the black communities, especially in Detroit and Philadelphia. I would expect Steyer to agains spend the money he did in 2018. The focus of his money is likely to be on House races, but he would help the ticket by focusing in other states than Bloomberg is focusing.

Of course, Trump is looking forward to running head-to-head against Sanders or Warren in the Rust Belt. He may very well get his wish.

Bernie beat Hillary in both Michigan and Wisconsin. He’s also strong in the others. The idea that moderates appeal to rust belt voters should have died the death it richly deserved in 2016.

JohnAshton · Feb 10, 2020

ChristianForCats said:
The Constitution is where the EC comes from, so eliminating it requires removing that section of the USC.

Nope.

chevyontheriver · Feb 10, 2020

Hank77 said:
You could be right. I know they are wanting to pick up right-leaning Independents that didn't vote for Trump and either sat out or voted a write-in or a minor party. I've been thinking that the DNC is worried the Bloomberg will win so maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not sure Biden was their ideal candidate, him with the mega-gaffes. And I'm doubting they wanted to give Hillary another go at it. They have to realize that the optics of running a billionaire are not pretty. I don't know. The DNC might be as much a herd of cats as the Democratic Party en large. It will be both sad and funny to watch their twists and turns to a nomination and then a split party.

PA, MI, WI, NC, FL, AZ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads