EPTOn November 06 2020 07:30 Nevuk wrote:
With NV and GA wouldn't he be put over the top?
With NV and GA wouldn't he be put over the top?
This puts Biden at 275. He would win.
2020 US Election - Page 174
| Forum Index > General Forum |
FlaShFTW
United States10533 Posts
This puts Biden at 275. He would win. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
Winning anything else on top would just change that then Harris would become VP. :D | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
I think he meant NV and AZ. He could be confused though | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:26 Excludos wrote: ? Biden is currently on 264, with GA holding 16 EC votes. If he flips GA, he just outright wins with at 280 That's only if AZ holds which is very much up in the air. I'm working under the assumption that AZ is not Biden's yet. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:33 IyMoon wrote: I think he meant NV and AZ. He could be confused though No, I meant NV and GA. Someone asked about a tie if GA flips, but that's impossible with the NV results now : it would be called by everyone if they hadn't called AZ too early. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10533 Posts
John James, a Republican who ran against Senator Gary Peters of Michigan in a contest that ended up being much closer than most public polling showed, is refusing to concede, citing vague and unsupported claims of cheating. In a statement issued on Thursday, Mr. James said nothing of the presidential contest in Michigan, which President Trump lost and attempted to throw into doubt with a lawsuit that was promptly dismissed by a state judge. But Mr. James did call for an investigation and expressed “deep concerns that millions of Michiganders may have been disenfranchised by a dishonest few who cheat.” He did not specify which government entity he hoped would investigate or offer an specifics about what kind of cheating he was referring to. Oh for fucks sake. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
That's a trial balloon imo, I'd guess James will concede if/when Trump loses and no fast GOP legal cash is forthcoming. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22498 Posts
PR and DC should have representation, not because they are Democrats but because they are Americans. Taxation without representation, isn't that a phrase that lead to the creation of the USA? | ||
|
SkrollK
France580 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:21 Wegandi wrote: You realize most nations have modeled their country and institutions off the US right? Having bicameral legislature, judicial branch with SC, checks and balances and a constitution, etc. When the US ratified the Constitution there were almost no similarly styled countries in the world (the Iroquous nation were probably the closest in practice). You can thank the US for how Germany was set up post unification. You do realize US is barely 200 yo, do you? There's a shitload of older countries which had working institutions way before US was even a spark in your ancestors minds and those countries actual institutions are based upon those. Like, for real... US is not the world's center y'know? | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
John James comes off as a major douchebag in his political ads. This is his 2nd run for Senate. Im hoping he loses again and fucks off. Hearing him challenged on pre existing conditions is good. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:39 Gorsameth wrote: The notion that someone is seriously arguing Americans should not have a right to vote because they are of the wrong party affiliation is quite something and extremely facepalm worthy. PR and DC should have representation, not because they are Democrats but because they are Americans. Taxation without representation, isn't that a phrase that lead to the creation of the USA? Well said. Wegandi showing his true priorities lol | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On October 29 2020 06:34 Nevuk wrote: My realistic projection. Trump takes FL,OH,TX,GA,IA. GA due to general fuckery and suppression from Kemp, FL/OH/IA being legit wins, and TX possibly due to more fuckery (it's the one that's most uncertain in my mind). Biden takes AZ and PA. If that's the case then Trump only has a 1% chance to win. Would be very chaotic though, since PA counts its votes so late. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/#GA:1,OH:1,IA:1,AZ:0,PA:0,FL:1 My realistic map seems have turned out pretty well (the one I posted early in this thread was just my hopes. (NE2/ME2 went biden and were tossups here). 270toWin version : + Show Spoiler + Looks like I may wind up having had GA and AZ the wrong way in the end, if they eventually flip to the other person from current counts. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:22 ChristianS wrote: I’ll be honest, I usually regret engaging with you in politics threads. If your arguments were at least incisive and well-considered, maybe it’d be easier to tolerate the aggressive-bordering-on-ad hominem argumentation, but you come so half-cocked it’s hard to see the purpose in continuing. Here, for instance. You’re pre-assuming “we are a nation of 50 states” as the desired circumstance in a discussion about whether to add more states. We weren’t 50 states at our inception, of course, but aside from the factual inaccuracy you don’t even bother arguing why that’s a good thing. If you had, we could discuss the merits of those arguments and how they apply to the question at hand. Then you throw in the semi-nonsensical jab implying I previously didn’t care about our institutions, or that I want to alter or abolish them, which maybe doesn’t merit response but here’s one anyway: yes, I care about our institutions, which is why I’m making arguments about how best to improve them. I’m not advocating abolishing anything, and everyone has alterations they’d like to make. That’s politics. As a libertarian I bet you have alterations you’d like to make as well. One common argument in favor of state-based institutions rather than national ones (I can’t respond to your argument, since you didn’t supply one) is that we’re not one monolithic mass of humans, we’re a bunch of smaller communities, each with our own cultures, values, economies, etc. So we extend the rights and privileges of statehood, including institutional power over national decision-making, to each one. It still might seem wild to weight communities in WY 70x greater than communities in CA for national decision-making, but let’s accept the premise anyway. There’s two other communities we’re not extending those privileges to, and they’re both quite a bit bigger than WY. Why? The only argument against you’ve given is that it would hurt Republicans, but there’s nothing about Republicans’ current position that’s fundamentally fairer than the hypothetical alternative. Their voters’ voices will still be weighted more heavily than everyone else. With the way things are going the minority party will have no standing at the national level. All the levers of action for the minority party to use are getting either eroded or abolished, so it does matter if whoever that party be has the competitive ability to pursue that position of power while representing their constituents (hence the well just be more like the other party to try and nudge into their advantage isn't persuasive; the parties can do that now if they wanted). Since admission of states is a political issue and not a moral one (you don't have to make DC a state - thats not the only solution for representation, but we never hear about any other alternatives from the parties who when making it a state would be the sole beneficiery), it gets a political answer. My point about the states (the # is irrelevant in this instance) is that youre pointing to individual votes leading into national popular votes to measure in your comparison of what "should be", but our institutions are republican and based on collections of people. Power devolved to the states, Senate based on the states, etc. You cannot dismiss how our power structures are set up. If you gave Dems auto 4 Senators right now you'd put the GOP into a near permanent minority status. Thats untenable politically. If you put yourself in their shoes what would be your reaction? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:39 SkrollK wrote: You do realize US is barely 200 yo, do you? There's a shitload of older countries which had working institutions way before US was even a spark in your ancestors minds and those countries actual institutions are based upon those. Like, for real... US is not the world's center y'know? Well to be fair to his point, the United States constitution is probably the oldest legal document dictating the rules of a currently standing Democratic-government. None of the large European nations are close, except the UK, which would be the other 'inspiration'. I don't think it's a stretch that it has an incredibly significant influence on how subsequent Democratic constitutions/charters etc were written. Sure, plenty of nationalities are older than the United States (Americans) by culture or history or however you want to gauge it, but that's not his point. Their governments aren't that old. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8277 Posts
They all sound like me playing cs:go. "Oh you killed me with that awp while I was standing completely still? Cheater! In don't know how, but you're cheating!" | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11945 Posts
On November 06 2020 07:39 SkrollK wrote: You do realize US is barely 200 yo, do you? There's a shitload of older countries which had working institutions way before US was even a spark in your ancestors minds and those countries actual institutions are based upon those. Like, for real... US is not the world's center y'know? And even for the countries which modelled their institutions on the US setup, that doesn't mean that the US setup is perfect and should be unchanging over time. Stuff evolves. People figure out what is problematic and change it. The fact that none of the nations which were influenced by the US setup use the exact same setup should tell you that they wanted to iterate on it. We are not talking about history. I think most people think it was pretty good for the world that the US turned democratic. We are talking about right now, and whether it might be a good idea to change some of the archaic setups. The oldest version of something is not necessarily the best version. Quite often, it is not. Because people tend to improve stuff over time. The US constitution fetish is pretty strange. We in Germany also like our Grundgesetz. But when someone proposes a change, people argue about why it is written the way it is, and why it staying the same or changing is a good idea. The arguments are about ethics and consequences. When people in the US talk about the constitution, it is always about what the constitutional writers would have wanted. It is a pure appeal to authority. | ||
| ||
