US Presidential Election 2024

[st albans fox]

On 17/08/2024 at 13:57, MPH said:

I know that people have a problem with the BBC.. and  that’s fair enough but it’s not on this level of bias at least…

 

 

( note: all tv news networks in the states display this level of bias no matter which side they’re on)

 

( also note.. this is the BBCs  sister channel in the U.S).

 

 

Whatever happened to good old fashioned partisan journalism …..

oh yeah - it’s still everywhere !

[MPH]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Whatever happened to good old fashioned partisan journalism …..

oh yeah - it’s still everywhere !

 

if you put the BBC up against any American news station, you will see a MASSIVE difference.. and I mean HUGE.

[Torquay Gunner]

15 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

if you put the BBC up against any American news station, you will see a MASSIVE difference.. and I mean HUGE.

Yes Fox in particular are virtually unwatchable, they might as well be wearing ear bandages and MAGA hats. 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Yes Fox in particular are virtually unwatchable, they might as well be wearing ear bandages and MAGA hats. 

And the same goes for CNN and several others that are left leaning. ALL American news channels are biased 

[Torquay Gunner]

38 minutes ago, MPH said:

And the same goes for CNN and several others that are left leaning. ALL American news channels are biased 

I have watched a fair bit of CNN and of course they lean left, but they are not maniacal.  Same goes for NBC.  I am not that familiar with any others.   Fox, however appear to be in entirely their own(MAGA) bubble and that's the difference for me. 

[jgtuk]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

And the same goes for CNN and several others that are left leaning. ALL American news channels are biased 

They might seem left if you're American or maybe in comparison to some of the others you entertain. Boggled my mind a bit when I was in the States and watched for the first time

[MPH]

32 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

They might seem left if you're American or maybe in comparison to some of the others you entertain. Boggled my mind a bit when I was in the States and watched for the first time

 

Year fair point, there’s British left and there’s American left..

[leicsmac]

The difference between the Obamas and Trump/Vance in terms of oration, eloquence and attitude towards the welfare of other people is like night and day.

 

I'm still rather dumbfounded that the US went straight from the former to the latter.

[Torquay Gunner]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

The difference between the Obamas and Trump/Vance in terms of oration, eloquence and attitude towards the welfare of other people is like night and day.

 

I'm still rather dumbfounded that the US went straight from the former to the latter.

Of course Trump didn't win the popular vote in 2016, and the electoral college system to many people’s eyes seems arcane and antiquated.  Apparently last year there was a poll, where 65% of Americans said the system should be changed in favour of the popular vote.  It's probably very unlikely there will be any change and certainly the republicans, who it currently favours as they control more of the smaller states than the Democrats, are not likely to vote for it.  The result this time around is bound to be as controversial, if not more so than in 2016 and 2020. 

[Daggers]

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Of course Trump didn't win the popular vote in 2016, and the electoral college system to many people’s eyes seems arcane and antiquated.  Apparently last year there was a poll, where 65% of Americans said the system should be changed in favour of the popular vote.  It's probably very unlikely there will be any change and certainly the republicans, who it currently favours as they control more of the smaller states than the Democrats, are not likely to vote for it.  The result this time around is bound to be as controversial, if not more so than in 2016 and 2020. 

The very ethos of the system in the US is to allow the few in the heartlands to dictate policy to the many on the coasts, so I don't see that changing any time soon, yeah.

 

I honestly can't call the result this time round, nor would I want to call the amount of controversy/unrest afterwards. There are so many variables for this one.

[Detroit Blues]

2 hours ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Of course Trump didn't win the popular vote in 2016, and the electoral college system to many people’s eyes seems arcane and antiquated.  Apparently last year there was a poll, where 65% of Americans said the system should be changed in favour of the popular vote.  It's probably very unlikely there will be any change and certainly the republicans, who it currently favours as they control more of the smaller states than the Democrats, are not likely to vote for it.  The result this time around is bound to be as controversial, if not more so than in 2016 and 2020. 

The most likely chance towards electoral college reform is the 270 compact - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

This essentially hijacks the electoral college process, since (once passed) whoever wins the popular vote will get 270 electoral college votes. The brilliance is that these laws are passed at the state level, and the US Constitution provides the individual states broad authority to determine how to award its electoral college votes. Currently, the states that have passed these laws add to 209 electoral college votes. There are about another 50 that are pending in some form, within state legislatures. To hit the 270 threshold, those states would need to get the laws over the line, and another state (or states) worth 11 electoral college votes would need to pass the law, for example, Arizona. 

 

This would almost certainly trigger a Supreme Court challenge, on the constitutionality of the state laws. The current Supreme Court, would likely rule 6-3 across partisan lines that these laws are unconstitutional, citing some originalist viewpoint that the founding fathers of the constitution never intended elections to be done this way. However, it would likely be decades before enough states pass the compact, and at that time the makeup of the supreme court could be very different.

 

Changing the US Presidential Election to a popular vote would have massive repercussions. The current Republican Party would struggle to win any Presidential election, as the last time they won a popular vote was 2004, with George W Bush as the incumbent, who had previously lost the popular vote in 2000. The last time a non-incumbent Republican President was elected was in 1988, when George H.W Bush defeated Michael Dukakis. Even then, he was the current VP to Ronald Reagan. 

 

Without the Presidency, the Republican Party would be unable to nominate conservative supreme court justices. To show how much of an effect the electoral college has had on the makeup of the current supreme court:

- Chief Justice John Roberts, and Samuel Alito was nominated by George W Bush, elected after losing the popular vote.

- Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were nominated by Donald Trump, elected after losing the popular vote. 

 

Over time Republicans would be relegated to losing Presidential elections and having their conservative supreme court justices replaced. Eventually, they would either need to shift farther to the center in order to win national elections, or they would cease to be a political force outside of owning red state legislatures and occasionally controlling one (or both) houses of congress. Even in those circumstances, they would need bipartisan support to pass any conservative laws, as they would need to have the support of the President of veto-proofed super majority in congress to exceed the veto power of a Democratic president. 

[Torquay Gunner]

8 hours ago, Detroit Blues said:

The most likely chance towards electoral college reform is the 270 compact - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

This essentially hijacks the electoral college process, since (once passed) whoever wins the popular vote will get 270 electoral college votes. The brilliance is that these laws are passed at the state level, and the US Constitution provides the individual states broad authority to determine how to award its electoral college votes. Currently, the states that have passed these laws add to 209 electoral college votes. There are about another 50 that are pending in some form, within state legislatures. To hit the 270 threshold, those states would need to get the laws over the line, and another state (or states) worth 11 electoral college votes would need to pass the law, for example, Arizona. 

 

This would almost certainly trigger a Supreme Court challenge, on the constitutionality of the state laws. The current Supreme Court, would likely rule 6-3 across partisan lines that these laws are unconstitutional, citing some originalist viewpoint that the founding fathers of the constitution never intended elections to be done this way. However, it would likely be decades before enough states pass the compact, and at that time the makeup of the supreme court could be very different.

 

Changing the US Presidential Election to a popular vote would have massive repercussions. The current Republican Party would struggle to win any Presidential election, as the last time they won a popular vote was 2004, with George W Bush as the incumbent, who had previously lost the popular vote in 2000. The last time a non-incumbent Republican President was elected was in 1988, when George H.W Bush defeated Michael Dukakis. Even then, he was the current VP to Ronald Reagan. 

 

Without the Presidency, the Republican Party would be unable to nominate conservative supreme court justices. To show how much of an effect the electoral college has had on the makeup of the current supreme court:

- Chief Justice John Roberts, and Samuel Alito was nominated by George W Bush, elected after losing the popular vote.

- Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were nominated by Donald Trump, elected after losing the popular vote. 

 

Over time Republicans would be relegated to losing Presidential elections and having their conservative supreme court justices replaced. Eventually, they would either need to shift farther to the center in order to win national elections, or they would cease to be a political force outside of owning red state legislatures and occasionally controlling one (or both) houses of congress. Even in those circumstances, they would need bipartisan support to pass any conservative laws, as they would need to have the support of the President of veto-proofed super majority in congress to exceed the veto power of a Democratic president. 

Thanks for the link, which I have still to look at. Having 4 out of the 6 Chief Justices appointed by Presidents, who both lost the popular vote, for me sums up the absurd nature of the US election apparatus.  Maybe it needs a good overhaul and dare I say the addition of another major political party, which can only happen if there is a revamp. 

[MPH]

15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The difference between the Obamas and Trump/Vance in terms of oration, eloquence and attitude towards the welfare of other people is like night and day.

 

I'm still rather dumbfounded that the US went straight from the former to the latter.

 

what’s even more dumbfounding is that they would consider going back to Trump…

[MPH]

So there’s a lot of talking that Robert Kennedy is considering dropping out  of the presidential race and endorsing Trump. As an independent, he was never really in with a chance of course but as tight as this race might be  it could be aN important decision. He’s been polling about 10% in some of the swing states and if that goes to Trump, it could be huge.

 

 

its worth pointing out that  he seems more upset with the Democrats than he does actually wanting to support Trump.. lots of accusations coming from his camp of the Dems planting people inside his campaign  office, dems sabotaging his campaign  and some underhand tactics , again by the Dems.. Dems might have made a colossal mistake and there is a chance   they may have  thrown away the momentum gained by appointing Harris…

 

Trump is apparently willing to offer him an important role in the government in exchange for his endorsement..

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, MPH said:

So there’s a lot of talking that Robert Kennedy is considering dropping out  of the presidential race and endorsing Trump. As an independent, he was never really in with a chance of course but as tight as this race might be  it could be aN important decision. He’s been polling about 10% in some of the swing states and if that goes to Trump, it could be huge.

 

 

its worth pointing out that  he seems more upset with the Democrats than he does actually wanting to support Trump.. lots of accusations coming from his camp of the Dems planting people inside his campaign  office, dems sabotaging his campaign  and some underhand tactics , again by the Dems.. Dems might have made a colossal mistake and there is a chance   they may have  thrown away the momentum gained by appointing Harris…

 

Trump is apparently willing to offer him an important role in the government in exchange for his endorsement..

Given RKs stance on a lot of scientific issues runs much closer to Trump and the Repubs than the Dems, I'm not sure how much of a loss that part of it is, and I'm not sure how open his votes were to the Dems anyway.

 

Of course, every vote counts but bringing an antivax climate change ignorer into the fold to get them might not be the best course of action. Tricky.

[Trav Le Bleu]

How can country that has been home to so many technological advances be so backward?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

How can country that has been home to so many technological advances be so backward?

Because the way things are over there flattens the bell curve, and accentuates both the very best and worst.

 

Which is fair except when paired with a political system that gives a lot of individual power across all policies. It often doesn't end well.

[st albans fox]

Trump is beginning to go off message too often.  The democrats are clearly targeting hm personally more effectively than before. He can’t keep his mouth shut - as pointed out months ago, this will cost him the election.  If he can be controlled by his team then it becomes a very close call in November.  However, I don’t think that’s possible 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Trump is beginning to go off message too often.  The democrats are clearly targeting hm personally more effectively than before. He can’t keep his mouth shut - as pointed out months ago, this will cost him the election.  If he can be controlled by his team then it becomes a very close call in November.  However, I don’t think that’s possible 

The polling and betting markets appear to be reflecting this. But there's still a long way to go.

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The polling and betting markets appear to be reflecting this. But there's still a long way to go.

True but Harris is unlikely to screw up like trump will

 

i suppose the tv debate will be the big event between now and nov 4 which is unpredictable 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

True but Harris is unlikely to screw up like trump will

 

i suppose the tv debate will be the big event between now and nov 4 which is unpredictable 

I would agree, yeah.

 

I just hope that Harris can stick to the path she's on and open a lead, I thought she was a decent candidate four years ago (of course she has weaknesses, but then so do all folks going for that post).

[Jattdogg]

At the debate Trump will likely call her an ugly, weak, no kids, scab, two faced pocahontas wannabe who was part of a coup to oust sleepy joe while letting illegals flood the borders.

 

Sounds insulting enough? 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

At the debate Trump will likely call her an ugly, weak, no kids, scab, two faced pocahontas wannabe who was part of a coup to oust sleepy joe while letting illegals flood the borders.

 

Sounds insulting enough? 

 

Tbh that's likely exactly what he'll say, only dressed up in slightly better language.

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Tbh that's likely exactly what he'll say, only dressed up in slightly better language.

You think ?