Trump outrage of the day

[Kris]

This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

Yep.

[Dancin'Dog]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines. 

[eljefe-speaks]

This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.

[Kris]

This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.

We've always had these tendencies, of course. That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that we fell asleep at the wheel and managed to get a president who flung open the lid to Pandora's box.

[GuitarStv]

This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.

We've always had these tendencies, of course. That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that we fell asleep at the wheel and managed to get a president who flung open the lid to Pandora's box.

Fell asleep at the wheel?  American Republicans are happy with what Trump is doing.  He's not a mistake.  He's a conscious choice, and has been supported every step of the way.  His actions (distasteful as you and I find them) are the preference of a large number of folks in the US.

[nereo]

The first two transcripts are out, and make for interesting reading for anyone so inclined.  With the caveat that few actually will read them, and least of all supporters of the president - but I can’t see how this could possibly help his case.  In sum it confirms a disturbingly heavy and intentional pressure by the WH to push Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation of Biden, and highlights how those trying to do their jobs on behalf of their country were threatened, removed and marginalized.

The GOP questions seem even less likely to help the cause, not landing any real blows on credibility and frequently seeming like they were grasping for anything to complain about, regardless of how inconsequential. 

[Kris]

This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.

We've always had these tendencies, of course. That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that we fell asleep at the wheel and managed to get a president who flung open the lid to Pandora's box.

Fell asleep at the wheel?  American Republicans are happy with what Trump is doing.  He's not a mistake.  He's a conscious choice, and has been supported every step of the way.  His actions (distasteful as you and I find them) are the preference of a large number of folks in the US.

Yes. Definitely Republicans are.

But the rest of us didn't do enough to counter the bullshit. Not nearly enough.

And we're in danger of not doing enough in 2020 either.

[talltexan]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

[nereo]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

[Kris]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

But do you honestly think that after three plus years of Trump and the right-wing media feeding his supporters a steady diet of lies and conspiracy theories, that they well ever believe he died of natural causes? If Trump dies in office, pretty much every one of his rank and file supporters will believe the left assassinated him.

I'm kinda with talltexan on this one.

[eljefe-speaks]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

Wait, what!? I thought he had a doctor's note saying something like he would be the HEALTHIEST president to EVER hold office in the HISTORY of the COUNTRY, EVER.

talltexan - I am fearful of widespread violence even in the event of impeachment. Look no further than a threat of violence tweeted out by an MLB umpire. If he died in office of natural causes the conspiracy theorists would come unglued.  It would be a very dangerous time to live in this country.

[nereo]

The consipracy theorists are already unglued.  Any facts or revelations which come out threaten their preconceived beliefs - not to mention all the mental energy they've already put behind DJT (one major correlation between a person's willingness to change their opinion is how much energy they've already invested in that position). 

There are people who still think Elvis is alive (he'd be 84 btw), Kennedy was never shot, chem-trails are aeresoling drugs to make us docile,  the moon landings were faked and the mole king exists.  THey aren't going to become any more unhinged than they already are.

More to the point, the GOP would get Pence, who's like Trump but without all the "Trumpiness".  It's probably their best-case scenario.

[Davnasty]

The consipracy theorists are already unglued.  Any facts or revelations which come out threaten their preconceived beliefs - not to mention all the mental energy they've already put behind DJT (one major correlation between a person's willingness to change their opinion is how much energy they've already invested in that position). 

There are people who still think Elvis is alive (he'd be 84 btw), Kennedy was never shot, chem-trails are aeresoling drugs to make us docile,  the moon landings were faked and the mole king exists.  THey aren't going to become any more unhinged than they already are.

More to the point, the GOP would get Pence, who's like Trump but without all the "Trumpiness".  It's probably their best-case scenario.

Perhaps not, but it could still be a catalyst which gives the unhinged a reason to act on something they've already planned.

And we shouldn't discount the extent to which otherwise rational people are increasingly buying into conspiracy theories either. There is a tipping point where mob mentality takes over and otherwise sane people start believing that violence is justified. Hopefully we won't get anywhere close to that tipping point but I do believe it exists.

[GuitarStv]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

But do you honestly think that after three plus years of Trump and the right-wing media feeding his supporters a steady diet of lies and conspiracy theories, that they well ever believe he died of natural causes? If Trump dies in office, pretty much every one of his rank and file supporters will believe the left assassinated him.

I'm kinda with talltexan on this one.

Finally, an argument for gun control that the right in the US could get behind?  :P

[eljefe-speaks]

And we shouldn't discount the extent to which otherwise rational people are increasingly buying into conspiracy theories either.

Had a friend at work, funny guy, likable. One day he pulls me into his cube to tell me he is convinced that Sandy Hook was a hoax. I was horrified.

[Kris]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

But do you honestly think that after three plus years of Trump and the right-wing media feeding his supporters a steady diet of lies and conspiracy theories, that they well ever believe he died of natural causes? If Trump dies in office, pretty much every one of his rank and file supporters will believe the left assassinated him.

I'm kinda with talltexan on this one.

Finally, an argument for gun control that the right in the US could get behind?  :P

LOL, nope. Don't forget, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

And all those nutters think they're the "good" guys.

And they disproportionally own most of the guns.

[Glenstache]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

This would depend a lot on how Pence and co handled things. A quick, obsequious, call to Hannity would solve a lot.

[partgypsy]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

If Trump dies in office, I think we'll see violence. Horrible, widespread violence.

Why??  Are you meaning if Trump is assasinated?  Because I think there’s an even chance he could just have a heart attack, given his age, obesity, diet and complete lack of exercise. Would you expect violence if he succumbed to ‘natural causes’ very near the life expectancy of someone in his particular health?

Wait, what!? I thought he had a doctor's note saying something like he would be the HEALTHIEST president to EVER hold office in the HISTORY of the COUNTRY, EVER.

talltexan - I am fearful of widespread violence even in the event of impeachment. Look no further than a threat of violence tweeted out by an MLB umpire. If he died in office of natural causes the conspiracy theorists would come unglued.  It would be a very dangerous time to live in this country.

Yes according to his doctor (well, Trump did help with the wordsmithing) that
"His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary. If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."

And what happened afterwards, 3 guys storming his doctor's office to take all copies of Trump's medical records. That's normal, right? According to Sarah Sanders, that's "standard operating procedures"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/02/trump-dictated-glowing-health-report-his-doctor-gave-mediathat-trump-dictated-glowing-rump-doctor-sa/572038002/

[cliffhanger]

Not surprised in the slightest it took barely 3 pages into the newest Trump-hate thread for someone to hope for the US President's death. Do you people even read/follow MMM blog?

[GuitarStv]

Not surprised in the slightest it took barely 3 pages into the newest Trump-hate thread for someone to hope for the US President's death. Do you people even read/follow MMM blog?

Trump should be protected from the same type of violence that he himself incites?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-ways-that-donald-trump-incites-violence/

Or if you want it from the horses mouth:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCLvJE26wGY


I don't hope for the presidents death at the gun of a madman.  But if violent rhetoric bothers you, how do you feel about the words the president uses to urge people who support him to commit violent acts?

[Davnasty]

Not surprised in the slightest it took barely 3 pages into the newest Trump-hate thread for someone to hope for the US President's death. Do you people even read/follow MMM blog?

Please don't assume everyone who dislikes Trump feels the same way. The last time I saw someone mention hoping for the accidental death of Trump on these forums it was... GreenEggs.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/so-let's-speculate-about-the-future-of-a-full-trump-presidency/msg2410363/#msg2410363

On the other hand I think the country would be better off without him, assuming the violence discussed above doesn't occur.

[Kris]

Yes, the country would be 100% better off without him.

I personally would be fine with his resignation, though.

[MKinVA]

I am also not comfortable with the talk about the violent end of any president. Luckily, we have a constitution that allows for impeachment of a president. Cause the original framers knew what could happen if a despot were elected one day.

I think the struggle is going to be how do we get our country back?

[PathtoFIRE]

Not surprised in the slightest it took barely 3 pages into the newest Trump-hate thread for someone to hope for the US President's death. Do you people even read/follow MMM blog?

People, do not feed the trolls. This poster has all Off Topic posts, and their last post was 9 months ago on a previous political thread.

[PathtoFIRE]

Gordon Sondland, ambassador to EU and someone who raised $1million plus for Trumps 2016 campaign, has revised his testimony to the Congressional impeachment investigation, and now admits that he extorted Ukraine, on behalf of Trump, to publicly announce investigations into one of Trump's political rivals, in exchange for previously promised military aid to assist Ukraine in defending itself from Russian annexation of additional Ukraine territory. Please also note that Ukraine is not a part of the EU.

[OurTown]

Assuming, for the purposes of argument, Trump is impeached by the House and further assuming, also for the purposes of argument, he is acquitted by the Senate, he is likely to do something really, really stupid and dangerous between his trial and the next election.  He will be totally convinced of his own invincibility.  The Senate would be well served to convict him because once they let him off the hook and he runs off and drops a bomb on someone, literally or figuratively, it's on them forever.  I realize they are chicken-shit afraid of his voters, but sweet Jesus.

If the Senate were to vote by secret ballot, like a real jury, I have no doubt Trump would be convicted and removed.

[bacchi]

Assuming, for the purposes of argument, Trump is impeached by the House and further assuming, also for the purposes of argument, he is acquitted by the Senate, he is likely to do something really, really stupid and dangerous between his trial and the next election.  He will be totally convinced of his own invincibility.  The Senate would be well served to convict him because once they let him off the hook and he runs off and drops a bomb on someone, literally or figuratively, it's on them forever.  I realize they are chicken-shit afraid of his voters, but sweet Jesus.

If the Senate were to vote by secret ballot, like a real jury, I have no doubt Trump would be convicted and removed.

The Senate can censure; they don't have to remove.

This would give Senate Republicans some cover from their base. Trump would tweet up "Traitors!" but he wouldn't be able to primary any of them.

[PathtoFIRE]

The constitution requires a supermajority 2/3s vote to remove an executive officer who has been impeached. I'm informed by constitutional scholars on Twitter that this means it could require less than 67 senators voting to remove, if there are less than 100 senators present for the vote. Maybe there will be a case of the flu running rampant through the Republican Senate delegation at the time of any such vote.

[nereo]

Assuming, for the purposes of argument, Trump is impeached by the House and further assuming, also for the purposes of argument, he is acquitted by the Senate, he is likely to do something really, really stupid and dangerous between his trial and the next election.  He will be totally convinced of his own invincibility.  The Senate would be well served to convict him because once they let him off the hook and he runs off and drops a bomb on someone, literally or figuratively, it's on them forever.  I realize they are chicken-shit afraid of his voters, but sweet Jesus.

If the Senate were to vote by secret ballot, like a real jury, I have no doubt Trump would be convicted and removed.

The Senate can censure; they don't have to remove.

This would give Senate Republicans some cover from their base. Trump would tweet up "Traitors!" but he wouldn't be able to primary any of them.

TBH this would be my preference, and probably the only way the GOO doesnt come off looking like an utter goat. Censure, then resoundly beaten in the elections, losing both the popular vote (again. But by a few million more) as well as the electoral college (say losing Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan)

[GuitarStv]

The constitution requires a supermajority 2/3s vote to remove an executive officer who has been impeached. I'm informed by constitutional scholars on Twitter that this means it could require less than 67 senators voting to remove, if there are less than 100 senators present for the vote. Maybe there will be a case of the flu running rampant through the Republican Senate delegation at the time of any such vote.

I'd love to see this happen, but given their surprisingly uniform support of every terrible thing Trump has done . . . not sure it's a good idea to hold my breath that they'll take a principled stand this time.

[nereo]

My favorite line of the day...

I’m informed by constitutional scholars on Twitter...

[Glenstache]

The constitution requires a supermajority 2/3s vote to remove an executive officer who has been impeached. I'm informed by constitutional scholars on Twitter that this means it could require less than 67 senators voting to remove, if there are less than 100 senators present for the vote. Maybe there will be a case of the flu running rampant through the Republican Senate delegation at the time of any such vote.

I'd love to see this happen, but given their surprisingly uniform support of every terrible thing Trump has done . . . not sure it's a good idea to hold my breath that they'll take a principled stand this time.

In short, it will only come to pass if it is advantageous to Mitch McConnell.

[kenmoremmm]

what happens in the event trump doesn't want to relinquish the office?

say he's impeached by both house and senate. but then doesn't leave.

or, he loses 2020 election and says it's rigged and won't leave.

who removes him?

[bacchi]

what happens in the event trump doesn't want to relinquish the office?

say he's impeached by both house and senate. but then doesn't leave.

or, he loses 2020 election and says it's rigged and won't leave.

who removes him?

The FBI is under the executive branch but he's insulted them numerous times over his Presidency. The FBI has arrest powers.

[MKinVA]

Someone would have to ask a court for a writ of mandamus which requires a governmental entity or official to follow the law. Who would have standing to ask for the writ? Um, Congress? Any voter? The Speaker?

[nereo]

One thing I don’t think DJT has ever appreciated is that the various components of the government are beholden to the office of the president, not the individual who is president.  The military, for example, has been loathe to contradict him or earlier presidents because of the office.  As soon as that is gone there is no loyalty to the person. Particularly one who’s denigrated their top ranks, avoided service and used them as pawns. 

I imagine similar department feel the same way.

[Glenstache]

One thing I don’t think DJT has ever appreciated is that the various components of the government are beholden to the office of the president, not the individual who is president.  The military, for example, has been loathe to contradict him or earlier presidents because of the office.  As soon as that is gone there is no loyalty to the person. Particularly one who’s denigrated their top ranks, avoided service and used them as pawns. 

I imagine similar department feel the same way.

But the counternarrative is that the Deep State is disloyal to the President... *sigh*

[js82]

This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg

That is one of the most depressing pieces I have ever read.

It sure does seem like the US is irrevocably fucked.

We've always had these tendencies, of course. That hasn't changed.

What's changed is that we fell asleep at the wheel and managed to get a president who flung open the lid to Pandora's box.

While Trump may have flung open the lid, we've been the ones stuffing that box for the past several decades.

On some level, Trump is a symptom of several decades' worth of civic rot.  Until we as a nation own up to the fact that Trump is merely a symptom of deeper issues within our nation and make a concerted effort to address said issues, there will be others like him.

[bacchi]

It looks the Virginia House and Senate went to the Democrats.

If Democrats win both the Senate and the House of Delegates, this would be the first time Democrats have had full control of Virginia government since the early 1990s.

Trump's approval rating is -6 in Virginia so it's no surprise.

[OtherJen]

It looks the Virginia House and Senate went to the Democrats.

If Democrats win both the Senate and the House of Delegates, this would be the first time Democrats have had full control of Virginia government since the early 1990s.

Trump's approval rating is -6 in Virginia so it's no surprise.

And just a day after Trump urged support for the GOP candidates in Virginia.

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.

Democrats claim victory over Trump-backed Kentucky governor, seize Virginia legislature

If this keeps up, next year’s GOP congressional candidates will be begging Trump to shut up about their campaigns.

True to form, he made these elections all about himself:

In a speech in Lexington, Kentucky, on Monday night, Trump - who won Kentucky by 30 percentage points in 2016 - told voters that they needed to re-elect Bevin, or else pundits would say the president “suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world.”

[nereo]

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.

I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.

[talltexan]

Reliable Republican Suburban counties (Boone, Campbell, Kenton) in Northern Kentucky turned against Bevin. Those were the difference-makers.

Reliable Republican suburban counties around Philadelphia (Chester, Wilkes) were Democratic sweeps at the local level last night.

What could possibly be bugging people about the Republican party?

[OtherJen]

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.

I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.

Except at the presidential level because of the electoral college, as we saw in 2000 and 2016. Presidential elections are not one person, one vote.

[nereo]

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.

I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.

Except at the presidential level because of the electoral college, as we saw in 2000, 2004 and 2016. Presidential elections are not one person, one vote.

Yes they are, they are just winner take all in 48 states.  That doesn’t negate my point that intensity of your supporters means nothing if they aren’t also a plurality.

[talltexan]

I'm sure you didn't mean to include 2004 on that list. Bush won both popular vote and EC.

On election night, it probably felt as though everything came down to Ohio, but popular vote was there for Bush, too.

[OtherJen]

I'm sure you didn't mean to include 2004 on that list. Bush won both popular vote and EC.

On election night, it probably felt as though everything came down to Ohio, but popular vote was there for Bush, too.

Nope, you’re right. Thanks for catching that!

[OtherJen]

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.

I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.

Except at the presidential level because of the electoral college, as we saw in 2000, 2004 and 2016. Presidential elections are not one person, one vote.

Yes they are, they are just winner take all in 48 states.  That doesn’t negate my point that intensity of your supporters means nothing if they aren’t also a plurality.

I would argue that “winner-takes-all” negates “one person, one vote” because the former is not truly representative of the will of the electorate. For those 48 states, the outcome at the electoral college level would be the same whether the vote was 50.1% vs. 49.9% or 99% vs. 1%.

I also don’t understand why states can apply different electoral college rules for a federal election (seems like there should be a national standard), but that’s a different discussion.

[nereo]

More surprisingly, a Democrat may have unseated the incumbent GOP governor in Kentucky, only one day after Trump’s in-state rally where he urged support for the GOP governor.

I think this says something that's often lost - in the end the most loyal supporters get exactly one vote, same as everyone else.  Sure, DJT's got lots of people who, it seems, will never turn on him regardless of what he says or does (around 30% nationally).  But that extreme 'loyalty' can't offset a similar number of voters who either support someone else or simply strongly disapprove of him.

As a tv star, if you can get > 10MM viewers a night your show will be a success, even if 20MM hate it.  that approach doesn't work in politics where it's one person, one vote.

Except at the presidential level because of the electoral college, as we saw in 2000, 2004 and 2016. Presidential elections are not one person, one vote.

Yes they are, they are just winner take all in 48 states.  That doesn’t negate my point that intensity of your supporters means nothing if they aren’t also a plurality.

I would argue that “winner-takes-all” negates “one person, one vote” because the former is not truly representative of the will of the electorate. For those 48 states, the outcome at the electoral college level would be the same whether the vote was 50.1% vs. 49.9% or 99% vs. 1%.

We are discussing different matters in that case.  Yes, in 'winner-take-all' scenarios some states will skew heavily towards one candidate while others ('battle-ground states') may be deided by < 0.2% (e.g. Michigan).

My point was that the passion (or disgust) of any one voter within a state doesn't make that vote count more.  And a frequent narrative is how Trump is politically invincible because he's core supporters won't leave him no matter what he does.  The problem with that logic is passion doesn't matter when it comes to counting absolute votes.

[Kris]

This is not strictly related to Trump, but rather more broadly how he fits into the larger GOP project.

I'm listening to this podcast right now, recommended by a friend.

It discusses the extent to which even the respectable elements of the right are gearing up to give themselves permission to drop the entire facade of any of any commitment to small-l liberal small-d democracy entirely.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-rise-of-the-illiberal-right/id1462703434?i=1000444329258&fbclid=IwAR0nJqaxnLSrbfDr8GBY1dr01ZHS19SU0TUqrq9Ay_peyNrSUwpDz8z7688

Pretty relevant to today's latest news that Kentucky Republicans are trying to figure out how to basically just ignore the actual results of the governor's election they just lost, and name their guy the winner anyway.

[talltexan]

Conservatism is what conservatives are doing.

Protecting their access to power by pulling the levers of power--this includes limiting immigration, gerrymandering, and voter suppression, but also reliance on the undemocratic parts of our founding--is their solution to the supposed rise of minority power that many project over the next thirty years.