SuprstitionAintthWay
SuprstitionAintthWay's JournalYes, Penn, Mich, and Wisc ARE the election next year.
44k, 22k, and 11k margin losses in 2016.
Unless we take back Florida, a somewhat longer shot, those 3 are the ballgame... we MUST win back all 3.
I love Elizabeth Warren -- I'm a moderate but there's nothing in her economic, tax, or even health care platforms that worries me. But if she continues to underperform in those 3 states, yes, I will definitely vote for Uncle Joe in my state's primary.
We bring out 78k voters in those 3 stares who stayed home in 2016 for whatever bad excuse they used. Or we flip 39k voters from Trump to Dem. Or some combination thereof.
Biden/Klobuchar or Biden/Buttigieg may be the best way to do that.
The electoral college is undemocratic and an abomination. It enabled America's first demagogic president to take office in direct violation of the expressed will of the American people. To me he is an electoralcolleged president. I reserve the honor of the word "elected" for presidents the American people, not 270 or more "electors," chose.
Too many average humans are susceptible to the poison, tho.
My brother-in-law heard Rush playing in his workplace every day for decades and had Fox "News" on every night at home as he raised my 2 nephews. Both boys are now young men. One is a guns and jacked-up pickup trucks enthusiast who hates all minorities. The other, tho a college grad, insists humans aren't causing climate change, particularly hates feminism, and gets all of his political opinions verbatim off Breitbart or even Infowars. Both, of course, along with their dad, are hardcore Trumpists.
I do what I can but it's paddling against.the tide.
Reelectoralcolleged.
is the term I use.
I speak of Harrison, Hayes, Bush II, and Trump as electoralcolleged presidents. Allows one to make an important distinction easily.
I reserve "elected" for presidents whose attainment of office reflected the expressed will of the American people on election day.
Thank you for your service.
I love it and am saving the hearing room's standing-O audience's good work on rightwing troll Gym's spirits, and your work preserving it.
I will remember to return to and enjoy it repeatedly in the future, whenever that obnoxious little testosterone case pisses me off again.
I'd read so much pro and con abt it I went in prepared to dislike it.
But I found it to be brilliant. And the gore factor I was expecting, thankfully to be restrained.
This story put a totally new spin on the whole Joker-Batman thing that I'm sort of impressed by. (No spoilers from me, tho.)
Loved the homage shot to Heath Ledger's Joker.
And this damn movie hit $1 billion box office, too. That's Chris Nolan and Avengers territory.
I do hate it that Trump likes something I like. But I gotta be realistic. Cuz, what, I now gotta hate Miss Ukraine-Universe? Sorry, no.
America's 4 ELECTORALCOLLEGED PRESIDENTS have been Hayes, Harrison, GWBush, & Trump
And our one president statedelegated into office by the House of Representatives was John Quincy Adams.
The popular vote wasn't even recorded until 1824. Ironically, the candidate eventually chosen to be president lost it that very year. I initially listed J.Q.Adams as being the first electoralcolleged president with the below (source: Wikipedia)
John Quincy Adams - 1824.
Lost the vote by 39,000 to Andrew Jackson.
Only 18 states even held votes of their citizens. In 6 other states the legislatures decided. Jackson got more EC votes than Adams as well, but not a majority. After considerable political maneuvering the House chose Adams, awarding him 13 out of 25 state delegations. Jackson regarded the outcome as so corrupt that he quit the Senate, and he and his supporters created the "modern" Democratic Party, out of/inspired by Jefferson and Madison's Democratic-Republican Party.
But JQAdams wasn't electoralcolleged president: Jackson got more EC electors' votes than Adams did. So I edited him off what was an initial list of five. John Quincy Adams was his own unique thing: he was statedelegated into the White House by the House of Representatives.
AMERICA'S FOUR ELECTORALCOLLEGED PRESIDENTS
1. Rutherford B. Hayes, 1876.
Lost the vote by 254,000 to Samuel Tilden.
2. Benjamin Harrison, 1888.
Lost the vote by 91,000 to Grover Cleveland.
3. George W. Bush, 2000.
Lost the vote by 544,000 to Al Gore.
4. Donald J. Trump, 2016.
Lost the vote by 2,869,000 to Hillary Clinton.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote
There is concern among some analysts that in 2020 Trump could lose the vote by more than 5,000,000 and still get the 269 EC votes he needs to stay in power. He doesn't even need 270. A 269-269 tie goes to the House, but the vote there is not 1 representative, 1 vote. It's 1 state, 1 vote. Republicans, while a minority in the House, control more state delegations there -- an echo of the problem with the EC itself.
Meet a new verb: To be ELECTORALCOLLEGED. And adjective: Electoralcolleged presidents.
The war against the Electoral College has been and is going to continue to be long and very difficult. We're at a massive disadvantage. We shoud take, or create, any edge we can get.
It would serve our long-term interests to choose to start differentiating wherever possible between presidents who win both the Electoral College and the public's vote, and those who attain office by winning 270 or more Electoral College electors' votes but lose the American public's vote.
I do this, by speaking of the latter as electoralcolleged presidents.
I CHOOSE to not speak or write of them as "elected" but as something a little more descriptive.
Yes, legal scolds and didacts, I know that a grossly undemocratic and destructive section of the Constitution means that merely being electoralcolleged president, under law, constitutes being elected president.
Again, this is a choice. I choose to verbify a noun into what is to me a more descriptive and useful way to refer to certain men's ascendancy into the presidency.
Words matter. Nouns get drafted into acting as verbs and adjectives all the time. New words, conjoingings, and new uses for old words get started and take root weekly, it seems. To my ears the nation is long overdue for starting to regularly make this important distinction. We've just needed an easy way. This can be it.
If the asshats on the other side can choose to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party," I can choose to refer to Bush II and their abomination presently desecrating the Oval Office as having been electoralcolleged into it.
Extra special bonus that comes with using this word!!! :
Think how it will enrage Trump if he starts hearing (or, less likely, since he doesn't: reads) himself being referred to as "electoralcolleged" where previously "elected" is what he'd heard. And hears discussion about the odds of "re-electoralcolleging" him, where he'd previously heard "re-electing."
Putin's Special Agent Orange, our infantile Flamethrower-In-Chief, will go apeshit if electoralcolleged becomes common parlance for Americans' (Democrats' first, of course) differentiation between presidents' avenues into office. I'd want to see this term catch on if only for the fun of that alone.
In a reply above I wrote McConnell overtly violated & defied the SPIRIT & INTENT of the Constitution
I stand by that.
There were in fact a few lawyers counseling at the time that Obama
...should consider declaring that by choosing not to vote the Senate had abdicated on that responsibility, and in doing so effectively consented to his nominee. And then ordered his nominee to proceed to the Supreme Court bench and take his seat there.
Audacious, yes. Would it hold up to court challenge? You're right, probably not. And as a constititional lawyer Obama knew that.
But, how much more outrageous would that argument have been, really, than what McConnell was doing?
And, as we've seen, when we let the Republican crooks get away with things, that line they've crossed becomes their new standard... the point they start from for their next offense against American democracy. Thus their talk later in 2016 of refusing to consider all SCOTUS nominees made by Hillary for a full four years.
If we discover we are in fact now already in permanent McConnellism regarding filling SCOTUS seats, down the road Obama may, in retrospect, wish he had at least attempted that, answering their outrageous offense with a countering offense of his own.
I'm not so sure. I think Turtleman is hell bent on a 6-3 advantage in justices
...being his legacy.
If not something even more lopsided than 6-3.
Of course if RBG dies anytime during Trump's term, rest assured they'll drop McConnell's made-up "principles" of 2016 and rapidly fill her seat to get that 6-3 advantage. If she dies even just 3 days before the inauguration of a Democratic president in January 2021 I think Trump [edit: or whatever Repub is president] will name his nominee that same hour and Grassley and McConnell will put the Senate to work around the clock to confirm a replacement before noon on inauguration day, tossing out any procedural rules that might keep them from that goal.
Under the happier assumption that RBG is still with us in February 2021 under a new Democratic president, if McConnell is still Majority Leader, my great concern, stated in this theory, is he will still "Garland" her seat, sequestering it for 4 years, if she tries to retire. Any other seat that becomes vacant, too. And the only way we'll ever get another liberal onto SCOTUS is by holding both the presidency and the Senate at the same time.
McConnell and other Republicans are deathly serious about padding their advantage on SCOTUS. And with the youngest and most rightwing justices possible, of course.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleCurrent location: East Coast
Member since: Mon Oct 1, 2018, 11:21 PM
Number of posts: 386