Will Donald Trump Be The Next President?

[Coldery]

19 hours ago, indefatigable said:

Honestly - I'm not sure if this is productive.  I've left these responses, hope it helps clarify my position.  I won't be able to respond to this post any further.  

 

Quote

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan were all Union states and went democratic.  I'd expect in 150 years things to change a little - the fact that Ohio, Indiana and Kansas went Republican doesn't change the Union/Confederate like divide.

There are obvious similarities but to what will you attribute it? 150 years does not change developmental advantages due to geography. Northeastern states were most closely positioned to the UK and France. They were (and still are) several steps ahead of the rest of the flyover states. Union: Capital-intensive, Confederate: Labour-intensive. The Big Apple and large skyscrapers serve as a testament.

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan were all Union states and went Republican in 2016 (with large margins). I do not know anyone who would believe that a vote margin of 5,000 votes is enough to define whether the legacy of racism still exists in those states.

If Alaska, ND, SD, and Idaho voted Republican, would it imply a continued legacy of slavery in those state? If you read about it, it will turn out that there was little to no slavery in those states. For Alaska, you'll have to check for Gulags first. They weren't a part of America for at least another century after slavery was abolished.

 

Quote

This doesn't make any sense - you're saying the same thing as me.  Trump didn't win the popular vote, but he won the presidency because of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE system.  Bush Jr was the last republican president (or otherwise) to WIN the popular vote. 

Yes but what is your point. There is little point in mentioning the truism of Bush Jr being the last republican president to win the popular vote as he was the republican directly preceding Trump.

The statement has a strong implication of Republicans never being able to win the popular vote, only being able to win with the electoral college. With Trump, evidently so.

However, with Republicans at large? You are going to have to use more than a single Trump election to prove that. All of this to say that it was just a poor statement. It would've made much more sense if you had said of the last 3 elections they won, Republicans won the popular vote in only 1 of them.

[Bambi]

Trump does not want to be branded as a loser. He does not recognize Biden as President-Elect, notwithstanding congratulations arriving to his doorstep from world leaders. The Secretary of State claims there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump term. The GSA refuses to recognize Biden as President-Elect, thereby denying normal governmental access for the transition and denying millions for the transition. 

The Administration is living in an alternate reality as it thwarts the ability for a smooth transition. Senator Mitch McConnell won't recognize Biden as winner. There is not a thread of evidence of fraud. Trump and the Republican Party are acting as disrupters and not in the best interests of US. 

Insanity reigns! 

[indefatigable]

It's not surprising at all - Trump's been signalling for months what his reaction would be - fraud, etc..  It pleases his base and helps him cling to on to threads of power, especially within the GOP.

He'll do anything to put his opponent at a disadvantage and himself at an advantage - the best interests of the US are at most secondary to Trump.  

[indefatigable]

On 11/9/2020 at 4:20 PM, Coldery said:

 

There are obvious similarities but to what will you attribute it? 150 years does not change developmental advantages due to geography. Northeastern states were most closely positioned to the UK and France. They were (and still are) several steps ahead of the rest of the flyover states. Union: Capital-intensive, Confederate: Labour-intensive. The Big Apple and large skyscrapers serve as a testament.

If you haven't spent a lot of time in the US, then its sometimes hard to understand how race conscience the country can be, especially in the South.  The South was colonized with Black slave labour which the North (Union) had rejected.  The disagreement over slavery led to the Civil War where the Union (anti-Slavery states) was led by Lincoln.  

 It wasn't until the civil rights act, in the 1960s, 100 years AFTER the civil war that segregation laws were struck down by the Democrats under LBJ.   That cost the Democratic party a lot of Southern votes.  People's attitudes don't change overnight just because laws do.  

Charlottesville shows the lingering tension of an uncomfortable legacy - statues of Generals that defended the right of the Southern States to have slaves promoted by the KKK and militias notably.  

Whether or not you agree with them, the Black Lives Matter protests are driven by race .  Race in the South is a much bigger issue, because of the history.

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan were all Union states and went Republican in 2016 (with large margins). I do not know anyone who would believe that a vote margin of 5,000 votes is enough to define whether the legacy of racism still exists in those states.

Trump's messaging on race relations is a lot clearer after four years in power.  The 2016 elections were some of the closest elections in history especially those "swing states".

If Alaska, ND, SD, and Idaho voted Republican, would it imply a continued legacy of slavery in those state? If you read about it, it will turn out that there was little to no slavery in those states. For Alaska, you'll have to check for Gulags first. They weren't a part of America for at least another century after slavery was abolished.

These states are tangential to the main argument but are much "whiter" and rural than many other states.  

Yes but what is your point. There is little point in mentioning the truism of Bush Jr being the last republican president to win the popular vote as he was the republican directly preceding Trump.

The statement has a strong implication of Republicans never being able to win the popular vote, only being able to win with the electoral college. With Trump, evidently so.

I'll repeat and rephrase my point.  The US presidential election is only partly democratic because of the electoral College.  The way it stands now is that the Democrats need to win the popular vote by large margins to win the presidency, because of the non-uniformity of the vote distribution across states.

 The Republicans on the other hand can lose the popular vote (like Bush Jr in 2000 and Trump in 2016) and still win the presidency - this goes against the original notion of democracy, which is "rule of the majority".  

However, with Republicans at large? You are going to have to use more than a single Trump election to prove that. All of this to say that it was just a poor statement. It would've made much more sense if you had said of the last 3 elections they won, Republicans won the popular vote in only 1 of them.

US politics and history is complex.  

I've tried to give a brief summary, but honestly I'd suggest checking out something like Whose Vote Counts? on Netflix.  I don't think I'll have time to revisit this again.

Edit: this article expresses a similar point of view

 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/26/democracy-rigged-trump-biden