Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, YF. BTW, I thought about the discussion of popular vote-electoral college last night and came to the conclusion that it really wouldn't change campaigns that much. The Democrat would spend more time in California and New York and the Republican would visit Texas for a change, but that's it. They'd still campaign and spend lots of money in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. because those aren't just swing states, they're big states with lots of voters.

 

As LTL points out, Republicans would spend time in NY, IL, and CA.

Not one person I voted for won, or had a chance to run. Some candidates ran unopposed.

There was no real reason for me to show up, except to register my vote.

How many rep in Blue states felt the same way, and stayed home? (The opposite is true to a degree for Dems in Red states, but because they are clustered in cities, they usually elect democrats for mayor and/or congress and for their state legislatures, so they do have an incentive to show up. A dem in Austin Texas will vote for some winning candidates.)

It's very possible that Republicans would pull millions of extra votes out of just these three states.

Where would Dems make up the difference?

 

So this Jew walks into a bar..........

 

The Southwest?

It would also probably moderate both parties' rhetoric.

 

BTW, can I assume that all you who want to abolish the Electoral College also want to abolish the Senate? It's much more anti-Democratic.

You think Montana has outsized influence in the EC vs. California? What about in the Senate where it has equal influence?

And, of course we can just change the Constitution to have the House of Representatives confirm Supreme Court Justices in the absence of the Senate.

To impeach and remove a President could also be done by a simple majority in the House, right?

 

For the record, I don't know if I want to abolish it or not. There is a possibility both candidates would hardly leave New York, Texas, and California.

 

In almost every red state, the Dems are clustered in urban areas -- often including the state capital. They elect Dems in local races and to the House. Even if they don't elect a Senator or President, they have an incentive to show up.

There are far more Republicans living in Blue urban areas than there are Dems living in sparsely populated rural areas.

 

Except for Obama coming and fucking up traffic for westside and Beverly Hills mega-fundraisers, candidates spend practically zero time in california.

Obama spent more time on Jimmy Kimmel than Hills and Trump did stumping with the common folk

 

Please tell me why this is any more realistic than Second Amendment lovers screaming that Obama and Clinton were going to take away their guns. Was that hysteria? Or are only "other" people's fears hysteria, while yours are completely legitimate?

 

I was about to point this out.

Both parties do come to NY, CA and TX, but only to fundraise.

The efficiency of fundraising and campaigning in largely populated states means they would never set foot in Iowa.

Money in politics would also be far more important. National advertising would be much more important -- and expensive.

 

Yes, I don't know if there are enough pearls available to accomodate all the clutching.

Just to quickly point out: When JFK was elected, a faction of this country was of the opinion that the United States was going down the tubes because of it. Trump is no JFK, but I'm still going to hope that some of his strengths negate some of his flaws.

 

How many online petitions have the resident slacktivists signed since Tuesday night?