Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it. They have an answer planned for sure.
what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?
"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?
"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"
How about:
"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. I don't know about you, but something about that just seems off to me. Number 2: as far as what we are going to do, look folks, I don't think what is happening right now is a fair comparison verses what happened in 2016. Barrack had almost a full year left in his term. To not even allow his nominee the consideration was a slap in the face to our democracy. Now, four years later, we have less than 6 weeks to go, millions of ballots have already been cast. Here's the deal: I think it would be prudent for those folks' voices to be heard instead of ramming this thing through. Chuck Schumer has said all options are on the table. I'm not sure what the answer is at this point, but since folks have already started to vote and given how close we are to the election, I think we should let the American people CONTINUE to decide who gets to make this enormous decision."
You should email this to the Biden campaign. He could have easily won this question last night, but he didn't bring in the proper context. We all know this, but I'm sure a lot of people don't get it.
I thought Biden was shaky on the supreme court bit, and also missed a grand opportunity with the Pandemic topic. His administration left a literal 'playbook' to mitigate such a disaster and Trump couldnt be bothered with it.
Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it. They have an answer planned for sure.
what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?
"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?
"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"
How about:
"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people.
You lost me right there. Come on. We all know the system. Hillary knew the system. Gore knew the system. Neither was campaigning to win the popular vote.
Trump picking three justices is the consequence of a life-long politician failing to defeat a game-show host. It's too bad. He was full of shit during nearly the entire debate last night, but I agreed with that one point: He wasn't elected for three years. He's the president until Jan. 20, 2020 at like noon or whenever, so he absolutely should nominate someone for the Supreme Court. Are the republicans hypocrites for complaining about Obama's appointment with ten months to go, when Trump has only four months to go? Of course they are. Big time. And this is why they get ahead. They say "fuck you," we're doing what we want. I don't like the idea of Biden adding justices to "pack the court," but at least that would be the democrats saying "fuck you, we're doing what we want." Eye for an eye I guess.
No person could "debate" Trump because he doesn't debate. He has no desire to and never will. He enjoys spewing bullshit at his followers because they eat it up so he uses that same strategy during the debate since he knows it's to his advantage. While Biden may have talked around a few questions, which happens in every debate when a divisive topic is brought up, he did give straight answers on the majority of questions he was asked. Sort through all of the shouting, interruptions and personal attacks from Trump and you are left with no real answers on any question he was asked, which is why chaos is where he reigns.
Really the only instance of that I could remember is him not answering the question about "packing" the Supreme Court. And while I wanted an answer on that, it's hard to complain about him not answering that when Trump doesn't answer anything.
yes, that's a tough one to answer. I don't think court packing will play with swing voters, but the reality is that may end up happening.
I thought Biden was shaky on the supreme court bit, and also missed a grand opportunity with the Pandemic topic. His administration left a literal 'playbook' to mitigate such a disaster and Trump couldnt be bothered with it.
one of several opportunities missed by biden. but hey, hard to gather your thoughts with a screaming baby in your ear. i know.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,307
Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it. They have an answer planned for sure.
what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?
"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?
"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"
How about:
"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. I don't know about you, but something about that just seems off to me. Number 2: as far as what we are going to do, look folks, I don't think what is happening right now is a fair comparison verses what happened in 2016. Barrack had almost a full year left in his term. To not even allow his nominee the consideration was a slap in the face to our democracy. Now, four years later, we have less than 6 weeks to go, millions of ballots have already been cast. Here's the deal: I think it would be prudent for those folks' voices to be heard instead of ramming this thing through. Chuck Schumer has said all options are on the table. I'm not sure what the answer is at this point, but since folks have already started to vote and given how close we are to the election, I think we should let the American people CONTINUE to decide who gets to make this enormous decision."
You should email this to the Biden campaign. He could have easily won this question last night, but he didn't bring in the proper context. We all know this, but I'm sure a lot of people don't get it.
Under normal circumstances Biden missed a ton of opportunities like this. But when you're debating a fucking chimpanzee who never shuts up, I'm not sure how he could have even gotten a paragraph like this out of his mouth.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,307
Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it. They have an answer planned for sure.
what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?
"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?
"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"
How about:
"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people.
You lost me right there. Come on. We all know the system. Hillary knew the system. Gore knew the system. Neither was campaigning to win the popular vote.
Trump picking three justices is the consequence of a life-long politician failing to defeat a game-show host. It's too bad. He was full of shit during nearly the entire debate last night, but I agreed with that one point: He wasn't elected for three years. He's the president until Jan. 20, 2020 at like noon or whenever, so he absolutely should nominate someone for the Supreme Court. Are the republicans hypocrites for complaining about Obama's appointment with ten months to go, when Trump has only four months to go? Of course they are. Big time. And this is why they get ahead. They say "fuck you," we're doing what we want. I don't like the idea of Biden adding justices to "pack the court," but at least that would be the democrats saying "fuck you, we're doing what we want." Eye for an eye I guess.
Well perhaps Biden should not say that. That is more me talking about the need for a complete overhaul of the electoral college. Don't think Biden should get into that whole argument. But it definitely needs to happen. It's a large part of the reason why this country is so fucked (and this is coming from someone who voted for Bush twice).
For the record, I have no problem either with Trump nominating someone. If he wins, they can vote to confirm the next day. But yes, there is a huge difference between 6 weeks and 10 months, or whatever it was in '16. And the majority of the country agrees with that so it is a winning argument for Biden.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,307
Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it. They have an answer planned for sure.
what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?
"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?
"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"
How about:
"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people. I don't know about you, but something about that just seems off to me. Number 2: as far as what we are going to do, look folks, I don't think what is happening right now is a fair comparison verses what happened in 2016. Barrack had almost a full year left in his term. To not even allow his nominee the consideration was a slap in the face to our democracy. Now, four years later, we have less than 6 weeks to go, millions of ballots have already been cast. Here's the deal: I think it would be prudent for those folks' voices to be heard instead of ramming this thing through. Chuck Schumer has said all options are on the table. I'm not sure what the answer is at this point, but since folks have already started to vote and given how close we are to the election, I think we should let the American people CONTINUE to decide who gets to make this enormous decision."
Trump would have shouted over Biden 2112 times before he could get a statement like that out, as well written and thought out as it is.
Unfortunately trump proved there is an element in our culture that is open to aggressive and false attacks. It doesn’t have to be “that horrible lady.” Now it’s that “**.”
** too divisive to be posted on this forum.
I think he'd have a better opportunity to say something like this in a townhall debate though.
Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it. They have an answer planned for sure.
what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?
"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?
"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"
How about:
"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people.
You lost me right there. Come on. We all know the system. Hillary knew the system. Gore knew the system. Neither was campaigning to win the popular vote.
Trump picking three justices is the consequence of a life-long politician failing to defeat a game-show host. It's too bad. He was full of shit during nearly the entire debate last night, but I agreed with that one point: He wasn't elected for three years. He's the president until Jan. 20, 2020 at like noon or whenever, so he absolutely should nominate someone for the Supreme Court. Are the republicans hypocrites for complaining about Obama's appointment with ten months to go, when Trump has only four months to go? Of course they are. Big time. And this is why they get ahead. They say "fuck you," we're doing what we want. I don't like the idea of Biden adding justices to "pack the court," but at least that would be the democrats saying "fuck you, we're doing what we want." Eye for an eye I guess.
Well perhaps Biden should not say that. That is more me talking about the need for a complete overhaul of the electoral college. Don't think Biden should get into that whole argument. But it definitely needs to happen. It's a large part of the reason why this country is so fucked (and this is coming from someone who voted for Bush twice).
For the record, I have no problem either with Trump nominating someone. If he wins, they can vote to confirm the next day. But yes, there is a huge difference between 6 weeks and 10 months, or whatever it was in '16. And the majority of the country agrees with that so it is a winning argument for Biden.
Yeah it wouldn't hurt to argue that. I guess I tend to sometimes forget that the candidates aren't talking to ME specifically. Like when someone brings up the electoral college (like Hillary saying at the DNC that "Joe and Kamala can win 3 million more votes and still lose. Take it from me"), I'm like "Oh for fuck's sake." But someone else out there in TV land might be saying "right on!"
I've always felt a good system in lieu of a full-on popular vote would be allocating each state's electors based on the percentage of the state you win. Like, Trump won Pennsylvania by a percentage point or two in 2016, why should he get every elector for that? It'd give canidates a reason to campaign in non-swing states. Sure Hillary couldn't win Texas outright (Biden is still within the margin of error though I think), but maybe she could pick up a few counties and get some electors for it. Same with Trump in California. When Bush won in 2004, I joked, "I can't believe the leader of the country is chosen by people that willfully cheer for the Bengals and Browns." Give everyone a voice. Either by my proposal (that would never happen), or a popular vote.
Stacking the court will come up at the town hall or third debate though...bet on it. They have an answer planned for sure.
what possible answer won't turn off potential moderate republicans?
"we'll do what we have to do within the bounds of the constitution to make sure women's right to health care and their own bodies stays protected"?
"I have no plan to do that and have not discussed it"
How about:
"Look, folks, number 1: We live in a country where now 5 of the 9 justices on the supreme court have been decided by presidents who have not received the majority of support of the American people.
You lost me right there. Come on. We all know the system. Hillary knew the system. Gore knew the system. Neither was campaigning to win the popular vote.
Trump picking three justices is the consequence of a life-long politician failing to defeat a game-show host. It's too bad. He was full of shit during nearly the entire debate last night, but I agreed with that one point: He wasn't elected for three years. He's the president until Jan. 20, 2020 at like noon or whenever, so he absolutely should nominate someone for the Supreme Court. Are the republicans hypocrites for complaining about Obama's appointment with ten months to go, when Trump has only four months to go? Of course they are. Big time. And this is why they get ahead. They say "fuck you," we're doing what we want. I don't like the idea of Biden adding justices to "pack the court," but at least that would be the democrats saying "fuck you, we're doing what we want." Eye for an eye I guess.
Well perhaps Biden should not say that. That is more me talking about the need for a complete overhaul of the electoral college. Don't think Biden should get into that whole argument. But it definitely needs to happen. It's a large part of the reason why this country is so fucked (and this is coming from someone who voted for Bush twice).
For the record, I have no problem either with Trump nominating someone. If he wins, they can vote to confirm the next day. But yes, there is a huge difference between 6 weeks and 10 months, or whatever it was in '16. And the majority of the country agrees with that so it is a winning argument for Biden.
Yeah it wouldn't hurt to argue that. I guess I tend to sometimes forget that the candidates aren't talking to ME specifically. Like when someone brings up the electoral college (like Hillary saying at the DNC that "Joe and Kamala can win 3 million more votes and still lose. Take it from me"), I'm like "Oh for fuck's sake." But someone else out there in TV land might be saying "right on!"
I've always felt a good system in lieu of a full-on popular vote would be allocating each state's electors based on the percentage of the state you win. Like, Trump won Pennsylvania by a percentage point or two in 2016, why should he get every elector for that? It'd give canidates a reason to campaign in non-swing states. Sure Hillary couldn't win Texas outright (Biden is still within the margin of error though I think), but maybe she could pick up a few counties and get some electors for it. Same with Trump in California. When Bush won in 2004, I joked, "I can't believe the leader of the country is chosen by people that willfully cheer for the Bengals and Browns." Give everyone a voice. Either by my proposal (that would never happen), or a popular vote.
Bush and Trump still would've won under this but it would have been much closer. And you can't really go off of that since the whole landscape of the election would be altered as far as where they campaign.
Regarding Texas, yeah...instead of Trump getting all 38 electoral votes, it would've been 20-17. Conversely, California would've been an HRC win by 34-18 instead of 55-0. Montana would've been 2-1 instead 3-0. Every state would matter instead of a handful.
Hmmm Bryant street bridge? I really don’t remember all the street names in town as I was out in the sticks. Northern Michigan in summer is hard to beat
Not sure, just main drawbridge in downtown area. I thought the clouds were pretty, lol. Yeah, I’ve been all over the state this year and just floored by the beauty. I almost don’t want to tell anyone, keep it a secret, lol. The UP is amazing. I must of visited and hiked 15 of the most beautiful falls you have ever seen.
Northern Michigan is a bit of a secret, isn’t it? My dad had a cottage on Douglas Lake, just west of Cheboygan. It’s beautiful up there. If he was still alive I’d probably be there right around this time of year. I’ve got the memories of the sights, sounds, and smell of the air kept in my head, though.
Dude I grew up on Douglas lake road.....that’s crazy. My dad still takes care of a lot of cottages on the lake in the off season
That is crazy. My dad’s place (now my brothers) is on Bryant road, about ten cottages down from Douglas Lake Bar.
I'm really surprised that it indicates only a 10% chance that Biden wins the popular vote and loses the EC. Assuming we still have two parties, that's probably going to be the standard for a while.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
80% odds of winning right now. Highest at any point this year. 13% higher than a month ago.
I was reading one of his columns the other day.
He basically said that the odds go down/up as the election approaches because some of it is based on potential movement. For instance, Trump was 22% chance to win yesterday, but if the election was taking place yesterday, the probability of winning would be 9%. So the clock is ticking out and each day is lost opportunity and it gets tougher.
80% odds of winning right now. Highest at any point this year. 13% higher than a month ago.
I was reading one of his columns the other day.
He basically said that the odds go down/up as the election approaches because some of it is based on potential movement. For instance, Trump was 22% chance to win yesterday, but if the election was taking place yesterday, the probability of winning would be 9%. So the clock is ticking out and each day is lost opportunity and it gets tougher.
The clock is absolutely ticking. And Trump ain't winning any news cycles any day soon...
80% odds of winning right now. Highest at any point this year. 13% higher than a month ago.
I was reading one of his columns the other day.
He basically said that the odds go down/up as the election approaches because some of it is based on potential movement. For instance, Trump was 22% chance to win yesterday, but if the election was taking place yesterday, the probability of winning would be 9%. So the clock is ticking out and each day is lost opportunity and it gets tougher.
The clock is absolutely ticking. And Trump ain't winning any news cycles any day soon...
Thats right, as there is less and less time remaining and as people vote early, the odds get longer the lower polled candidate can come back.That was in the link I posted earlier. Biden I want to believe!
Winning the senate is also huge because the dems could make changes to structural laws such as adding House members to dilute the small states in the Electoral College and packing the Court.
I am interested if there are any better ideas, but when Rs win they change rules like filibuster and voter ID laws. Dems need to be on same page.
80% odds of winning right now. Highest at any point this year. 13% higher than a month ago.
I was reading one of his columns the other day.
He basically said that the odds go down/up as the election approaches because some of it is based on potential movement. For instance, Trump was 22% chance to win yesterday, but if the election was taking place yesterday, the probability of winning would be 9%. So the clock is ticking out and each day is lost opportunity and it gets tougher.
The clock is absolutely ticking. And Trump ain't winning any news cycles any day soon...
Thats right, as there is less and less time remaining and as people vote early, the odds get longer the lower polled candidate can come back.That was in the link I posted earlier. Biden I want to believe!
Winning the senate is also huge because the dems could make changes to structural laws such as adding House members to dilute the small states in the Electoral College and packing the Court.
I am interested if there are any better ideas, but when Rs win they change rules like filibuster and voter ID laws. Dems need to be on same page.
i would like some to educate me on why voter ID is a bad thing. I mean, i can't vote without my government issued ID here in canada. it only seems to make sense.
80% odds of winning right now. Highest at any point this year. 13% higher than a month ago.
I was reading one of his columns the other day.
He basically said that the odds go down/up as the election approaches because some of it is based on potential movement. For instance, Trump was 22% chance to win yesterday, but if the election was taking place yesterday, the probability of winning would be 9%. So the clock is ticking out and each day is lost opportunity and it gets tougher.
The clock is absolutely ticking. And Trump ain't winning any news cycles any day soon...
Thats right, as there is less and less time remaining and as people vote early, the odds get longer the lower polled candidate can come back.That was in the link I posted earlier. Biden I want to believe!
Winning the senate is also huge because the dems could make changes to structural laws such as adding House members to dilute the small states in the Electoral College and packing the Court.
I am interested if there are any better ideas, but when Rs win they change rules like filibuster and voter ID laws. Dems need to be on same page.
i would like some to educate me on why voter ID is a bad thing. I mean, i can't vote without my government issued ID here in canada. it only seems to make sense.
Tehre is no requirement to carry identification in this country. Therefore, anything that requires as such is considered a poll tax, which are illegal. Over the centuries, poll taxes (money, ID, reading comprehension), etc. were used to suppress the legal votes of minorities.
80% odds of winning right now. Highest at any point this year. 13% higher than a month ago.
I was reading one of his columns the other day.
He basically said that the odds go down/up as the election approaches because some of it is based on potential movement. For instance, Trump was 22% chance to win yesterday, but if the election was taking place yesterday, the probability of winning would be 9%. So the clock is ticking out and each day is lost opportunity and it gets tougher.
The clock is absolutely ticking. And Trump ain't winning any news cycles any day soon...
Thats right, as there is less and less time remaining and as people vote early, the odds get longer the lower polled candidate can come back.That was in the link I posted earlier. Biden I want to believe!
Winning the senate is also huge because the dems could make changes to structural laws such as adding House members to dilute the small states in the Electoral College and packing the Court.
I am interested if there are any better ideas, but when Rs win they change rules like filibuster and voter ID laws. Dems need to be on same page.
i would like some to educate me on why voter ID is a bad thing. I mean, i can't vote without my government issued ID here in canada. it only seems to make sense.
Tehre is no requirement to carry identification in this country. Therefore, anything that requires as such is considered a poll tax, which are illegal. Over the centuries, poll taxes (money, ID, reading comprehension), etc. were used to suppress the legal votes of minorities.
Add to that the cost of obtaining the ID for the poor. A lot of these states have limited locations where IDs can be obtained.
So the poor need to take hours or a day off from work which is a massive poll tax for the poor.
80% odds of winning right now. Highest at any point this year. 13% higher than a month ago.
I was reading one of his columns the other day.
He basically said that the odds go down/up as the election approaches because some of it is based on potential movement. For instance, Trump was 22% chance to win yesterday, but if the election was taking place yesterday, the probability of winning would be 9%. So the clock is ticking out and each day is lost opportunity and it gets tougher.
The clock is absolutely ticking. And Trump ain't winning any news cycles any day soon...
Thats right, as there is less and less time remaining and as people vote early, the odds get longer the lower polled candidate can come back.That was in the link I posted earlier. Biden I want to believe!
Winning the senate is also huge because the dems could make changes to structural laws such as adding House members to dilute the small states in the Electoral College and packing the Court.
I am interested if there are any better ideas, but when Rs win they change rules like filibuster and voter ID laws. Dems need to be on same page.
i would like some to educate me on why voter ID is a bad thing. I mean, i can't vote without my government issued ID here in canada. it only seems to make sense.
Tehre is no requirement to carry identification in this country. Therefore, anything that requires as such is considered a poll tax, which are illegal. Over the centuries, poll taxes (money, ID, reading comprehension), etc. were used to suppress the legal votes of minorities.
Add to that the cost of obtaining the ID for the poor. A lot of these states have limited locations where IDs can be obtained.
So the poor need to take hours or a day off from work which is a massive poll tax for the poor.
Or elderly people that haven't driven for years.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I predict a corona bump for trump once the first polls following his positive toward the positive begin coming in.
really? Is this one sarcasm?
I suppose he could be going for sympathy. That would really be a hail mary, but if not for the fact that they are probably going to steal this thing out in the open, that would be where they are.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Comments
Trump picking three justices is the consequence of a life-long politician failing to defeat a game-show host. It's too bad. He was full of shit during nearly the entire debate last night, but I agreed with that one point: He wasn't elected for three years. He's the president until Jan. 20, 2020 at like noon or whenever, so he absolutely should nominate someone for the Supreme Court. Are the republicans hypocrites for complaining about Obama's appointment with ten months to go, when Trump has only four months to go? Of course they are. Big time. And this is why they get ahead. They say "fuck you," we're doing what we want. I don't like the idea of Biden adding justices to "pack the court," but at least that would be the democrats saying "fuck you, we're doing what we want." Eye for an eye I guess.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
www.headstonesband.com
For the record, I have no problem either with Trump nominating someone. If he wins, they can vote to confirm the next day. But yes, there is a huge difference between 6 weeks and 10 months, or whatever it was in '16. And the majority of the country agrees with that so it is a winning argument for Biden.
I've always felt a good system in lieu of a full-on popular vote would be allocating each state's electors based on the percentage of the state you win. Like, Trump won Pennsylvania by a percentage point or two in 2016, why should he get every elector for that? It'd give canidates a reason to campaign in non-swing states. Sure Hillary couldn't win Texas outright (Biden is still within the margin of error though I think), but maybe she could pick up a few counties and get some electors for it. Same with Trump in California. When Bush won in 2004, I joked, "I can't believe the leader of the country is chosen by people that willfully cheer for the Bengals and Browns." Give everyone a voice. Either by my proposal (that would never happen), or a popular vote.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/
Bush and Trump still would've won under this but it would have been much closer. And you can't really go off of that since the whole landscape of the election would be altered as far as where they campaign.
Regarding Texas, yeah...instead of Trump getting all 38 electoral votes, it would've been 20-17. Conversely, California would've been an HRC win by 34-18 instead of 55-0. Montana would've been 2-1 instead 3-0. Every state would matter instead of a handful.
Would be much better this way.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-chances-are-dwindling-that-could-make-him-dangerous/
Weird and not-so-weird possibilities
The chances that these situations will crop up
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
He basically said that the odds go down/up as the election approaches because some of it is based on potential movement. For instance, Trump was 22% chance to win yesterday, but if the election was taking place yesterday, the probability of winning would be 9%. So the clock is ticking out and each day is lost opportunity and it gets tougher.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Winning the senate is also huge because the dems could make changes to structural laws such as adding House members to dilute the small states in the Electoral College and packing the Court.
I am interested if there are any better ideas, but when Rs win they change rules like filibuster and voter ID laws. Dems need to be on same page.
www.headstonesband.com
Add to that the cost of obtaining the ID for the poor. A lot of these states have limited locations where IDs can be obtained.
So the poor need to take hours or a day off from work which is a massive poll tax for the poor.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I suppose he could be going for sympathy. That would really be a hail mary, but if not for the fact that they are probably going to steal this thing out in the open, that would be where they are.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin