Democrat boat sinking?
09-05-2020, 06:52 AM
#51
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Side
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by sconnyhunter
Thankfully our founders were significantly smarter than you. They knew that people like you would exists and devised a plan and method to subvert your ill intentions. They came up with the Electoral college. Whereby the states hold a popular election for President, to elect people to vote for that states choice.
A national popular vote would have eliminated that benefit. As the region’s political leaders recognized, passage of a constitutional amendment instituting a national popular vote would have spawned strong legal and political pressures to enfranchise African-Americans. Even if those pressures could be resisted, an Alabama campaign pamphlet noted in 1914, “with the ***** half of our people not voting, our voice in the national elections, which is now based upon total population, would then be based solely on our voting population and, therefore reduced by half.” The political consequences of a national popular vote could simply not be countenanced.
By the 1940s, many Southerners also came to believe that their disproportionate weight in presidential elections, thanks to the Electoral College, was a critical bulwark against mounting Northern pressures to enlarge the civil and political rights of African-Americans. In 1947 Charles Collins’s “Whither Solid South?,” an influential states’ rights and segregationist treatise, implored Southerners to repel “any attempt to do away with the College because it alone can enable the Southern States to preserve their rights within the Union.” The book, which became must reading among the Dixiecrats who bolted from the Democratic Party in 1948, was highly praised and freely distributed by (among others) the Mississippi segregationist James Eastland, who served in the Senate from 1943 until 1978."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/o...supremacy.html
There were many reasons the electoral college was put in place and there are many reasons it remains there. It is not about democracy or fairness, though.
Last edited by Beau Ouiville; 09-05-2020 at 06:56 AM.
09-05-2020, 07:51 AM
#52
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,846
Why are you people engaging this ...Deleted by CalHunter... in dialogue? So he can spread his anti american poison to yet more people?
We are IN the opening phase of all out communist revolt. We need to shut down these left wing mouthpieces, who sow marxist dissent and who are tearing this country apart.
Beauville whatever his name is, is a communist agitator. ...Deleted by CalHunter...
We are IN the opening phase of all out communist revolt. We need to shut down these left wing mouthpieces, who sow marxist dissent and who are tearing this country apart.
Beauville whatever his name is, is a communist agitator. ...Deleted by CalHunter...
Last edited by CalHunter; 09-07-2020 at 12:53 PM. Reason: Rule # 2.
09-05-2020, 07:52 AM
#53
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,846
Originally Posted by Beau Ouiville
My! Next ask: "Are you still beating your wife"?
I thought that HUAC and McCarthyism had gone out in the fifties.
I thought that HUAC and McCarthyism had gone out in the fifties.
How long have you been a ...Deleted by CalHunter...?
Last edited by CalHunter; 09-07-2020 at 12:54 PM. Reason: Rule # 2--Warning.
09-05-2020, 11:01 AM
#54
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 14,243
Originally Posted by Valorius
Why are you people engaging this communist in dialogue? So he can spread his anti american poison to yet more people?
We are IN the opening phase of all out communist revolt. We need to shut down these left wing mouthpieces, who sow marxist dissent and who are tearing this country apart.
Beauville whatever his name is, is a communist agitator. He should be banned immediately.
We are IN the opening phase of all out communist revolt. We need to shut down these left wing mouthpieces, who sow marxist dissent and who are tearing this country apart.
Beauville whatever his name is, is a communist agitator. He should be banned immediately.
I Agree wholeheartedly!
09-05-2020, 05:38 PM
#55
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wherever liberalism must be eradicated.
Posts: 2,734
Originally Posted by Beau Ouiville
"What is far less known, or recognized, is that long after the abolition of slavery, Southern political leaders continued to resist any attempts to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. (They sometimes supported other reforms, like the proportional division of each state’s electoral votes, but those are different strands of a multifaceted tale.) The reasoning behind this opposition was straightforward, if disturbing. After Reconstruction, the white “Redeemer” governments that came to power in Southern states became the political beneficiaries of what amounted to a “five-fifths” clause: African-Americans counted fully toward representation (and thus electoral votes), but they were again disenfranchised — despite the formal protections outlined in the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, which stated that the right to vote could not be denied “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” White Southerners consequently derived an even greater benefit from the Electoral College than they had before the Civil War.
A national popular vote would have eliminated that benefit. As the region’s political leaders recognized, passage of a constitutional amendment instituting a national popular vote would have spawned strong legal and political pressures to enfranchise African-Americans. Even if those pressures could be resisted, an Alabama campaign pamphlet noted in 1914, “with the ***** half of our people not voting, our voice in the national elections, which is now based upon total population, would then be based solely on our voting population and, therefore reduced by half.” The political consequences of a national popular vote could simply not be countenanced.
By the 1940s, many Southerners also came to believe that their disproportionate weight in presidential elections, thanks to the Electoral College, was a critical bulwark against mounting Northern pressures to enlarge the civil and political rights of African-Americans. In 1947 Charles Collins’s “Whither Solid South?,” an influential states’ rights and segregationist treatise, implored Southerners to repel “any attempt to do away with the College because it alone can enable the Southern States to preserve their rights within the Union.” The book, which became must reading among the Dixiecrats who bolted from the Democratic Party in 1948, was highly praised and freely distributed by (among others) the Mississippi segregationist James Eastland, who served in the Senate from 1943 until 1978."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/o...supremacy.html
There were many reasons the electoral college was put in place and there are many reasons it remains there. It is not about democracy or fairness, though.
A national popular vote would have eliminated that benefit. As the region’s political leaders recognized, passage of a constitutional amendment instituting a national popular vote would have spawned strong legal and political pressures to enfranchise African-Americans. Even if those pressures could be resisted, an Alabama campaign pamphlet noted in 1914, “with the ***** half of our people not voting, our voice in the national elections, which is now based upon total population, would then be based solely on our voting population and, therefore reduced by half.” The political consequences of a national popular vote could simply not be countenanced.
By the 1940s, many Southerners also came to believe that their disproportionate weight in presidential elections, thanks to the Electoral College, was a critical bulwark against mounting Northern pressures to enlarge the civil and political rights of African-Americans. In 1947 Charles Collins’s “Whither Solid South?,” an influential states’ rights and segregationist treatise, implored Southerners to repel “any attempt to do away with the College because it alone can enable the Southern States to preserve their rights within the Union.” The book, which became must reading among the Dixiecrats who bolted from the Democratic Party in 1948, was highly praised and freely distributed by (among others) the Mississippi segregationist James Eastland, who served in the Senate from 1943 until 1978."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/o...supremacy.html
There were many reasons the electoral college was put in place and there are many reasons it remains there. It is not about democracy or fairness, though.
Get used to it. Its all you have to look forward to.
09-07-2020, 07:58 AM
#56
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,669
Originally Posted by hubby11
I disagree with your claim that there is some kind of obvious "deliberately, knowingly, disingenuously" slant in polls to help the Leftist cause. There are potentially dozens of reasons for polls to collectively get it wrong, one of which you noted above, namely that Trump supporters were likely to be less than forthcoming when surveyed.
The job of polling is incredibly difficult - getting a sample of 1000 people to represent a statewide trend - and obviously subjective. Certainly bias plays a part, but that does not mean it was deliberate to reach a desired outcome. 2016 had it wrong, and something in the interpretation of data resulted in the close states' polling almost all breaking to Trump. But there is nothing to support that it was some leftist conspiracy.
The job of polling is incredibly difficult - getting a sample of 1000 people to represent a statewide trend - and obviously subjective. Certainly bias plays a part, but that does not mean it was deliberate to reach a desired outcome. 2016 had it wrong, and something in the interpretation of data resulted in the close states' polling almost all breaking to Trump. But there is nothing to support that it was some leftist conspiracy.
09-07-2020, 08:13 AM
#57
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,669
Originally Posted by Beau Ouiville
"What is far less known, or recognized, is that long after the abolition of slavery, Southern political leaders continued to resist any attempts to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. (They sometimes supported other reforms, like the proportional division of each state’s electoral votes, but those are different strands of a multifaceted tale.) The reasoning behind this opposition was straightforward, if disturbing. After Reconstruction, the white “Redeemer” governments that came to power in Southern states became the political beneficiaries of what amounted to a “five-fifths” clause: African-Americans counted fully toward representation (and thus electoral votes), but they were again disenfranchised — despite the formal protections outlined in the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, which stated that the right to vote could not be denied “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” White Southerners consequently derived an even greater benefit from the Electoral College than they had before the Civil War.
A national popular vote would have eliminated that benefit. As the region’s political leaders recognized, passage of a constitutional amendment instituting a national popular vote would have spawned strong legal and political pressures to enfranchise African-Americans. Even if those pressures could be resisted, an Alabama campaign pamphlet noted in 1914, “with the ***** half of our people not voting, our voice in the national elections, which is now based upon total population, would then be based solely on our voting population and, therefore reduced by half.” The political consequences of a national popular vote could simply not be countenanced.
By the 1940s, many Southerners also came to believe that their disproportionate weight in presidential elections, thanks to the Electoral College, was a critical bulwark against mounting Northern pressures to enlarge the civil and political rights of African-Americans. In 1947 Charles Collins’s “Whither Solid South?,” an influential states’ rights and segregationist treatise, implored Southerners to repel “any attempt to do away with the College because it alone can enable the Southern States to preserve their rights within the Union.” The book, which became must reading among the Dixiecrats who bolted from the Democratic Party in 1948, was highly praised and freely distributed by (among others) the Mississippi segregationist James Eastland, who served in the Senate from 1943 until 1978."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/o...supremacy.html
There were many reasons the electoral college was put in place and there are many reasons it remains there. It is not about democracy or fairness, though.
A national popular vote would have eliminated that benefit. As the region’s political leaders recognized, passage of a constitutional amendment instituting a national popular vote would have spawned strong legal and political pressures to enfranchise African-Americans. Even if those pressures could be resisted, an Alabama campaign pamphlet noted in 1914, “with the ***** half of our people not voting, our voice in the national elections, which is now based upon total population, would then be based solely on our voting population and, therefore reduced by half.” The political consequences of a national popular vote could simply not be countenanced.
By the 1940s, many Southerners also came to believe that their disproportionate weight in presidential elections, thanks to the Electoral College, was a critical bulwark against mounting Northern pressures to enlarge the civil and political rights of African-Americans. In 1947 Charles Collins’s “Whither Solid South?,” an influential states’ rights and segregationist treatise, implored Southerners to repel “any attempt to do away with the College because it alone can enable the Southern States to preserve their rights within the Union.” The book, which became must reading among the Dixiecrats who bolted from the Democratic Party in 1948, was highly praised and freely distributed by (among others) the Mississippi segregationist James Eastland, who served in the Senate from 1943 until 1978."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/o...supremacy.html
There were many reasons the electoral college was put in place and there are many reasons it remains there. It is not about democracy or fairness, though.
Granted, it was an imperfect start for a country. "All men are created equal" should mean all men which should have included any and all slaves regardless of their color or origin. Slavery existed in most of the world at that time but America had a chance to do something even more radical than what happened. And they didn't. That lapse in judgment has been rectified but one would never know that if they only read your posts.
Put your bellyaching about the EC in context with the above information. The EC isn't protecting any slave states or slavery. But it does protect smaller states and rural people from being completely disenfranchised by the large population centers. Which is what the EC was designed to do. You and many other people call for a complete shift to one side or the other of the political spectrum. Our country was designed to achieve just the opposite. Opposing sides or political parties are forced to compromise for the good of all. And the and result is somewhere in the center. Perhaps middle left or middle right (it does shift a bit back and forth) but the result is supposed to be something that is livable and acceptable for everyone.
09-07-2020, 11:56 AM
#59
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,330
. . . and why do leftists deliberately cant polls to the apparent advantage of their puppets? Because they fear that their voting base won't show up to vote if they calculate that their left-wing candidate is going to lose. In this election Democrats fear RIGHTLY that Joe is going to lose, so they especially need to cant the polls to get their pathetic voters to the voting booth.
Speaking for myself, I'm going to go vote if I have to hike miles through a snow storm, even if I know my candidate or ballot initiative is doomed. It's called the franchise, the freedom to vote. I'm going to be there no matter what. I don't understand why Democrat or left-wing voters are not just as zealous in exercising their right to vote . . .but that is what I observe, less committment to vote.
Speaking for myself, I'm going to go vote if I have to hike miles through a snow storm, even if I know my candidate or ballot initiative is doomed. It's called the franchise, the freedom to vote. I'm going to be there no matter what. I don't understand why Democrat or left-wing voters are not just as zealous in exercising their right to vote . . .but that is what I observe, less committment to vote.
09-07-2020, 12:08 PM
#60
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,155
I understand why they deliberately over-sample their polls, some of which could even be push polls. In general, people who think their side is losing are less likely to go vote and further depress voter turnout. In a close election, this can be critical. Polls are in some ways like the media and can help increase Dem voter turnout. It's not without risk though and can sometimes be a double edged sword politically. Sometimes people are over confident (like in 2016) and draw inaccurate conclusions based on biased polls. Like Hillary thinking the rust belt was in the tank for her in 2016.
In this election year, the Dems have campaigned hard left (usually you campaign in the center then govern to the left) and are losing some of their center voters. The Dems have also made some strategic blunders on the economy, unemployment, support for law enforcement (not just the police) and all of the rioting and protesting. Normally the Republicans would try to paint Dems with all of these mistakes but for this past year or so, the Dems took the political gun away from the Republicans and have been repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot politically. For this election, it's not just 2 sides arguing over what each other said. Now it's about what each side has done or not done. Usually politics flow nationally down to local but this year, they seem to be flowing uphill from local to national.
In this election year, the Dems have campaigned hard left (usually you campaign in the center then govern to the left) and are losing some of their center voters. The Dems have also made some strategic blunders on the economy, unemployment, support for law enforcement (not just the police) and all of the rioting and protesting. Normally the Republicans would try to paint Dems with all of these mistakes but for this past year or so, the Dems took the political gun away from the Republicans and have been repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot politically. For this election, it's not just 2 sides arguing over what each other said. Now it's about what each side has done or not done. Usually politics flow nationally down to local but this year, they seem to be flowing uphill from local to national.
