US Presidential Election 2020

hotmail.com

pixelburp wrote: »

Turnouts are low in no small part to gerrymandering and the various systemic attempts to suppress turnout. It's well noted and documented just how far the American system disenfranchises its populous. Not because party conferences are jazzy. Every party political conference is self congratulatory, that's practically their modus operandi.

That might explain some of the low turnout, in the same way that a Thursday voting day here may disadvantage some voters. But there's wider reasons behind the lack of interest.

My best guess is that voters don't really see any difference between the two parties and don't see much difference to their lives no matter who gets in. This is particularly true of the tens of millions of poor people living in America, who probably account for a lot of the non voters.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

That might explain some of the low turnout, in the same way that a Thursday voting day here may disadvantage some voters. But there's wider reasons behind the lack of interest.

My best guess is that voters don't really see any difference between the two parties and don't see much difference to their lives no matter who gets in. This is particularly true of the tens of millions of poor people living in America, who probably account for a lot of the non voters.

You're losing me now.

The difference between what you get with Trump and what you would get with Biden is night and day and to pretend otherwise is nonsense

Overheal

Voting participation is pretty typically in the 60% range for general elections, less for midterms.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html



Nothing unusual here. Except that the Census Bureau posts such potato-quality graphs.

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

You're losing me now.

The difference between what you get with Trump and what you would get with Biden is night and day and to pretend otherwise is nonsense

Even policies?

Turnout was 55% for 2016 according to Wikipedia. Even Trump on the ticket couldn't engender a larger turnout.

Water John

hotmail.com wrote: »

Even policies?

Turnout was 55% for 2016 according to Wikipedia. Even Trump on the ticket couldn't engender a larger turnout.

The key point was GOP and Trump were aiming to suppress the vote in 2016, as those that stay at home are usually Dems.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Even policies?

Turnout was 55% for 2016 according to Wikipedia. Even Trump on the ticket couldn't engender a larger turnout.

In 2016, a fair proportion of the electorate didn't turn out because they viewed the election as a done deal. Will be substantially different this time I suspect.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

The key point was GOP and Trump were aiming to suppress the vote in 2016, as those that stay at home are usually Dems.

It was a combination of voter suppression and let's be honest lots of people didn't come out and vote. Michelle Obama said it either in her speech this week or her Netflix documentary that she can understand people voting for trump in 2016 but she couldn't work out why people stayed home who would normally vote.

hotmail.com

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In 2016, a fair proportion of the electorate didn't turn out because they viewed the election as a done deal. Will be substantially different this time I suspect.

On the contrary, I suspect turnout will be lower. The choice isn't great for Americans.

Quin_Dub

hotmail.com wrote: »

On the contrary, I suspect turnout will be lower. The choice isn't great for Americans.

Not a chance - I am fairly confident that this will be at or near record turn-out levels..

There are very few people disinterested in this Election.

hotmail.com

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Not a chance - I am fairly confident that this will be at or near record turn-out levels..

There are very few people disinterested in this Election.

The same thing is said in every US Election and the turnout is always shockingly poor by Western standards.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

The same thing is said in every US Election and the turnout is always shockingly poor by Western standards.

Your posting history obviously runs contrary to the notion, but by all accounts this is a singular election by dint of the present incumbent being such a collosal misstep and dangerous experiment. A populist President now currently (again!) making talk about uncertainty if he'll accept the election result - while also actively trying to subvert the likely means by which many will cast their vote in November. There's only so far the apathetic "plus ca change" mantra you espouse can go before it starts sounding ludicrous. By most sober metrics this is an unprecedented election during an unprecedented year. If the turnout is low, off the back of this term, then it'll run counter to the prevailing zeitgeist. Read the Room hotmail, the country is boiling over.

hotmail.com

pixelburp wrote: »

Your posting history obviously runs contrary to the notion, but by all accounts this is a singular election by dint of the present incumbent being such a collosal misstep and dangerous experiment. A populist President now currently (again!) making talk about uncertainty if he'll accept the election result - while also actively trying to subvert the likely means by which many will cast their vote in November. There's only so far the apathetic "plus ca change" mantra you espouse can go before it starts sounding ludicrous. By most sober metrics this is an unprecedented election during an unprecedented year. If the turnout is low, off the back of this term, then it'll run counter to the prevailing zeitgeist. Read the Room hotmail, the country is boiling over.

Only 50 % voted in the Mid Term elections just a few months ago. This doesn't tally with a boiling nation. The same Armageddon stuff was said in 2004 with George Bush and he was re-elected on a low turnout. Barely half of the American electorate voted.

Despite the fuss, I suspect many in America don't take much of an interest in politics, just like in every country. It's worse in America if their dreadful turnouts are to be used as a metre.

Roanmore

hotmail.com wrote: »

Sorry yes I was unkind to the Tories, even they disapprove of the death penalty, unlike Harris.

Where did you get that idea, the Torres back the death penalty, the current Home Secretary being one of the biggest supporters

Igotadose

hotmail.com wrote: »

Sorry yes I was unkind to the Tories, even they disapprove of the death penalty, unlike Harris.

Harris is strongly against the Death Penalty and has been for some time.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/diaz/article/Harris-and-the-death-penalty-years-of-13693075.php


You can have alternate opinions, but not alternate facts.

Itssoeasy

So I see the progressive wing of the Democratic Party have the hump over AOC only getting 60 seconds. It won’t be the moderate wing of the dems that will get trump another four years it’ll be the progressive wing.

Tell me how

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I see the progressive wing of the Democratic Party have the hump over AOC only getting 60 seconds. It won’t be the moderate wing of the dems that will get trump another four years it’ll be the progressive wing.

It's quite the conundrum. If you could offer a truly progressive President and party in 4 years, they'd probably put up with 4 more years of Trump.

Hell, if it were possible guarantee that, so might I. But it isn't, so, you have to go with what you can.

It's the same conversation regarding the Greens who jumped ship after the programme for government was signed off. I want what they want, but I don't think it is a good idea to abandon all hope/input until you get the full deal.

Itssoeasy

Tell me how wrote: »

It's quite the conundrum. If you could offer a truly progressive President and party in 4 years, they'd probably put up with 4 more years of Trump.

Hell, if it were possible guarantee that, so might I. But it isn't, so, you have to go with what you can.

It's the same conversation regarding the Greens who jumped ship after the programme for government was signed off. I want what they want, but I don't think it is a good idea to abandon all hope/input until you get the full deal.

It's the purity test carry on again. I mean I have no issue with the positions they have and want to further but this election in the US isnt about having the perfect candidate it's about removing trump from office. I mean it might be a conundrum for some but surely it's an easy choice. Joe Biden is the choice.

I've quoted it before and I'll say it again because it's a great quote. Jim baker the Secretary of State under bush 41 said during the carry on after the 2000 election "do you want to be ideological pure, or do you want to win ?"

Quin_Dub

hotmail.com wrote: »

Only 50 % voted in the Mid Term elections just a few months ago. This doesn't tally with a boiling nation. The same Armageddon stuff was said in 2004 with George Bush and he was re-elected on a low turnout. Barely half of the American electorate voted.

Despite the fuss, I suspect many in America don't take much of an interest in politics, just like in every country. It's worse in America if their dreadful turnouts are to be used as a metre.

The mid-terms were almost 2 Years ago , November 2018 - That is not a few months!

And if a week is a long time in Politics then 2 Years is an eternity.

And the entire Globe has been utterly upended in the last 7 or 8 months.

These are the text-book definition of unprecedented times.

TomOnBoard

hotmail.com wrote: »

It's on observation on the state of American politics and society. These conventions are nothing short of grotesque rallies.

No wonder the turnout is low in American elections.

It seems to me that comments such as these demonstrate such a shallow understanding of US Presidential campaigns and elections as to be useful only as chaff is to a high value aircraft in a warzone...

Drop such comments, stand back and hope incoming fire focuses on the chaff.. Blatant attempts like these at deflection and confusion, and hoping they will reign supreme are pathetic...

TomOnBoard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In 2016, a fair proportion of the electorate didn't turn out because they viewed the election as a done deal. Will be substantially different this time I suspect.

I reckon there were many others who would normally be Dems, but couldn't stomach voting for Hillary so they abstained.

That dynamic will exist again this time around, among voters who would normally be Rep, and will abstain because their fingers are not strong enough to reeeeeally hold their nose to vote Trump...

everlast75

https://twitter.com/NewsPolitics/status/1296207958452436992?s=09

1) the FBI have called Qanon a domestic terrorist threat
2) Qanon is complete conspiracy batsh1t crazy nonsense
3) Trump is happy to look the other way on this because they support him

How can anyone say there's no difference between the candidates come November

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NewsPolitics/status/1296207958452436992?s=09

1) the FBI have called Qanon a domestic terrorist threat
2) Qanon is complete conspiracy batsh1t crazy nonsense
3) Trump is happy to look the other way on this because they support him

How can anyone say there's no difference between the candidates come November

Oh well. I guess we can expect his supporters here to become QAnon believers now too.

everlast75

mcmoustache wrote: »

Oh well. I guess we can expect his supporters here to become QAnon believers now too.

The evolution being

1) he doesn't even know who they are
2) of course trump doesn't agree with them
3) he was joking when he said he liked them
4) there's nothing wrong with agreeing with them. They're onto something

ELM327

everlast75 wrote: »

The evolution being

1) he doesn't even know who they are
2) of course trump doesn't agree with them
3) he was joking when he said he liked them
4) there's nothing wrong with agreeing with them. They're onto something

I had no idea who they were, so I had to look them up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon


As usual with these far right or far left groups, theres probably an ounce of truth and a pound of nonsense.

duploelabs

ELM327 wrote: »

I had no idea who they were, so I had to look them up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon


As usual with these far right or far left groups, theres probably an ounce of truth and a pound of nonsense.

I don't believe any far left group deemed as a terrorist threat by the FBI, but Qanon is

Timberrrrrrrr

mcmoustache wrote: »

Oh well. I guess we can expect his supporters here to become QAnon believers now too.

I suspect many already are, they just won't admit to it.

ELM327

duploelabs wrote: »

I don't believe any far left group deemed as a terrorist threat by the FBI, but Qanon is

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/279

Igotadose

ELM327 wrote: »

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/279

House and Senate resolutions are, of course, pure politics . As was stated, he was talking about the FBI's actions, which aren't directly determined by the Senate.

As the GOP have the majority in the Senate and Antifa is a popular GOP talking point, no surprise they drafted a resolution condemning it. The House and Senate get up to all kind of resolution passing, praising organizations and people, condeming them, etc. Just noise, what matters is the laws they pass and investigations they perform.

duploelabs

ELM327 wrote: »

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/279

Antifa aren't an organisation, who are their leaders? What is their structure?

That is a partisan Bill by the senate, not a designation by the FBI, unless I'm mistaken, I believe they're very different

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/279

They're still not deemed a domestic terror threat by the fbi...