US Presidential Election 2020

[Brad Sallows]

>Interesting. Assuming if / when the vote for 2020 is counted, the majority of Americans have voted against the Republicans in seven of the last eight presidential elections.

Based on those numbers and that way of framing them, a majority of Americans also voted against Clinton, both times.

Any more games with irrelevant statistics?

 

[mariomike]

Popular Vote for US Presidents from WWI

43.01 Bill Clinton
49.23 Bill Clinton

Based on those numbers and that way of framing them, a majority of Americans also voted against Clinton, both times.

Whatever.

1992:
Democrat: 44,909,889 
Republican: 39,104,550

1996:
Democrat: 47,401,185 
Republican: 39,197,469

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

No one cares...

 

[mariomike]

No one cares...

Whatever ...

 

[Haggis]

No one cares...

Trump cares.  He cares a lot.  He's got more care than Care Bears.

I care only in that the same type of political posturing is going on here, on a lesser scale.  But I expect to see very similar campaign strategies and styles in play when we next go to the polls.

 

[Remius]

Trump cares.  He cares a lot.  He's got more care than Care Bears.

I care only in that the same type of political posturing is going on here, on a lesser scale.  But I expect to see very similar campaign strategies and styles in play when we next go to the polls.

Now imagine a more presidential candidate but using Trump policies. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I consider union members to be middle-class. Neither rich or poor. 

Joe Biden has the support of labor unions,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements_from_organizations#Labor_unions

( Including one that I am familiar with: The International Association of Fire Fighters and Paramedics ).

Union leadership and union members might have different ideas, a lot of union members are gun owners and won't support Biden based on his calls to make all AR's and mags NFA weapons.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Whatever.

1992:
Democrat: 44,909,889 
Republican: 39,104,550

1996:
Democrat: 47,401,185 
Republican: 39,197,469

Trump cares.  He cares a lot.  He's got more care than Care Bears.

I care only in that the same type of political posturing is going on here, on a lesser scale.  But I expect to see very similar campaign strategies and styles in play when we next go to the polls.

My response was to useless historic Reb/Dem numbers in a 2020 thread.  Its pretty obvious Mr Trump cares....in fact this silliness is going to carry on for years.  The one thing I wanted from this election was a decisive win by one side.

 

[Kirkhill]

For the record.

I'm not saying anything beyond observing that the USA has been divided half and half, plus or minus 10 PC for a very long time.  Except for the 30 to 40 PC that can't be bothered.

And to paraphrase, they're still here.

People have been expressing uncertainty since Franklin's "...Republic.  If you can keep it."

 

[mariomike]

Union leadership and union members might have different ideas,

Vote for union leaders who embrace your ideas. If no one does, members can run for election themselves.

, a lot of union members are gun owners and won't support Biden based on his calls to make all AR's and mags NFA weapons.

Someone's pet chew toy might be gun politics. For someone else, maybe abortion, or the death penalty, or immigration, or save the whales. Who knows?

I don't know if you are a member of a union. But, this is the endorsement philosophy of the International Association of Firefighters and Paramedics,

The IAFF makes its political endorsement decisions based on the core issues of concern to this union – our members’ health and safety, economic well-being, retirement security, right to collectively bargain and other aspects pertaining to their job as professional fire fighters and paramedics.

We stand with the candidate who has a record of standing with us and whose policy decisions stand to benefit our members when it comes to those issues.

Whether or not our members use the IAFF’s basket of issues to guide their voting is up to them. We never tell our members how to vote, but because our job is to protect fire fighter and paramedic interests and because politicians make virtually all the decisions that affect your job, we support the candidate who stands with us on our issues.

It’s our role and responsibility to make our recommendation based on where the candidates stand on IAFF issues, labor issues and issues important to the financial well-being of our members and their families.

My response was to useless historic Reb/Dem numbers in a 2020 thread. 

My response was to this,

Popular Vote for US Presidents from WWI

41.84 Woodrow Wilson
49.24 Woodrow Wilson
60.32 Warren Harding
54.04 Calvin Coolidge
58.21 Herbert Hoover

And even further back,

George Washington gained 100% of the vote running unopposed.
James Monroe won his third term with 80.61% in 1820
Thomas Jefferson won his second term with 72.79% in 1804
Andrew Jackson won as a Democrat with votes of 55.93% and 54.74% in 1828 and 1832
Abraham Lincoln won as a Republican with votes of 39.65% and 55.03% in 1860 and 1864

For the record.

Right.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why is the US stable?

Is it possible that it is because there have always been three parties?  One that forms the government.  One (or more) that is in opposition.  One that is Neutral - It doesn't partake in the battle for control.

Typically it seems that, since 1788, the Governing Party has won the presidency with 30% of the electorate (29.92 for Mr. Spock).  The opposition has routinely drawn support from 27.5% of the electorate.  Meanwhile 42.5% of the electorate have been content to sit out the debate and let the partisans fight it out among themselves. 

In 1860 the Neutral Party was 18.2% of the electorate.  Between 1840 and 1900 they only constituted 22% of the electorate.

Arguably the US is not in trouble when the Partisans are in the street.  It is in trouble when the Neutral Party shrinks.

In 2016 40% if the electorate joined the Neutral Party and sat out the election.  27.75% supported the winning candidate.  32.45% supported the losing candidate.

The buffer preventing the break down of the US is the 40% of the electorate that just are not that bothered. 

Data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

The Canadian Neutral Party is typically has averaged about 30% of the electorate since 1867 making them the largest party.  The winning party does well to achieve 40% of the vote. 40% of 70% is 28%.  The Neutrals win.  The Partisans fight it out for second place.

The Neutral Party had been getting larger, heading for 40% from the historical average of 30% but that trend has reversed in the last two elections. 

https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html

For a large portion of the Canadian and US electorates "It Just Doesn't Matter".  And that is a good thing.  Problems arise with the trend towards increased voter turnout.

 

[mariomike]

Typically it seems that, since 1788, the Governing Party has won the presidency with 30% of the electorate (29.92 for Mr. Spock).  The opposition has routinely drawn support from 27.5% of the electorate.  Meanwhile 42.5% of the electorate have been content to sit out the debate and let the partisans fight it out among themselves. 

In 1860 the Neutral Party was 18.2% of the electorate.  Between 1840 and 1900 they only constituted 22% of the electorate.

Arguably the US is not in trouble when the Partisans are in the street.  It is in trouble when the Neutral Party shrinks.

In 2016 40% if the electorate joined the Neutral Party and sat out the election.  27.75% supported the winning candidate.  32.45% supported the losing candidate.

The buffer preventing the break down of the US is the 40% of the electorate that just are not that bothered. 

Data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

The Canadian Neutral Party is typically has averaged about 30% of the electorate since 1867 making them the largest party.  The winning party does well to achieve 40% of the vote. 40% of 70% is 28%.  The Neutrals win.  The Partisans fight it out for second place.

The Neutral Party had been getting larger, heading for 40% from the historical average of 30% but that trend has reversed in the last two elections. 

https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html

For a large portion of the Canadian and US electorates "It Just Doesn't Matter".  And that is a good thing.  Problems arise with the trend towards increased voter turnout.

Very educational. Thank you.

 

[brihard]

Biden has pulled ahead in Pennsylvania, and with what’s still outstanding there, there’s no path to victory left for Trump. The first reputable calls are starting to be made now for a Biden win.

Thank frig. While we have a couple months of tantrums, drama, and meltdowns to endure yet, in the end sanity and decency prevail.

 

[Remius]

Biden has pulled ahead in Pennsylvania, and with what’s still outstanding there, there’s no path to victory left for Trump. The first reputable calls are starting to be made now for a Biden win.

Thank frig. While we have a couple months of tantrums, drama, and meltdowns to endure yet, in the end sanity and decency prevail.

I second that.  While I’m not convinced a Biden admin is any better for Canada, at least we will be dealing with something more predictable and stable. 

 

[Infanteer]

On a purely karma perspective, and in light of all the bluster, bullying, and callousness displayed by the President of the United States over the last four years, I'm finding this death by a thousand cuts, taking place over days like a water drip trap, to be a fitting reward.

 

[brihard]

On a purely karma perspective, and in light of all the bluster, bullying, and callousness displayed by the President of the United States over the last four years, I'm finding this death by a thousand cuts, taking place over days like a water drip trap, to be a fitting reward.

He put a lot of time and energy into personally denigrating Biden, to the point of explicitly talking about how embarrassing it would be to lose to such a terrible candidate. I'll admit to enough schadenfreude that I hope this rankles Trump a bit.

 

[Journeyman]

While we have a couple months of tantrums, drama, and meltdowns to endure yet....

If not worse.  I recommend Psychotherapist Elizabeth Mika (@yourauntemma on Twitter ) for some insights into his psyche.  :not-again:

 

[QV]

I second that.  While I’m not convinced a Biden admin is any better for Canada, at least we will be dealing with something more predictable and stable.

Neither am I. What will be interesting to see is whether a Biden administration keeps Trump's economic and foreign policies going, or not. Those things were working, so if they change course dramatically on those areas what will be the implications?

So, when will Harris be POTUS?
 

 

[Good2Golf]

Neither am I. What will be interesting to see is whether a Biden administration keeps Trump's economic and foreign policies going, or not. Those things were working, so if they change course dramatically on those areas what will be the implications?

So, when will Harris be POTUS?

Not as soon as Pence.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>While we have a couple months of tantrums, drama, and meltdowns to endure yet

I don't think the Democrats are going to get over their unexpected shortfall in the Senate and House that quickly.