2020 US General Election Thread VIII: Cs, Ds, and Es

[Major-Tom]

How are they going to do that when it’s nearly impossible to win?

Don't be shit and actually fucking try to win in more red areas?

That's dumb and you know it. This isn't a game of color in the dots, it's a race for who represents the states based off voter will within that state.

If party A wins 55% of the vote, and party B wins 44% of the vote, but party B wins 2/3 of the seats, what does it say about the way the seats were drawn? It's almost like they were drawn specifically to give Party B plenty of winnable seats within a 50-60% range and Party A a handful of concentrated seats where their most serious support is.

Don't be shit and try to win in more red areas? If you're going to come up with an excuse, you can do better than just being knowingly disingenuous, I know you're much better than that.

[Major-Tom]

To win the state assembly in Wisconsin, Democrats would have to win the popular vote by twenty points. That’s not going to happen. They could maybe get the state senate but it’s a big if.

Your just being pedantic they can win the assembly by way less than that if they actually tried to win in rural and suburban districts.

I know it's fun to hate on Lumen for being pedantic, which we shouldn't do, but you are making some seriously pedantic, willingly obtuse arguments here. He's actually spot-on here.

[Dresderstan]

Don't be shit and actually fucking try to win in more red areas?

That's dumb and you know it. This isn't a game of color in the dots, it's a race for who represents the states based off voter will within that state.

If party A wins 55% of the vote, and party B wins 44% of the vote, but party B wins 2/3 of the seats, what does it say about the way the seats were drawn? It's almost like they were drawn specifically to give Party B plenty of winnable seats within a 50-60% range and Party A a handful of concentrated seats where their most serious support is.

Don't be shit and try to win in more red areas? If you're going to come up with an excuse, you can do better than just being knowingly disingenuous, I know you're much better than that.

If it were the other way round would you have a problem with it?

[San Lumen]

That's dumb and you know it. This isn't a game of color in the dots, it's a race for who represents the states based off voter will within that state.

If party A wins 55% of the vote, and party B wins 44% of the vote, but party B wins 2/3 of the seats, what does it say about the way the seats were drawn? It's almost like they were drawn specifically to give Party B plenty of winnable seats within a 50-60% range and Party A a handful of concentrated seats where their most serious support is.

Don't be shit and try to win in more red areas? If you're going to come up with an excuse, you can do better than just being knowingly disingenuous, I know you're much better than that.

If it were the other way round would you have a problem with it?

Yes I would.

Based on the 2018 result in Wisconsin the tipping point district was District 29, which the Republicans won by a margin of 12.12%, therefore Democrats would have needed to win the statewide popular vote by a margin of 20.36% to win a majority of seats.

[Major-Tom]

That's dumb and you know it. This isn't a game of color in the dots, it's a race for who represents the states based off voter will within that state.

If party A wins 55% of the vote, and party B wins 44% of the vote, but party B wins 2/3 of the seats, what does it say about the way the seats were drawn? It's almost like they were drawn specifically to give Party B plenty of winnable seats within a 50-60% range and Party A a handful of concentrated seats where their most serious support is.

Don't be shit and try to win in more red areas? If you're going to come up with an excuse, you can do better than just being knowingly disingenuous, I know you're much better than that.

If it were the other way round would you have a problem with it?

I do as a matter of fact, particularly as it relates to Democratic-led gerrymandering in Maryland or Illinois, because I'm not a blind ideologue who tells people "well, fuck you, I got mine."

But while those instances of gerrymandering are certainly condemnable and corrupt, they pale in comparison to what happened in the State Legislatures of Wisconsin, Michigan, and other Midwestern states.

[Dresderstan]

If it were the other way round would you have a problem with it?

Yes I would.

Based on the 2018 result in Wisconsin the tipping point district was District 29, which the Republicans won by a margin of 12.12%, therefore Democrats would have needed to win the statewide popular vote by a margin of 20.36% to win a majority of seats.

X to doubt

That's just plainly wrong your taking one fucking district and thinking of a randomly high number the Dems need to reach.

[San Lumen]

If it were the other way round would you have a problem with it?

I do as a matter of fact, particularly as it relates to Democratic-led gerrymandering in Maryland or Illinois, because I'm not a blind ideologue who tells people "well, fuck you, I got mine."

But while those instances of gerrymandering are certainly condemnable and corrupt, they pale in comparison to what happened in the State Legislatures of Wisconsin, Michigan, and other Midwestern states.

At least in Maryland and Illinois, Republicans don’t get a majority of votes and a minority of seats. Gerrymandering is wrong no matter which side does it.

[San Lumen]

Yes I would.

Based on the 2018 result in Wisconsin the tipping point district was District 29, which the Republicans won by a margin of 12.12%, therefore Democrats would have needed to win the statewide popular vote by a margin of 20.36% to win a majority of seats.

X to doubt

That's just plainly wrong your taking one fucking district and thinking of a randomly high number the Dems need to reach.

You clearly don’t understand statistics but then again you can’t grasp population density either.

[Dresderstan]

X to doubt

That's just plainly wrong your taking one fucking district and thinking of a randomly high number the Dems need to reach.

You clearly don’t understand statistics.

You mentioned one district's result and attributed a result you think would be needed for the Dems to win based off one district.

[San Lumen]

You clearly don’t understand statistics.

You mentioned one district's result and attributed a result you think would be needed for the Dems to win based off one district.

No I didn’t. It’s called statistics and math. I took that from the Wikipedia article on the 2018 election.

[Major-Tom]

Yes I would.

Based on the 2018 result in Wisconsin the tipping point district was District 29, which the Republicans won by a margin of 12.12%, therefore Democrats would have needed to win the statewide popular vote by a margin of 20.36% to win a majority of seats.

X to doubt

That's just plainly wrong your taking one fucking district and thinking of a randomly high number the Dems need to reach.

He's not wrong. I think mentioning the tipping point, while useful, sort of muddles the overall premise Lumen is trying to make. Here is a graphic, which displays the case, the Dems' disadvantage comes from being drawn into only the Democratic-leaning areas of the state, nowhere else, and that margin mentioned isn't BS. They won the popular vote by over 8pp, a substantial margin, but only a third of the seats. To overcome that, they have to run up an electoral landslide nearing 60, not 52%, of the overall vote to have a shot at a majority.

If you want to say that it's okay, you're welcome to, just don't act like there's a valid rationale for your reasoning behind it "I like it because it cleverly helps the GOP win the house/senate of the state no matter who dominates in overall voting." In other words, electoral democracy is made for convenience, not for everyone.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A full invasion? Nothing.

Constantly expanding proxy conflicts and low level insurgencies? A lot. An awful lot.

Still does not mean the US needs to spend more than the next 10 nations combined, nor does the EU rely on the US for defence.

I'm not saying the US government isn't getting good value for money. But the strategy of trying to stay technologically ahead of everyone else, in every aspect, is a very expensive one.

A lot of that know-how will be stolen by spies, sooner or later, meaning five or ten years hence the other major arms nations will be at your level (in design if not manufacture, and frankly design matters more) so you can't afford to stop. You have to build on past expertise before it becomes some other country's expertise.

If I were President with a Congress that licks my boots, and I wanted to maximize the technological lead of the US, I would stockpile most of the Navy ... not including Marines of course ... and put it all into Cyber. Cut research and development of new equipment even, because that's just a hole to pour money into if you can't secure the results of it. You have to keep some armed forces still, to maintain military traditions and expertise, but not continually upgrading their equipment might save a bit too.

I'm trying to make room in the budget for Cyber AND SPACE. The US is in with the pack on launch numbers and that could be made into a clear lead with the private enterprise options which began recently, but the gear actually in orbit is assumed to favor the US only because it has for years. It's hard to tell what a big metal barrel actually does though. The only way to be sure is to do what the US does best: massively outspend Russia, China, Europe and India. If that means the US has to cut the Army or Air Force as well as Navy, so be it. Going into a major power conflict after they've established control of Space over the battlefield, would be like fighting on open ground when the enemy has control of the air.

So I'd go for lots of Space, but only after establishing a clear lead in Cyber. It's the only way to secure the secrets of any other R&D. You can't just lock everything down and wait for hackers to come poking around, like security of civilian assets does. You need to know the name and address of every capable hacker in the world, hack them and record their every move ... you might get some bonus intelligence if they successfully hack one of your other opponents ... and if they get anywhere near hacking your facilities, drop a bomb on them from space. Well if that's diplomatically acceptable.

After all though, I'm not in favor of this strategy. Particularly since it moves the 'theatre' of the world arms race: it might end up increasing the US military budget quite substantially. No, I'm an Open Source fanatic. Let military research be shared between all major nations or federations, so there isn't so much doubt (causing fear) about who knows the thing you know, who might know something more, or what first-strike advantage they may have. Instead of one nation having to spend so heavily while the others freeload off their R&D, there would be a more collaborative approach. A major nation that hasn't 'chipped in' recently would be warned that if they're not going to be team players, they won't be CC'd the chemical formula to make Euro Combat Diapers for instance.

How would that be a good thing? Wouldn't one or more members go back to old style secrecy and start building secret weapons? Well they might yes, but it wouldn't be in their interests. They could build on the alliance knowledge they had already, but to advance beyond it they would have to outspend all the others combined. There remains the possibility that two or three nations (out of 5) could 'secede' to form their own research alliance, which would a viable competitor or even superior in research capability. Given the stakes are another Cold War with vastly better weapons, maybe a veto for each member, on any member leaving, or forming a similar alliance elsewhere ... and the penalty for doing so to be the same as sharing alliance technology with a non-member. Declaration of war by all the others. Hmm, it's getting a bit authoritarian. This isn't going where I thought it would.

So you crazy hobo, how is the technology alliance a good thing? Well the only thing all members share in common is that each has an interest in protecting its homeland from invasion, bombing, WMD's and terrorists. It doesn't have so much interest in offensive weapons ("offense is better than defense" is a battlefield doctrine, not a strategic one), particularly not if having them requires that 4 other major powers have versions of the same thing. Technologies useful for offense would still be developed of course, but there would be a bias towards precision over mass killing, because of the common interest of members in suppressing insurgencies and terrorism, also beating up smaller nations nations that are annoying them. Since the plan involves smaller nations having weak militaries (50 years behind technologically) it doesn't make much difference whether new offensive weapons are weak but sufficient, or massive overkill capable of destroying the planet. Given that nukes can't technically destroy the planet, but they are currently more than enough for strategic deterrence, I don't see that any of the alliance members have an national incentive to develop such a nightmare weapon.

Overall, defenses against attack would be favored (with advantages in non-violent policing, and battlefield capture), while offensive weapons would not be actively pursued, allowing major power peace without superpower tension. Isn't this better than great powers, driven by fear of the unknown, driven by fear of another nation doing it first, actively seeking first-strike capability with the most powerful weapons they can obtain?


Why live in fear of the day it is discovered that Swiss scientists have created a black hole? Speculation seethes about whether the Hole was stolen by terrorists, or fell into the Earth, or just got lost in the lab somewhere ... and the President solemnly announces "we must not allow a Black Hole gap ... I have ordered American military, civil engineering and scientific personnel in an effort greater than the Apollo project, to begin work immediately on one of those huge whizzy-around things, big thing, lots of power, but bigger, to harness for America the awesome electric power of Black Hole ... weapons."

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You mentioned one district's result and attributed a result you think would be needed for the Dems to win based off one district.

No I didn’t. It’s called statistics and math. I took that from the Wikipedia article on the 2018 election.

So you're saying 62.12% for Democrats to win? I think that's all you need.

Mentioning the swing required implies that Dems were robbed for the ~8% as well ... that's a bit misleading when you know Reps won the popular vote.

The graphic says it better IMO. Apart from a few all-red districts (I guess no D ran) it's a perfect illustration of gerrymander. Lots of lean-red districts, almost no lean-blue districts, with most blue voters packed into districts they can't lose (and half of their votes are wasted).

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Since people always want to hear about the Presidency, I'll say something about how gerrymander affects that too.

In a lean-red or lean-blue district, voters have more incentive to go to the polls, because it's theoretically possible their vote will make the difference between red winning or blue winning (for the House).

In a deep-red or deep-blue district however, voters don't have that incentive. They know who will win, and they know their individual vote won't help or harm their House candidate. There's still the signal power of the vote, but it's not germane.

So when a voter is tossing up whether to go vote or not, the main factor on their mind is probably how they will vote for President. I say that, because there's a noticeable difference in turnout between Presidential elections and Midterm elections. But interest in the outcome of all down-ticket races adds up to actually more than that (since Midterms still get quite good turnout ... at least compared to NO turnout which would be expected if no voter cared about the down-ticket).

So having their district gerrymandered to be all their party's voters (gerrymandered-against), or all the other party's voters (gerrymandered-for), gives them less incentive to vote at all, thus a higher likelihood they will pass on that election. And not vote for President.

Intuitively, what district a voter is in should not affect their vote for President. Which State, yes of course. Voters in swing states (for Presidency) have more incentive to vote, than those in deep-red or deep-blue states. The latter two types of voters will bump the national popular vote up by one, but it's almost certain who will "win" their state in the Presidential race, taking all its Electors regardless of whether they voted or not. But considering the factors that drive turnout, gerrymandering hurts the Presidential candidate whose party was gerrymandered against.

[Nuroblav]

Many things agreed on

Like authoritarian government are bad, guns are good, Democrats and Republicans both suck, etc.

Yeah that was the kind of line I was thinking along.

[Corrian]

He earned every penny and secondly blame the Supreme Court and the citizens united decision.

Tbqh everything over a hundred thousand should be taxed at 100%.

I don't blame the Court. It was, objectively, the right call. The problem stems from the first amendment itself.

I didn't expect you to suggest taxing people at 100% if they make over a hundred thousand, even I'm not that extreme!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Tbqh everything over a hundred thousand should be taxed at 100%.

I don't blame the Court. It was, objectively, the right call. The problem stems from the first amendment itself.

I didn't expect you to suggest taxing people at 100% if they make over a hundred thousand, even I'm not that extreme!

Nor me, frankly.

I posted a number I forget the context of*, about $400,000. It's either average Household wealth, or average Individual wealth, for American adults. I can't see why the Maximum Wealth limit would be set far below that, it would leave some wealth currently in individual people's portfolio with no owner.

Oh. Wait. Does WRA want to nationalize half or three quarters of citizen wealth?



Two guns of their choice, for every adult not incarcerated? That's all you want WRA, Socialism for free guns? We have a deal!




*This is why I failed senior Modern History in school, btw. Plenty of dates, some to the day. Plenty of "broad sweep". Utter failure to get the numbers and the narrative into the same lobe at the same time!

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yes I would.

X to doubt

God forbid people actually have principles they stand by even if violating them benefits their cause. What's the world coming to when we aren't all corrupt, self-serving assholes?

[Corrian]

I'm still trying to figure out how Oregon is a blue state and not a swing state. Sure has alot of Trumpsters for a "blue state."

They literally have militia trying to play police in fire ravaged areas. Its insane. Our country is so fucked up right now.

[Aureumterra]

I'm still trying to figure out how Oregon is a blue state and not a swing state. Sure has alot of Trumpsters for a "blue state."

They literally have militia trying to play police in fire ravaged areas.

Based

[Vassenor]

They literally have militia trying to play police in fire ravaged areas.

Based

Remember, threatening people for no reason is based.

[Loben III]

Based

Remember, threatening people for no reason is based.

Are they threatening people?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Remember, threatening people for no reason is based.

Are they threatening people?

Stopping people on the road who are trying to flee wildfires is dumb, and frankly they're gonna get their asses run over if they keep doing that shit.

[Loben III]

Are they threatening people?

Stopping people on the road who are trying to flee wildfires is dumb, and frankly they're gonna get their asses run over if they keep doing that shit.

Oh I’m sure the subjects of Oregon were terrified of concerned citizens setting up checkpoints in their area.

[San Lumen]

No I didn’t. It’s called statistics and math. I took that from the Wikipedia article on the 2018 election.

So you're saying 62.12% for Democrats to win? I think that's all you need.

Mentioning the swing required implies that Dems were robbed for the ~8% as well ... that's a bit misleading when you know Reps won the popular vote.

The graphic says it better IMO. Apart from a few all-red districts (I guess no D ran) it's a perfect illustration of gerrymander. Lots of lean-red districts, almost no lean-blue districts, with most blue voters packed into districts they can't lose (and half of their votes are wasted).

Hence why the Wisconsin legislature isn’t changing hands anytime soon. Plus the composition of the Supreme Court is unlikely to change before redistricting.