Can Trump win re-election if he stopped hateful speeches or Tweets?
Wouldn’t he be able to win simply by letting everyone know his greatest accomplishments?
26-30, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
I think Trump’s performance in rallies or the debate stage is going to be much less important than the positions of the eventual Democratic nominee. Trump has a hardcore base of support, and that support isn’t going anywhere. His limitation is that he isn’t going to woo anymore people than he already has on his side. The outcome is going to depend on who turns out and where. If the Democrats nominate someone who supports decriminalizing border crossings and/or completely obliterating private health insurance, they’ll alienate enough moderates and centrists in those key midwestern states that Trump will win the electoral college again even if he loses the popular vote again. However, if the eventual Democratic nominee avoids going to the extreme left and can be a reasonable safe harbor for moderates, they can have Trump boxed in and could win. The ballgame is going to come down to whether Democrats keep their eyes on the prize and unify behind a more moderate candidate or whether they lurch and stay to the left and strand centrists by going a bridge too far.
SW-User
Of anyone in the field that seems to have a shot, it could be Harris. However, she needs to quickly pick a lane on healthcare, and it needs to be closer to Biden’s than Bernie’s. Then, she needs to lean into her background in law enforcement and not follow the groupthink on that side that seems to view her background in strictly negative terms. She could easily make the case that her office was protecting victims. Plus, she might even be able to make the case that she’s uniquely qualified to mediate issues between law enforcement and communities. I also see her as potentially the most formidable opponent Trump could face on the debate stage. If I were laying my chips on the table right now, I’d be betting on her, but only if she’s allowed to maintain a lane closer to the middle and still get the nomination. Like everyone else in the running, I think it’s still going to come down to where she lands on healthcare and whether she supports decriminalizing border crossings. Only time will tell. @MartinII
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@SW-User One day I’ll understand the electoral college and its purpose in our modern society.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
MartinII · 70-79, M
@SimplyTracie And, unpleasant though it seems, he is probably right.
SW-User
It makes perfect sense when you think about us as a collection of states that comprise a country piece by piece. It’s in place as a circuit breaker of sorts to avoid having less densely populated states completely overrun by the large ones. It exists for the same reason the U.S. Senate exists as a coequal house of Congress. Even though I don’t always like the outcome, I think the electoral college is consistent with the way the country is structured and the way the legislative branch is configured. @SimplyTracie
Ynotisay · M
@SW-User I tend to agree as every vile thing he says whips up the fearful Right/White so it's nothing but a tool for him.
What I'D like to see are some candidates running out there and speaking the truth to the 'real americans.' Ask them how THEIR lives are better. Ask them if THEIR well being is less important than serving corporate profits. How THEIR lives are better with dirtier water and air? And if it's more important to them to hate, discriminate and shit on the Constitution, then their vote isn't welcome. Someone needs to start calling out his 'base," whatever the hell means, as what they are.
What I'D like to see are some candidates running out there and speaking the truth to the 'real americans.' Ask them how THEIR lives are better. Ask them if THEIR well being is less important than serving corporate profits. How THEIR lives are better with dirtier water and air? And if it's more important to them to hate, discriminate and shit on the Constitution, then their vote isn't welcome. Someone needs to start calling out his 'base," whatever the hell means, as what they are.
Ynotisay · M
@SW-User Your argument has merit, and is what's kept the electoral college alive despite 200 years of trying to get rid of it. But I think it's antiquated and doesn't serve a purpose. What the electoral college was meant to do, (created at a time before electricity) was to provide a "voice" for those who didn't live in major cities. This was particularly important for slave owners in the South.
We're beyond that today. Technology has seen to that. It gives way too much power to 'swing' states and, clearly, doesn't represent the "will of the people." We elect one President to serve the entire nation. We have Congress to represent and serve the states. And I'm not saying that because two Democrats have recently won the popular but lost the election. I'd say the same if it were the other way around. One vote, irrespective of location, is long overdue IMO.
We're beyond that today. Technology has seen to that. It gives way too much power to 'swing' states and, clearly, doesn't represent the "will of the people." We elect one President to serve the entire nation. We have Congress to represent and serve the states. And I'm not saying that because two Democrats have recently won the popular but lost the election. I'd say the same if it were the other way around. One vote, irrespective of location, is long overdue IMO.
SW-User
Now I’m about to argue against my own argument, but if you can’t disagree with yourself, who can you disagree with? 🤦🏻♂️
The best argument against retaining the electoral college is the change in how we fill the U.S. Senate today compared to when the electoral college was established. Until 1913, U.S. Senators were not voted on by the public but were selected by state legislatures. The actual electors in the electoral college who represented the Senate were there to represent the state government and not the individual voters directly. The voting public was directly represented by the elector from its congressional district. Once the cord was cut that tethered the U.S. Senate from each state’s legislature, the differentiating factor that distinguished the electoral college ceased to exist. So, if someone were to argue for abolishing the electoral college on the grounds that the 1913 change that subjected Senate seats to the popular vote has nullified its origins and rendered it obsolete, I’d listen to that argument.
The best argument against retaining the electoral college is the change in how we fill the U.S. Senate today compared to when the electoral college was established. Until 1913, U.S. Senators were not voted on by the public but were selected by state legislatures. The actual electors in the electoral college who represented the Senate were there to represent the state government and not the individual voters directly. The voting public was directly represented by the elector from its congressional district. Once the cord was cut that tethered the U.S. Senate from each state’s legislature, the differentiating factor that distinguished the electoral college ceased to exist. So, if someone were to argue for abolishing the electoral college on the grounds that the 1913 change that subjected Senate seats to the popular vote has nullified its origins and rendered it obsolete, I’d listen to that argument.
SW-User
I’m not 100% sold on retaining the electoral college. I live in Illinois, so my individual vote really doesn’t matter in a presidential race. If we were to sunset the electoral college, it would require a Constitutional Amendment, so it would have to be done on logical grounds that go beyond people being dissatisfied with recent outcomes. Considering the ratification process for an amendment, a lot of smaller states would have to sign off on ceding their influence in presidential elections, which I doubt they’d ever consider.
Ynotisay · M
@SW-User But your vote DOES matter. Just as much as not voting matters. And I personally think it has little to do with a Democrat or Republican winning. It has to do with fairness. It's not like it was after Romney lost when the GOP was trying to divvy up electoral votes proportionally instead of 'winner takes all.' THAT was a direct response to losing. This is about an antiquated system that no longer serves its intended goal.