-
Features
The Race For 2024
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
You're doing it again. Fabricating a logic puzzle that only you can follow.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,788
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
I can follow it.
Trump got his ass kicked in the 2020 election then lied about it, but didn't go to court and present any reason for sensible people to consider the possibility that he "won" the election process.
Tom
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,284
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I believe the correct demonym is "Kok-Bangers"
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,284
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,519
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
That it puzzles you confirms it.
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
Well there is no logic in it so there is that. It's just silly made up shit that wastes bandwidth.
thebeave
Contributor
Is there something in particular that you think she didn't want to nail down in that interview? If so, what?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,867
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
That the campaign hired the (questionable) comedian and approved the jokes is another reason why Trump is unfit for office.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,867
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
That doesn't make any sense. You ignore the campaign but think you know what it's about. Do all MAGAts say such stupid things.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,867
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
I haven't watched the interview and don't intend to. Was my statement incorrect in some way?
thebeave
Contributor
No, I agree generally. There's usually something specific they are trying to avoid saying. I'm just wondering what it is. I guess if you didn't watch and don't intend to, I'm wasting my time.
Derec
Contributor
It may be inappropriate to the setting, but it is nowhere near to being a threat. It was clearly a reference to Hezbollah pagers exploding all over Lebanon last month. It is insinuating the other person may be a Hezbollah member or ally (like that Iranian ambassador whose pager also exploded). It has the same flavor as for example asking MAGAs where they were on 1/6, insinuating that they might have been in the Capitol.
And it is certainly not "racist" because the insinuation is made because of Mehdi's anti-Israel views, and not because of his race.
Derec
Contributor
It means to get elected president using the rules in place, not rules as you wish them to be.
It is the same in other contexts. If a team wins the World Series, they do so by winning more games than the other team, not more aggregate runs for example.
That and about $5 will get her a coffee at Starbucks.
US elections are not run that way. They are run on a state-by-state basis.
There are also other problems with comparing popular vote.
- Unlike Biden, Hillary did not even win the majority of the vote but only 48.2%. In a system like France's, there would be a runoff election which would be unpredictable.
- Campaigns are run with EC rules in mind. That means a lot of focus on battleground states, and little attention paid to safe states other than for fundraising. A popular vote election would be run very differently, and thus the vote totals would be different.
That is the same as with World Series. If it was played based on aggregate runs rather than games won, strategies used by both teams would be very different, as would the scores. - Under popular vote with a runoff, minor parties would almost certainly get more votes in the first round as there is no longer the spoiler effect in force. Given that both major candidates were very unpopular, I doubt either one would have cracked 40% in the first round.
Last edited:
Derec
Contributor
No, they aren't.
But Trump came first in that election. 304 to her 227.
I have already explained in my post above why it is a fallacy to compare nationwide popular vote when that is not how the elections are run.
Derec
Contributor
He definitely did, and it wasn't even a good joke.
Please cry harder. It really is music to my ears
southernhybrid
Contributor
https://www.semafor.com/article/10/31/2024/why-the-economist-is-endorsing-kamala-harris-in-2024
Most economists are endorsing Harris, but this magazine's endorsement has been a big of a surprise, considering it doesn't usually endorse candidates. I'd like the article from the magazine, but I'm not a subscriber.
Most economists are endorsing Harris, but this magazine's endorsement has been a big of a surprise, considering it doesn't usually endorse candidates. I'd like the article from the magazine, but I'm not a subscriber.
Elixir
Made in America
I’m having no problem following it. Hardly a puzzle - unless other … uh, challenges are involved.
It probably doesn’t make any sense to Swiz that half of Trump’s Cabinet are warning that he is a dangerous moron.
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
And that is why it landed flat.
It certainly was a strange choice of comedian for a political rally. But we do live in strange times.