Jump to content
270soft Forum


Steering Council Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VanMav

  1. Well that glass ceiling was shattered long ago with John Adams and J.Q. Adams, and George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.
  2. The first mother-daughter losing team, glass ceiling shattered! I hope Mike Bloomberg runs as an independent this time. Or Mitt Romney.
  3. Because you want someone who is honest to run against Trump. You saw what happened to Hillary, viewed as even less trustworthy than Trump. Could you imagine 12 months of "Pocahontas this, Pocahontas that,"?
  4. I don't know enough about most of them to say yes or no. It's probably easier for me to list who I wouldn't vote for definitely: Marco Rubio Mike Lee
  5. I'd be surprised if someone serious doesn't challenge him. But, then again, stranger things have happened... he did get elected.
  6. ... it's a horrible generalisation because it's almost entirely untrue. Is this one of those alternative facts?
  7. What, wolves? That's not at all what happened.
  8. But back to the original topic, there is certainly circumstances in my mind where a Governor-General or the Queen could refuse royal assent or dismiss a Prime Minister and it would not destroy the credibility of the Crown.
  9. Sir John Kerr dismissed Prime Minister Whitlam. No it didn't go over well, but it was a totally reasonable action. It essentially stopped a government shutdown. If you want to read more about a good starting point is Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis "Well may we save God Save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor-General."
  10. While the Queen can prorogue or dismiss parliaments, it wouldn't matter since 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 In terms of providing Royal Assent to a piece of legislation, you have to remember that the House of Lords isn't subject to a populist movement like the House of Commons, and it's unlikely they would allow a piece of legislation such as that to reach the Queen in the first place. But I certainly don't imagine it would be monarchy destroying if the Queen exercised her right to stop Royal Assent of an extremely controversial bill or decision (such as declaring war on France).
  11. The UN is a waste of space and money. Hopefully the right wing nutjobs manage to defund it.
  12. It would be helpful if you listed the software you were using.
  13. That's a really poor way to look at it. That's bad logic and bad statistics. We'll know more as complete data becomes available.
  14. Winning the popular vote is not important to becoming President, but more often than not the winner of the PV is also the winner of the EC. That's just the nature of how swing states work. For the record, I'm actually in favour of the Electoral College. But you sound like the kind of person who'd be whinging if Trump won the PV and lost the EC.
  15. The exit polls this year were extraordinarily bad. Like 2004 levels bad, where we were still on track for a Clinton victory after the exit results came in.
  16. I can't find the image that goes 'till '15/'16 but I suspect this has a lot to do with the working class wanting change. Electoral majorities are rarely stable, and almost never long lived. In 2012 some were talking about a permanent Democratic majority because of the diversity of states they start with a leg up in. Now some are having a meltdown because Trump won some white states with a bunch of poor white workers in them? Just a quick reminder, Clinton won the PV and if she'd done as well with Latinos and Blacks as Obama did she would probably be President.
  17. That was just a no toss ups maps using the last five polls from each state and taking the average winner. there wasn't really a model or anything like all the other places
  18. I don't think the two party system does that. It was never the case before, why is it suddenly so now? Dwight D. Eisenhower was courted seriously by both parties. Liberal Republicans existed, conservative blue dog democrats existed. The problem is tribalism and the growing need to virtue-signal your purity. I think social media and the mainstream media have a lot of blame to take on. If you're not pure enough you don't belong in our party, type stuff. Both the left and the right do it, only the right are apparently having a "civil war", though. And I don't think going forward you're going to have Glenn Beck and others join the Democratic Party, or liberal anti-Clinton democrats join the Republican party. And that's the fundamental problem. There is no broad tent anymore, not in any real sense. Candidates aren't regional, primary voters demand purity.
  19. You might want to tell that to the left wing authors over at the Washington Post who are now openly saying democracy is the problem. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/11/10/the-problem-with-our-government-is-democracy/ Or even at ForeignPolicy https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/ . I've been pretty down on democracy, as @vcczar will attest too. Any system which produces these two as nominees is probably not the best thing since sliced bread.
  20. And if that's an argument you think that's worth having, then you should have it. The point is the electoral college is currently functioning exactly as intended. To protect from "the tyranny of the majority". Maine now has IRV, a form of preferential voting, we'll see if that changes the composition of votes, but I suspect that over 90% of voters will continue to select a Republican or a Democrat. Australia is the same, we have full preferential voting, the two big parties get 80%+ consistently. It's because they represent the most people.
  • Create New...