Trump Will Lose the Popular Vote but “Win” the Electoral College controlled by t

Its very possible. Thats the very purpose of the electoral college. To prevent popular democracy.

Nice to see a couple of you get a head start on your coping ;-)

If the 1% wants Trump to win why does their corporate owned media push so hard for Democrats?

It’s not rigged for the one percent it’s rigged for state representation. In practices this amplifies hick representation.

Icey, yeah, thats because popular democracy is mob rule and can easily turn into the majority abusing the minority. Its a good thing that the electoral college helps to counteract that to an extent. A pure democracy isnt a good thing, the electoral college is meant to protect against one of the biggest flaws of pure democracy.

Also the democrats have plenty of tax loopholes available for the wealthy. That’s why so many of them vote democrat. Most billionaires vote democrat… a minority vote republican. If youre talking strictly millionaires, maybe more of them vote republican

Anyone who says the Founders wanted absolute role by the majority of the population is so full of shit that any political commentary from them should be dismissed out of hand.

Already seeing a head start on the cope and seethe here.

By state doesn’t make sense though. Almost every state is divided and some are almost dead even. Really what we have is putting it down to a small number of voters in a handful of states.

The founders did believe in reoo pi resentative democracy but that just means not having a referendum on everything. The federalist s generally preferred representatives represent larger groups of people while some preferred that they would be closer to their constituents.

Let’s not count fuse representative democracy with states rights which was the main point of contention over our first century and yes largely revolved around slavery and taxation.

Funny thing is the richer states actually tend to pay higher taxes and have less of an issue than poorer states who pay less and complain most about them.

The other aspect everyone seems to miss is that for all intents and purposes, states were originally supposed to government themselves independent. By law, it is a Republic of 50 different states. More states can be added.

But this is where the political reality of the modern day conflict with the Constitutional intention. Back in the 19th century and earlier people identified more with their home state than the US at large. Today, that has effectively reversed (personal state pride exists, but it's not most peoples primary national identifier).

The way the country is ran now, most states has effectively lost their identity save for the ones with major population centers. It's called flyover America for a reason. The Electoral college was founded to give small states a reason to join the Union. It effectively did that.

The problem today is that the smaller states have disproportionate representation relative to their size. Some states average around 1M population but each voter effectively is worth 100s of voters in states like California or Texas. I am not saying people shouldn't be represented, but we can't ignore reality that some states (on both political sides) contribute little in terms of taxation and population density compared to others.

I lived in Louisiana most of my life and moved to Alabama. I can honestly say that those states DO NOT REPRESENT the values of even 1/3 the population of the country, let alone half.

^ Amend the Constitution. It is still the "political reality of the modern day" as the law of the land.

^ We're in agreement there @Puddy. We should pass the NPVIC to amend the constitution to elect the president by popular vote.

OP, here's some current probabilities via Nate Silver's model on this race, as of today:

* Harris wins the popular vote: 72.3%
* Trump wins the electoral college: 52.9%
* Harris wins the electoral college: 46.8%
* Harris wins popular vote but loses the electoral college: 26%

Another way to look at this is from Nate's chart on the size of the EC bias:

If the popular vote is R +0 to +1, Harris has a 5.3% chance of winning the EC.
If the popular vote is D +0 to +1, Harris has a 14% chance of winning the EC.
If the popular vote is D +1 to +2, Harris has a 33.1% chance of winning the EC.
If the popular vote is D +2 to +3, Harris has a 58.2% chance of winning the EC.
If the popular vote is D +3 to +4, Harris has a 80.2% chance of winning the EC.
If the popular vote is D +4 to +5, Harris has a 92.7% chance of winning the EC.

So pretty much, she needs to win nationally by +4 points to win the EC. The bias is astounding.

I'd quibble with the idea that that the EC favors the 1%. By all accounts, right now, the EC just favors the state of Pennsylvania, where the Voter Power Index is 7.2, compared to literally, a 0.0 VPI in California. If you're lucky enough to live in Pennsylvania, you get to decide this election.

We're not going to get a constitutional amendment passed to get rid of the EC before this election. So the best thing you can do right now, rather than doom scroll and doom post on the internet, is to get out and be part Harris's GOTV effort. Go to NV and door to door an encourage voters to vote. Help give rides to people to get to the polls. And donate.

^ NPVIC is probably illegal under the interstate compact clause of the Constitution. Not to mention it's only being passed in blue states. Just imagine the ruckus if California were to have to cast their votes for Trump. If I were constructing the Constitution from scratch, I wouldn't create the EC, but it's the predetermined law of the land. No changing the rules midstream.

Barring a major last minute newsbreak, I think Trump comfortably wins. There's not just the EC bias but the shy Trump voter effect. Trump is +0.2 in the RCP average of polls and more importantly up 62-37 in betting odds (more reliable). Trump is up 8.0 in the national average and 4.7 in battlegrounds vs 2020--which came down to 50,000 votes in 3 states. Now there is polling in what would otherwise be comfortable (D) states like Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire. That shows that things are breaking towards Trump. This could even pull some close Senate races like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin into the (R) column.

But more than anything, Harris' behavior says she's going to lose. She's flailing and speaking nonsense. Jan 6 and "fascist" and "Hitler" is Democrats sucking each others' dicks. "Turning the page," yeah, it's not like you haven't been second-in-command to Joe Biden's corpse for the last 4 years. Democratic Senate candidates are distancing themselves from her--they see the writing on the wall--they know the top of the ticket is so far out of the American mainstream that attaching themselves to Harris/Walz would be suicide.

The 1% are concentrated in blue states like California, New York, and Massachusetts. OP is just giving flame-bait.

The news developments in this past week, that have yet to be included in the polls include numerous top military officials, under Trump like Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Mark Milley, who have come forward and outright called Trump a fascist. These are are republican appointees, and their words should be compelling to anyone who values our republic.

The other important development over the weekend was the comedian a the NYC Trump rally who called Puerto Rico "a floating island of garbage." There's roughly 300,000 American voters with Puerto Rican heritage in Pennsylvania.

I think that, coupled with a renewed scrutiny of his immigration policy (the largest deportation operation in the history of the United States) might well damage him in an area he's very vulnerable: Latino voters. Last I saw, Kamala was only beating Trump in national polls by 10 points, whereas Joe Biden carried that demographic by 30 points. In a close race with a divided and decided electorate, Latino turnout could matter, and being called garbage could stir up some angry voters at the polls.

^ Opinions about Trump are more fixed than about any other politician. So far, Trump's approval ratings have proven robust to every sexual escapade and the felony charges. He's been called a fascist, like every Republican candidate since Eisenhower, since the day he descended the escalator.

But more than anything, the fascism charges don't matter because Trump had 4 years to implement fascism and didn't. The 1st amendment was in much better shape in 2020 than it is under a Democratic ticket that says 1A doesn't protect misinformation or hate speech as the regime defines them.

And saying a comedian at a rally--not even Trump himself--is going to turn the Latino vote against him is 200 proof wishful thinking. Over the weekend comedian George Lopez insulted every minority under the sun, including Mexicans, at a Harris rally. He's always been Mr Build the Wall, anti illegal immigration, they're not sending their best. It's all priced in.

In the end, Trump has his finger on the pulse of America and Harris doesn't.

As far as NPVIC being illegal that might be true. However with the consent of Congress it would arguably be legal. Getting the consent of Congress at some point is far more likely than an amendment. Once the compact was ratified you could argue Congress couldn’t withdraw that consent. It would be much like a treaty.

You could also make a novel argument that states control their election rules which would actually be using a conservative argument. You’d then have conflicting principles but I doubt that would fly.

@puddy

> He's been called a fascist, like every Republican candidate since Eisenhower, since the day he descended the escalator.

It's true that some raving leftists has called every republican since Eisenhower a fascist, many democrats too.

But I legitimately can't tell if you're being willfully or ignorantly obtuse here. Trump is not being called a fascist just by raving left wingers. He's being called a fascist by:

* His Chief of Staff, John Kelly who said he "fits the definition of a fascist."
* His Joint Chiefs Chair, Mark Milley, who called him "fascist to the core"
* Another 13 Trump administration officials who wrote in a letter:

> “We applaud General Kelly for highlighting in stark details the danger of a second Trump term. Like General Kelly, we did not take the decision to come forward lightly,” the letter said. “We are all lifelong Republicans who served our country. However, there are moments in history where it becomes necessary to put country over party. This is one of those moments.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/13-former-tru…

These are conservative republicans who served in Trump's own administration. They're sounding the warning alarm, BELIEVE THEM.

Your comparison to other republicans is complete daft. Which former republican candidate had hordes of their own staffers calling them a fascist? It's notable that Trump doesn't have the endorsement of any of the GOP's old standard bearers.

> But more than anything, the fascism charges don't matter because Trump had 4 years to implement fascism and didn't.

But he did do a bunch of fascisty shit. He banned Muslims from entering the country. He cruelly separated immigrant parents from their children. AND HE TRIED TO OVERTURN THE FUCKING ELECTION TO STAY IN POWER.

"Trump is not being called a fascist just by raving left wingers."

And I can keep going back to he was not a fascist in his first term. Civil liberties were intact, selective prosecution wasn't happening (he didn't prosecute Hillary), that's more fascist than any 5 things Trump has done. He did not ban Muslims, he banned people from Muslim terrorist countries. Border separations started under Obama, and right or wrong I don't see how that's "fascist" anyways. Jan 6 was a riot, that's what you call idiots stealing podiums. Overturning an election would look a lot different.

When I can keep smacking you by pointing at an ACTUAL TRACK RECORD, it might be a sign that you don't have a winning argument.

The left wants to do "fascisty stuff."
Do you think 1A applies to "misinformation" and "hate speech" as defined by the regime?
Do you think pro life protesters who stand a little too close to abortion clinics, or doctors who point out that sex change surgeries are being performed on children deserve double digit sentences while pregnancy crisis clinic firebombers shouldn't be pursued because it was "too dark"?
Do you believe the government can coopt private business to further its own ends (like social media)?

You still can't answer any of those, because it wouldn't be very convenient, would it, Ron?

By the recent movement of odds, the American people DGAF about "fascist." Your problem like most on the left is that you talk to too many people who think just like you. Fascism and Jan 6 are the attack lines of a campaign that is losing and knows it.

@Ron and puddy

Great puddy, now address the part of Ron's comment regarding his former staff. As you like to say, "cope" your way around that piece please. It will entertain me to see how you handle that.

@puddy

And take the bet. You seem to feel strongly about a win.