Elections 2032 is going to be very bad for Dems

[avenue94]

And neither is a "popular vote". What is so hard to understand about that?

Canadians use the popular vote to pick their MPs, who in turn pick the PM. Hence Canada uses the popular vote.

This isn't very hard to understand.

 

[Hdfi]

lol at assuming that we will still be alive in 2032.

 

[Hdfi]

If enough people from CA go to TX it would be nearly impossible for a Republican president to win. The margin between red and blue in TX is way more narrow than CA.

Yep, they'll turn red states into new blue states.

 

[ShadowRun]

lol at assuming that we will still be alive in 2032.

We won't be, climate change will wipe us out

 

[HereticBD]

Canadians use the popular vote to pick their MPs, who in turn pick the PM. Hence Canada uses the popular vote.

This isn't very hard to understand.

Americans use the popular vote to determine state victories that decide the electoral college. Hence, America uses the popular vote.

 

[cooks1]

There's an exodus of people moving out of blue states and moving into red states, which will ultimately increase electoral votes for the GOP in the future.

2032 is going to be the next year for census and all signs are pointing towards a very bad time for Democrats.

How can Democrats turn things around and keep people from leaving blue states? More importantly, how are they going to bring them back? There's not even a fart of a plan on how to do this. Nobody on the left is even talking about it, the first step to fixing an issue.

If 2 million California Democrats move to Texas, Dems win California and Texas.

 

[F1980]

If 2 million California Democrats move to Texas, Dems win California and Texas.

That's what people used to think and what they expected, but we're getting different results. People moving to Texas are voting more conservative than liberal.
Texas is moving even further to the right:

Republicans reassert their dominance in Texas

Recent gains made by Democrats in past elections were wiped out, as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and other Republicans won by wide margins.

www.texastribune.org

 

[cooks1]

That's what people used to think and what they expected, but we're getting different results. People moving to Texas are voting more conservative than liberal.
Texas is moving even further to the right:

Republicans reassert their dominance in Texas

Recent gains made by Democrats in past elections were wiped out, as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and other Republicans won by wide margins.

www.texastribune.org

Texans did not move further right because the Democrats that moved became conservatives. More conservative voted. Fewer democrats voted.

 

[Scerpi]

It's really not that hard for them. Dump the far left crazies and their far left crazy policies. It's as simple as that. They'll make up the difference with independents. They can still do it, but it's like watching poison running through someone's veins, and you give them an antidote, and all they have to do is use it. They don't for some reason, and just ride it out and let that poison spread.

It's up to them whether or not they want to actually be a viable party in the future, or a footnote in history.

Dude... they're mostly crazy. This is the leader of the senate for Democrats... lol



Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) makes fun of hard-working Americans who don’t want to pay tens of thousands of dollars every year in taxes and claims the government is a “barrier” to stop people from “doing things.”

"You know what their attitude is, 'I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me?'“

“‘I built my company with my bare hands. How dare your government tell me how I should treat my customers, the land and water I own, or my employees.’”

“They hate government. Government’s a barrier to people…to stop them from doing things.”

 

[Scerpi]

Texans did not move further right because the Democrats that moved became conservatives. More conservative voted. Fewer democrats voted.

Wrong... But please keep thinking that. You realize the over-all number of voters were almost the same from 2020 to 2024?

Several major border towns that have been historically heavy blue went Red

There were heavy shifts to Red in across several historically blue Texas counties.

Trump’s near sweep of Texas border counties shows a shift to the right for Latino voters​

The former president captured 55% of Latino voters in the state, according to exit polls. He also won 14 out of the 18 counties within 20 miles of the border, a number that doubled his 2020 performance in the Latino-majority region

Trump’s near sweep of Texas border counties shows a shift to the right for Latino voters

The former president captured 55% of Latino voters in the state, according to exit polls. He also won 14 out of the 18 counties within 20 miles of the border, a number that doubled his 2020 performance in the Latino-majority region.

www.texastribune.org

Texas Democrats have long viewed the state’s growing Latino population as their ticket to eventually breaking through the Republican Party’s dominance. Tuesday night, however, showed that the GOP has made significant gains in peeling away those voters, and nowhere was that more apparent than along the border.

After years of losing the statewide Latino vote by double digits, Republicans set a high-water mark with Donald Trump capturing 55% of the critical voting bloc, besting Vice President Kamala Harris’ 44% share, according to exit polls.

In the traditionally Democratic strongholds along the border, Trump managed a near sweep.

How Republicans managed to flip Texas’ Rio Grande Valley​

Perhaps the biggest Texas takeaway from the presidential election is that more counties went Republican this cycle — specifically in the Rio Grande Valley and surrounding areas.

How Republicans managed to flip Texas’ Rio Grande Valley | Houston Public Media

Perhaps the biggest Texas takeaway from the presidential election is that more counties went Republican this cycle — specifically in the Rio Grande Valley and surrounding areas. Experts say it’s the culmination of a years-long GOP strategy.

www.houstonpublicmedia.org

 

[avenue94]

Americans use the popular vote to determine state victories that decide the electoral college. Hence, America uses the popular vote.

Except delegates do not have a choice in voting. Whereas MPs are free to vote.

Again, your civic knowledge is appalling.

 

[HereticBD]

Except delegates do not have a choice in voting. Whereas MPs are free to vote.

Again, your civic knowledge is appalling.

And that's a whole lot of nothing in terms of the "popular vote".

Look, nobody is fooled by your bargaining here. You want the US President to be decided by a simple majority vote across the country(because up until now, Dems ran away with it). You don't want a parliamentary system. You want a straight up popular vote deciding everything. Your claim that SO MANY other countries do that, is just false, hence your bargaining and pretzel twisting to turn systems that aren't straight up popular votes into them. I informed you that the parliamentary system is not a "popular vote", and instead of just admitting that you were wrong, you're now doing this song and dance and arguing that the parliamentary system is a "popular vote". It's not.

You were wrong. Let it go.

 

[avenue94]

And that's a whole lot of nothing in terms of the "popular vote".

Has a PM ever taken office without a plurality of votes from MPs? You don't seem to grasp that in a parliamentary system power lies primarily in the party, not the PM themself.

You want the US President to be decided by a simple majority vote across the country(because up until now, Dems ran away with it).

No, I want the popular vote to be used because it wastes the least amount of votes and encourages candidates to create as broad a base of support as possible. It's also the most efficient and used by most democracies, whether it's to elect parties or leaders.

You don't want a parliamentary system.

I'm open to it but the unified power structures concerns me, as does the common trend of parliamentary systems creating kingmakers of small parties and granting them disproportionate power.

I informed you that the parliamentary system is not a "popular vote", and instead of just admitting that you were wrong, you're now doing this song and dance and arguing that the parliamentary system is a "popular vote". It's not.

Again, PMs are much weaker than presidents in a system like the US. What matters is the entire party, hence the use of the popular vote for that.

It's not my fault you don't understand what a popular vote is, alongside your own government apparently.

 

[HereticBD]

Has a PM ever taken office without a plurality of votes from MPs? You don't seem to grasp that in a parliamentary system power lies primarily in the party, not the PM themself.

No, I want the popular vote to be used because it wastes the least amount of votes and encourages candidates to create as broad a base of support as possible. It's also the most efficient and used by most democracies, whether it's to elect parties or leaders.

I'm open to it but the unified power structures concerns me, as does the common trend of parliamentary systems creating kingmakers of small parties and granting them disproportionate power.

Again, PMs are much weaker than presidents in a system like the US. What matters is the entire party, hence the use of the popular vote for that.

It's not my fault you don't understand what a popular vote is, alongside your own government apparently.

That's is a whole bunch of frantic garbage in an effort to not admit that you were wrong. The parliamentary system in NOT a popular vote. End of story.

It's too funny at how at the same time you're arguing that you want a popular vote in America, and declaring the parliamentary system as one, but are concerned over how the parliamentary system works, alluding that you wouldn't want that system in place, even though according to you(and nobody else),that it's a "popular vote".

Just shut the fuck up already. You're speaking muffled words from your head being up your ass.

 

[avenue94]

That's is a whole bunch of frantic garbage in an effort to not admit that you were wrong. The parliamentary system in NOT a popular vote. End of story.

The parliamentary system consists of two popular votes you dumbass. First, citizens elect MPs. Then MPs elect a PM...this is very straightforward.

Again, you can't even define popular vote in a way that aligns with your limited knowledge of government.

It's too funny at how at the same time you're arguing that you want a popular vote in America, and declaring the parliamentary system as one, but are concerned over how the parliamentary system works, alluding that you wouldn't want that system in place, even though according to you(and nobody else),that it's a "popular vote".

Every government system has trade offs. I prefer a balance between the executive and legislature, particularly given the US's long history of it and federalism. Not to mention the US has one of the more ass track records of effective legislators in the past couple decades.

 

[HereticBD]

The parliamentary system consists of two popular votes you dumbass. First, citizens elect MPs. Then MPs elect a PM...this is very straightforward.

The MP's in this situation, are essentially the electoral college.

Again, you can't even define popular vote in a way that aligns with your limited knowledge of government.

I'm very clear on what an actual popular vote is. You're the one nickel and diming it, because you can't admit that you were wrong.

Every government system has trade offs. I prefer a balance between the executive and legislature, particularly given the US's long history of it and federalism. Not to mention the US has one of the more ass track records of effective legislators in the past couple decades.

Blah, blah, blah...

You want a straight up popular vote, and thought other countries had it. You were wrong. Now you flail. That's all this is.

 

[LostMyBlackBelt]

Republican that submitted a bill to make Trump Derangement Syndrome a crime, caught trying to pay for sex with a young boy

MAGA = CHOMO

 

[avenue94]

The MP's in this situation, are essentially the electoral college.

Are MP's free to vote as they please when electing a PM?

I'm very clear on what an actual popular vote is. You're the one nickel and diming it, because you can't admit that you were wrong.

I posted multiple definitions earlier. Feel free to reference them or do your own research. u

You want a straight up popular vote, and thought other countries had it. You were wrong. Now you flail. That's all this is.

When did I say other countries used a straight popular vote to elect their leaders?

 

[HereticBD]

Are MP's free to vote as they please when electing a PM?

Yes, and I believe the electoral college was too, up until recently. They just rubber stamp the results, same as in the US. The MP's elected aren't gonna go rogue against their own party after they win an election, buddy.

When did I say other countries used a straight popular vote to elect their leaders?

When you said "We should have a popular vote, like every other established democracy."

You didn't know what you were talking about then, and still don't.

 

[avenue94]

Yes, and I believe the electoral college was too, up until recently. They just rubber stamp the results, same as in the US. The MP's elected aren't gonna go rogue against their own party after they win an election, buddy.

You think the 1820s is recent? That's when winner take all took off.

And you're trying to back out: It's a simple yes or no. Are MPs allowed to freely vote without fear of legal punishment? In the US, most states legally bind electors to vote a certain way.

Off the top of my head, countries that use the popular vote to pick party, executives, or representatives:

This is what I said regarding the popular vote.