how far away are we from

[freepcrusher]

dems losing the EC but winning CA with 70% of the vote? Does this trigger an actual 1876 type deal? I could see the west coast threatening to secede unless there is some EC/Senate reform.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Republicans will never accept any sort of power-sharing agreement under any circumstance. They know that the Electoral College is all that matters and how they largely benefit from it. Notice how irrelevant Trump's seven million vote loss from 2020 is to the "stolen election" discourse. They will never consider abolishing it until they are the ones are the wrong side of an electoral college-popular vote split.

[freepcrusher]

Republicans will never accept any sort of power-sharing agreement under any circumstance. They know that the Electoral College is all that matters and how they largely benefit from it. Notice how irrelevant Trump's seven million vote loss from 2020 is to the "stolen election" discourse. They will never consider abolishing it until they are the ones are the wrong side of an electoral college-popular vote split.

what if the EU/G7 countries side with the NY/CA type states if they threaten secession?

[West_Midlander]

Didn't the EC have a D bias for some time?

Things will change and GA, SC, and TX will get bluer with time. I think the Rust Belt will probably stay swingy but could get bluer as non-white populations grow assuming the GOP doesn't make huge gains w/ those groups.

[TheReckoning]

People on this board really overestimate how much the electoral college benefits Republicans. The fact that in 2000 and 2016 a Republican won while losing the popular vote was simply a coincidence of both the election being really close and Republicans having an EC edge. From 2004-2012, Democrats had an EC edge.

Republicans will never accept any sort of power-sharing agreement under any circumstance. They know that the Electoral College is all that matters and how they largely benefit from it. Notice how irrelevant Trump's seven million vote loss from 2020 is to the "stolen election" discourse. They will never consider abolishing it until they are the ones are the wrong side of an electoral college-popular vote split.

what if the EU/G7 countries side with the NY/CA type states if they threaten secession?

Those nations literally have zero power over the USA, lol. The country isn’t going to be bullied into listening to countries who we had to save their asses in both WW1, WW2, and the Cold War.

[Stockdale for Veep]

Republicans will never accept any sort of power-sharing agreement under any circumstance. They know that the Electoral College is all that matters and how they largely benefit from it. Notice how irrelevant Trump's seven million vote loss from 2020 is to the "stolen election" discourse. They will never consider abolishing it until they are the ones are the wrong side of an electoral college-popular vote split.

If the Dem Deep State did control things and was capable of 7D Chess moves, they would execute a plan where millions of Dems nationwide were told to intentionally not vote, but not in states that matte. Thereby ensuring the Dem loses the popular vote, but wins the EC. And the plan would be so precise that any post-election data analysis wouldn't catch any oddities. (obviously telling a few million in CA and NY to stay home would achieve the same goal, but it needs to look real)

[ProgressiveModerate]

An EV/PV split will prolly happen again at some point soon. However several thoughts:

Firstly Dems are unlikely to cross 70% in Cali anytime soon and if they do they’re landslididng nationally or have a dominant coalition nationally. Cali is a very diverse state and Dems already get maximal margins in the bay area and do pretty well in LA. The only real area for them to make serios gains would be SoCal. That’s not enough to swing the state 15 points left. And if somehow the Central Valley starts voting strongly Dem, then that would mean Dems are sweeping the entire southwest lol thanks to Hispanic voters.

Also the EC bias tends to swing with how several key states vote at a given time. Right now the EC favors Rs because several EV heavy states tend to vote just narrowly to the right of the nation (GA, TX, NC, MI, PA, AZ, ect) while the states narrowly to the left of the nation add up to a lot less (MN, NH, ME). But who’s to say in 10 years a state like GA or TX won’t be voting to the elfy of the nation and flip the ec bias towards Dems? We just don’t know.

Given it already pretty disproportionately favours Rs, it’s hard to see it growing much in their favour unless they get an extremely lucky combination of MI/WI/PA shifting right without GA/NC/AZ shifting left.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

D's aren't losing WI, PA and MI and NV and CO and VA forget it

[Person Man]

Republicans will never accept any sort of power-sharing agreement under any circumstance. They know that the Electoral College is all that matters and how they largely benefit from it. Notice how irrelevant Trump's seven million vote loss from 2020 is to the "stolen election" discourse. They will never consider abolishing it until they are the ones are the wrong side of an electoral college-popular vote split.

Exactly. Any such talk will make “denazification” of at least some of the US inevitable.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

[Person Man]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

What should be done if that happens?

[Sir Mohamed]

Didn't the EC have a D bias for some time?

Things will change and GA, SC, and TX will get bluer with time. I think the Rust Belt will probably stay swingy but could get bluer as non-white populations grow assuming the GOP doesn't make huge gains w/ those groups.

That was basically just in 2012, because Obama just had to keep a few swing states. Indeed, all the Kerry states plus VA, NM and CO, which were already D-trending, was already enough to win reelection. This is why Romney always had a narrow path to 270, and on election night before CA came in, it looked like the NPV might be close to a tie. Of course, Obama won by 5 million in the end nearly 4 pts.

[President Johnson]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Wouldn't such a ruling just say that electors can only be appointed with valid indications of fraud or irregularities so that it's impossible to determine who actually won the state?

I mean, allowing the state legislatures to appoint any electors they want would de facto make an entire election obsolete. Even the Electoral College itsself would be obsolete and just the state legislatures would elect the president, as they once elected senators at the federal level.

Of course the hypocrisy is very big with this one, since Republicans are only obsessed with that because they control most state legislatures - which is in some cases again the result of Republicans undermining democracy through massive gerrymandering. Somehow this would lead to a minority establishing a permanent majority and impose their will upon the latter.

[freepcrusher]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

What should be done if that happens?

the left higher ups probably turn Atlanta into Portland 2020.

[emailking]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Well, they can already do that. They just have to give themselves the authority to do that (like Arizona now has) before the election.

[Mr. Smith]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Work like crazy to flip state legislatures, y'know like the GOP did in 2010.

What should be done if that happens?

[DaleCooper]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Work like crazy to flip state legislatures, y'know like the GOP did in 2010.

What should be done if that happens?

I've given up on Democrats ever deciding to broaden their appeal. You might notice I've been making fun of hacks like Bitecofer or Pod Save America quite a bit over the last couple of years, and part of that is because they're an endless source of unintentional comedy, but it's also because their influence has been incredibly profound on the party.

The idea that all Democrats have to do is win the suburbs or turn out the base is a big part of why they're in this mess. Democrats have known since at the latest 2010 that they were facing big problems in rural America and that this would lock them out of power in many states and instead of addressing this, Democrats decided that they didn't need those voters because of their emerging majority. Democratic conspiracy theories are not as accelerated or obvious of an evil as the Republican ones, but they're far more self-defeating. Think about it, if you've convinced yourself that you already have a decisive majority on your side, why would you ever bother to invest in broadening your coalition? I know Democrats can't bear to blame Obama for anything, but it's a fact that he was in charge when this happened and he seemed to believe it himself, so at the very least we can blame him for not shutting the nonsense down. It's gone on so long that it'll likely take close to a generation to undo the damage that this type of crackpot insanity has done to the party and the country.

[freepcrusher]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Work like crazy to flip state legislatures, y'know like the GOP did in 2010.

What should be done if that happens?

I've given up on Democrats ever deciding to broaden their appeal. You might notice I've been making fun of hacks like Bitecofer or Pod Save America quite a bit over the last couple of years, and part of that is because they're an endless source of unintentional comedy, but it's also because their influence has been incredibly profound on the party.

The idea that all Democrats have to do is win the suburbs or turn out the base is a big part of why they're in this mess. Democrats have known since at the latest 2010 that they were facing big problems in rural America and that this would lock them out of power in many states and instead of addressing this, Democrats decided that they didn't need those voters because of their emerging majority. Democratic conspiracy theories are not as accelerated or obvious of an evil as the Republican ones, but they're far more self-defeating. Think about it, if you've convinced yourself that you already have a decisive majority on your side, why would you ever bother to invest in broadening your coalition? I know Democrats can't bear to blame Obama for anything, but it's a fact that he was in charge when this happened and he seemed to believe it himself, so at the very least we can blame him for not shutting the nonsense down. It's gone on so long that it'll likely take close to a generation to undo the damage that this type of crackpot insanity has done to the party and the country.

doesn't it make sense to make your source of support more intense? Like if you could get Davidson to vote 70%, and get Williamson and Rutherford below 55% - you would make Nashville uncrackable.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Work like crazy to flip state legislatures, y'know like the GOP did in 2010.

What should be done if that happens?

I've given up on Democrats ever deciding to broaden their appeal. You might notice I've been making fun of hacks like Bitecofer or Pod Save America quite a bit over the last couple of years, and part of that is because they're an endless source of unintentional comedy, but it's also because their influence has been incredibly profound on the party.

The idea that all Democrats have to do is win the suburbs or turn out the base is a big part of why they're in this mess. Democrats have known since at the latest 2010 that they were facing big problems in rural America and that this would lock them out of power in many states and instead of addressing this, Democrats decided that they didn't need those voters because of their emerging majority. Democratic conspiracy theories are not as accelerated or obvious of an evil as the Republican ones, but they're far more self-defeating. Think about it, if you've convinced yourself that you already have a decisive majority on your side, why would you ever bother to invest in broadening your coalition? I know Democrats can't bear to blame Obama for anything, but it's a fact that he was in charge when this happened and he seemed to believe it himself, so at the very least we can blame him for not shutting the nonsense down. It's gone on so long that it'll likely take close to a generation to undo the damage that this type of crackpot insanity has done to the party and the country.

The problem no one seems to offer any good options they democrats can to fix this that doesn’t involve getting more reactionary on culture war issues that run the risk of hurting there support among other groups that make up there coalition. So you might mock them for the turn out the base and focus on suburbs strategy but it seems to be the best option they have in this day and age

[DaleCooper]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Work like crazy to flip state legislatures, y'know like the GOP did in 2010.

What should be done if that happens?

I've given up on Democrats ever deciding to broaden their appeal. You might notice I've been making fun of hacks like Bitecofer or Pod Save America quite a bit over the last couple of years, and part of that is because they're an endless source of unintentional comedy, but it's also because their influence has been incredibly profound on the party.

The idea that all Democrats have to do is win the suburbs or turn out the base is a big part of why they're in this mess. Democrats have known since at the latest 2010 that they were facing big problems in rural America and that this would lock them out of power in many states and instead of addressing this, Democrats decided that they didn't need those voters because of their emerging majority. Democratic conspiracy theories are not as accelerated or obvious of an evil as the Republican ones, but they're far more self-defeating. Think about it, if you've convinced yourself that you already have a decisive majority on your side, why would you ever bother to invest in broadening your coalition? I know Democrats can't bear to blame Obama for anything, but it's a fact that he was in charge when this happened and he seemed to believe it himself, so at the very least we can blame him for not shutting the nonsense down. It's gone on so long that it'll likely take close to a generation to undo the damage that this type of crackpot insanity has done to the party and the country.

The problem no one seems to offer any good options they democrats can to fix this that doesn’t involve getting more reactionary on culture war issues that run the risk of hurting there support among other groups that make up there coalition. So you might mock them for the turn out the base and focus on suburbs strategy but it seems to be the best option they have in this day and age

They don't have to be reactionary, they just need to be more moderate and shut down the BS.

[Person Man]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Work like crazy to flip state legislatures, y'know like the GOP did in 2010.

What should be done if that happens?

I've given up on Democrats ever deciding to broaden their appeal. You might notice I've been making fun of hacks like Bitecofer or Pod Save America quite a bit over the last couple of years, and part of that is because they're an endless source of unintentional comedy, but it's also because their influence has been incredibly profound on the party.

The idea that all Democrats have to do is win the suburbs or turn out the base is a big part of why they're in this mess. Democrats have known since at the latest 2010 that they were facing big problems in rural America and that this would lock them out of power in many states and instead of addressing this, Democrats decided that they didn't need those voters because of their emerging majority. Democratic conspiracy theories are not as accelerated or obvious of an evil as the Republican ones, but they're far more self-defeating. Think about it, if you've convinced yourself that you already have a decisive majority on your side, why would you ever bother to invest in broadening your coalition? I know Democrats can't bear to blame Obama for anything, but it's a fact that he was in charge when this happened and he seemed to believe it himself, so at the very least we can blame him for not shutting the nonsense down. It's gone on so long that it'll likely take close to a generation to undo the damage that this type of crackpot insanity has done to the party and the country.

The problem no one seems to offer any good options they democrats can to fix this that doesn’t involve getting more reactionary on culture war issues that run the risk of hurting there support among other groups that make up there coalition. So you might mock them for the turn out the base and focus on suburbs strategy but it seems to be the best option they have in this day and age

They don't have to be reactionary, they just need to be more moderate and shut down the BS.

It helps that now Republicans can no longer say whatever they want but claim they won’t be able to fully indulge the crazies anytime soon.

[MATTROSE94]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Work like crazy to flip state legislatures, y'know like the GOP did in 2010.

What should be done if that happens?

I've given up on Democrats ever deciding to broaden their appeal. You might notice I've been making fun of hacks like Bitecofer or Pod Save America quite a bit over the last couple of years, and part of that is because they're an endless source of unintentional comedy, but it's also because their influence has been incredibly profound on the party.

The idea that all Democrats have to do is win the suburbs or turn out the base is a big part of why they're in this mess. Democrats have known since at the latest 2010 that they were facing big problems in rural America and that this would lock them out of power in many states and instead of addressing this, Democrats decided that they didn't need those voters because of their emerging majority. Democratic conspiracy theories are not as accelerated or obvious of an evil as the Republican ones, but they're far more self-defeating. Think about it, if you've convinced yourself that you already have a decisive majority on your side, why would you ever bother to invest in broadening your coalition? I know Democrats can't bear to blame Obama for anything, but it's a fact that he was in charge when this happened and he seemed to believe it himself, so at the very least we can blame him for not shutting the nonsense down. It's gone on so long that it'll likely take close to a generation to undo the damage that this type of crackpot insanity has done to the party and the country.

The problem no one seems to offer any good options they democrats can to fix this that doesn’t involve getting more reactionary on culture war issues that run the risk of hurting there support among other groups that make up there coalition. So you might mock them for the turn out the base and focus on suburbs strategy but it seems to be the best option they have in this day and age

They don't have to be reactionary, they just need to be more moderate and shut down the BS.

Maybe a 50 state strategy like the one Howard Dean one planted during his time as DNC chair would help the Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections?

[DaleCooper]

The more dangerous outcome looming is the SCOTUS allowing individual states to appoint electors for whichever candidate it prefers, regardless of the election outcome.

Imagine Biden winning Georgia again in 2024, but the GOP legislature decides there was voter fraud and appoints electors for DeSantis/Trump/whoever. This could begin a scenario where state legislators are not electing the president.

Work like crazy to flip state legislatures, y'know like the GOP did in 2010.

What should be done if that happens?

I've given up on Democrats ever deciding to broaden their appeal. You might notice I've been making fun of hacks like Bitecofer or Pod Save America quite a bit over the last couple of years, and part of that is because they're an endless source of unintentional comedy, but it's also because their influence has been incredibly profound on the party.

The idea that all Democrats have to do is win the suburbs or turn out the base is a big part of why they're in this mess. Democrats have known since at the latest 2010 that they were facing big problems in rural America and that this would lock them out of power in many states and instead of addressing this, Democrats decided that they didn't need those voters because of their emerging majority. Democratic conspiracy theories are not as accelerated or obvious of an evil as the Republican ones, but they're far more self-defeating. Think about it, if you've convinced yourself that you already have a decisive majority on your side, why would you ever bother to invest in broadening your coalition? I know Democrats can't bear to blame Obama for anything, but it's a fact that he was in charge when this happened and he seemed to believe it himself, so at the very least we can blame him for not shutting the nonsense down. It's gone on so long that it'll likely take close to a generation to undo the damage that this type of crackpot insanity has done to the party and the country.

The problem no one seems to offer any good options they democrats can to fix this that doesn’t involve getting more reactionary on culture war issues that run the risk of hurting there support among other groups that make up there coalition. So you might mock them for the turn out the base and focus on suburbs strategy but it seems to be the best option they have in this day and age

They don't have to be reactionary, they just need to be more moderate and shut down the BS.

Maybe a 50 state strategy like the one Howard Dean one planted during his time as DNC chair would help the Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections?

It could but Democrats are going to have to settle for some things that the "get out the base" strategy doesn't allow for. They're going to have to accept some candidates that are in favor of 12-week abortion bans or moderate government spending or more restrictive immigration policies or who oppose gun control. Democrats seem to think that the 50 state strategy just means spending 50 million dollars on advertising in each state. You have to appeal to the voters in the areas you're targeting and that's not what the conventional wisdom within the party is pointing toward these days.

[freepcrusher]

What did eleven democrats voting for Clarence Thomas get us? Fu-k all. All of them save for Shelby were gone by 2005. Why not just heighten the contradictions to where any time a Republican becomes president the Dems go through a sort of psychosis so that people will realize it's not worth setting them off.

[DaleCooper]

We're not just talking about Clarence Thomas. We're talking about the Senate, the House, governorships, other statewide offices, and state legislatures. The lefts' willingness to surrender all of these in what at this rate will soon be over half of the states in the country is absolutely astounding to me. It makes me wonder how much they even care about what they claim to believe in. If you don't even want to win elections, then how can you possibly claim to have any interest in bettering the lives of women or the working class or whatever in this country. You don't have to run Joe Lieberman clones or suddenly stop supporting gay marriage, but you can't campaign on the standard liberal playbook in these states. You have to meet a community's voters where they're at, and then do what you can once you get electing.