The difference is the introduction of independents into the mix, which aren't a consideration during the primaries because candidates are focused on tailoring their message to appeal to the base. They know they can't win a general election with just their base and that most votes come from independents, which means they have to widen the aperture a bit. Not Trump of course, but most that came before him.
2024 U.S. Elections
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
This is Poli Sci 101 received wisdom from 20 years ago that doesn't take into account what we saw in the last 10 years and last two Presidential elections where Trump did not moderate his rhetoric one bit in the general. Also that GOP is more radical now after COVID and the SCOTUS decision on abortion.
I know what you're saying but it's just not the current reality. No GOP candidate can win in 2024 without the MAGA base no matter how many independents they might try to turn from Biden because the maga will simply stay home in greater numbers than an independent would suddenly support De Santis.
That's why I excluded Trump from the mix. He's obviously an outlier in this regard. The rest of them broadened their messages, or at a minimum communicated more inclusively than in the primaries. The Republicans have shot themselves in the foot by actually shrinking their party in recent years, which means they have effectively ceded a large swath of independents to the Dems. Issues like Abortion and a few others won't work in the Republicans favor next year imo.
I don't think he's an outlier so much as being representative of where the GOP is now and where it's been moving the last 10-15 years. We don't have any other national examples in the last 10 years to support the view that without Trump, a GOP candidate will suddenly moderate.
Independents aren't a consistent block either. They might average out to be "moderate" but in reality, they come from multiple vastly diverse camps from progressives who don't like corporate Dems to lite Libertarians that care only about personal economics, to people that care about social issues first to economic issues first. Because of SCOTUS, no independent that cares about abortion will suddenly switch from Biden to a "moderate rhetoric" GOP candidate. Independents that care mostly about the economy aren't going to base their decision at all on what a candidate says in general election campaigning. For them, it will mostly be a referendum on Biden and if they think Biden's policies will work for the economy or simply their personal bank account.
The only recipe for a GOP win in 2024 is doing what they did in 2016 and almost did in 2020 which is 1) maximizing turnout for their base 2) limiting Dem turnout through voter suppression 3) trying to demoralize progressives and get them to stay home.
I don't see any viable plan for GOP this year that suddenly includes a more moderate GOP candidate that attracts a wide swath of independents that went from Biden in 2020. In the future, sure, maybe a Jeryd Mencken type that doesn't have such divisive rhetoric as Trump or DeSantis and is way smoother with dog whistles could do that but that's not the reality for this year IMO.
Well, they don't really need any viable plan, the electoral system is rigged in their favor.
Dems needs to abolish the senate somehow, cause that institution will be the death of them, republicans just needs to hold what is essentially with some farmlands to "win" the senate, soon enough, if not already.
The electoral college is already unfair for dems on the presidential level, but thats nothing compared to the senate.
How is the system rigged against Dems?
Politics change over time, the deep red south states used to be blue until a few decades ago, that deep blue state of California was red in the 80's
Good article about the EC…
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/21142223/electoral-college-2020-election-jesse-wegman
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That would require a constitutional amendment.
Maybe a return to the original senate - the not elected by the people version
In which case WI, MT, WV, and AZ would have 2 GOP senators.
That would also require a constitutional amendment to undo the 17th amendment that created direct election of senators.
And it would be a terrible idea.
Depends on who picks them
Well, resetting the Senate to pre-17th amendment status would mean state legislatures would select senators.Depends on who picks them
True, so a new method of selection would be needed, it's all moot anyway, they're never gonna vote to cull themselves, they can't even do term limits!
We Canadians give a share of stick to our own senators, but I have to say that I like our system. The leader of the government (the Prime Minister in our case) would nominate the senator for a single 10-year term. Then the senator would simply retire with all benefits going with the job.Depends on who picks them
Yeah. Term limits would be nice.
the problem with the senate isn't term limits or direct elections. it is that it's part of a series of institutions designed to empower states and land at the expense of people.
Yeah… damned “Great” Compromise
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Wonder how he handles this one
A school banned the bible because it contains vulgarity and violence unsuitable for children - this in deep red Utah
I swear I’ve seen him fall down at least a dozen times is anyone keeping count
All older presidents have physical foibles. Google ‘Gerald Ford fall.’
A war on the truth? What's the lie?
The truth
Because the electoral college gives each voter from a small rural state far more influence for an electoral college vote than voters from larger states. Since Goldwater and the 1960s Southern Strategy, over the past 60 years, rural voters are increasingly majority GOP while urban voters are majority Dem. It's why you see all the electoral maps that look very red by geographic area but then every major city is blue. This dynamic has been shaped over 60 years and isn't changing, probably ever, so the electoral college and Senate biases to give extra political power to small rural states will always favor the GOP.
To say the system is rigged to the GOP is not really an exaggeration. It's just a reflection of reality since we'll never see some 1900s-era political parties where each party had conservatives and liberals under its umbrella.
Yup. That's the unfortunate reality when the country is defined by an outdated, 200+ year document written by wealthy slave owners
Last edited:
Whilst I don't like the electoral college to say it's rigged is ludicrous, it's been in place since 1804 when virtually all of the US was rural, the senate has been 2 senators per state since day 1
It obviously wasn't designed in 1787 to favor the modern GOP of 2023.
However, its inherent undemocratic biases 100% favor the modern GOP of 2023 in an unfair manner. So in a more casual use of "rigged" it isn't really outrageous to say it's de facto rigged to favor the GOP in 2023.
So you change the voting system every time the GOP is favored or would you prefer a system that favors the Dems? I assume you know that there is zero chance of changing it
I prefer a fair voting system where all votes are treated equally. The EC obviously has inherent biases that are undemocratic and all voters do not have equal power (voters in Wyoming for example have roughly 3 times more voting power than voters in California). Simply get rid of it in favor of the popular vote. Every voter is then equal and everything is fair.
I've mentioned it more than once over the last 10 years but if you want to learn how fecked the EC is, there is no better book than this one:
Why the Electoral College is Bad for America
Is there any country out there that determines their government based on the popular vote?
You say simply get rid of it, the solution is simple, persuade 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of 50 states, good luck with that
Obviously, the current GOP will fight tooth and nail to keep the EC because the current EC is, c.2023, de facto "rigged" by its inherent and undemocratic biases to favor the GOP. But that doesn't mean there won't be windows where change can happen in the coming decades. People in Texas and Florida might, at some point in the next 20 years, feel that they don't like being disenfranchised the way California and NY voters feel disenfranchised currently which would tip the balance. Plus, the more it's talked about and the more arguments like the book I referenced are taught, the more the likelihood increases in coming generations. It's definitely worth fighting for since the electoral college is frankly a horrible mechanism for electing a president in the modern world.
It's utter nonsense that the vote I cast in 2016 in Georgia ultimately had no impact on the national level for the person that would be elected to govern the entire nation, impact foreign policy, etc. The same will likely occur in 2024 when my vote will in no way go for Ron but he'll easily sweep Florida's EC votes (yes, I moved) but may lose the overall popular vote tally. The true "voice of the people" is silenced in this scenario.
Most do?
Not Britain, we have special democracy where the Eton set always win.
American elections are dumb for a number of reasons. Having two parties for a country of 350m people is one of them while another is the electoral college.
Averaging 60% voter turnout is comically bad.
Averaging 60% voter turnout is comically bad.
Don’t forget the senate, where 50 Republican senators represent approximately 40 million fewer voters than the 50 Democratic senators.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "based on the popular vote". The point of a parliamentary system is that it's not 100% direct, but it's also possible to get a lot closer with a good parliamentary system than what the American system manages.
It's called proportional representation