We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

[TheDrake]

The biggest flaw is winner takes all. When Florida splits 51/49 the winner shouldn't get all the electors. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states doing it right.

[yossarian22c]

Nebraska uses Congressional districts so the electors can be gerrymandered. I don't think that is an improvement. Breaking into smaller regions can lead to even weirder outcomes, particularly if the regions are drawn to given one side a particular advantage.

[ScottF]

We've seen the poll/reality disconnect before - smart people will be dubious, or at least not look to polls as good predictors. The media and current climate have driven a lot of right-leaning voters underground, much more so than in 2016.

They're not going to have Trump bumper stickers or walk around wearing maga hats (look, a racist!) and many of them won't tip their hand to a pollster either.

[D.W.]

Yep, but the flaw is laid bare and is system breaking if Trump wins a second term while losing the popular vote 47%-52%.

The flaw is not "the system" if Trump still manages 47%.

[DonaldD]

Gerrymandering doesn't really affect the electoral college, with the possible exception of voter suppression tactics, but that is already its own topic.

The EC is a feature - arguably, that was the contract the country made with smaller states.  Just because it works as designed isn't necessarily a flaw.

[Kasandra]

Yep, but the flaw is laid bare and is system breaking if Trump wins a second term while losing the popular vote 47%-52%.

The flaw is not "the system" if Trump still manages 47%.

It doesn't bode well that Republicans are determined to limit voting in poor urban districts with high Democratic voting tendencies.  Trump could indeed end up with a tiny popular vote win with 3-5% of the electorate unfairly denied the opportunity to vote.

I probably think the electoral college is more valuable than its harsher critics.  If we went to a purely popular vote, no candidate would ever visit a state that didn't contribute a significant benefit to their chances.  I think there would be a one-vote majority campaign priority to find the single vote needed to give their candidate the slightest majority (or plurality).  That means they don't need to focus on states where they would split the vote evenly, but instead run up the tally in states they are favored in and boost their vote just enough in states they won't win in order to keep their overall majority.

IMO, there are two better systems than what we now have, both of which preserve the electoral college but do away with people acting as electors, which would eliminate faithless electors. 

First option, use ranked-choice-voting in every state, so that one candidate is guaranteed to get a majority. All of the electors in that state would then be bound to cast unanimous votes for the winner. 

Second option, require all states to allocate their electors according to the national popular vote.  That would ensure that the most and least populous states would have equal influence on the outcome on a per capita (really, per Congressional seat) basis.  Fractional electoral votes would be required.

[DonaldD]

It doesn't bode well that Republicans are determined to limit voting in poor urban districts with high Democratic voting tendencies.  Trump could indeed end up with a tiny popular vote win with 3-5% of the electorate unfairly denied the opportunity to vote.

I doubt the voter suppression efforts will be significantly different this time out than other times.  Although there have been changes to the voting rights act that may have an effect...

Also, how would the second option ever diverge from a simple "purely popular vote"?

[yossarian22c]

Gerrymandering doesn't really affect the electoral college, with the possible exception of voter suppression tactics, but that is already its own topic.

The EC is a feature - arguably, that was the contract the country made with smaller states.  Just because it works as designed isn't necessarily a flaw.

The EC as thought originally conceived was similar to how senators would be elected. Originally senators would be elected by state legislators. It was originally conceived that the electors would be a group that selected the president, not just rubber stamped their states choice. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a need for there to be actual electors.

Let's face it, the founders didn't conceive of having states where one state had nearly 100x the population of another. The way the country has grown is straining that compromise to the breaking point. At the time Virginia had about 10x the population of the smallest states. We've moved an order of magnitude away from that and to compound it we capped the number of representatives about 100 years ago so that a representative from the smallest states represents about 1/2 as many people as those from the rest of the country.

[yossarian22c]

I probably think the electoral college is more valuable than its harsher critics.  If we went to a purely popular vote, no candidate would ever visit a state that didn't contribute a significant benefit to their chances.  I think there would be a one-vote majority campaign priority to find the single vote needed to give their candidate the slightest majority (or plurality).  That means they don't need to focus on states where they would split the vote evenly, but instead run up the tally in states they are favored in and boost their vote just enough in states they won't win in order to keep their overall majority.

We're already at the point where lots of states get ignored because the conclusion in that state is a forgone conclusion. What the EC does do is focus the candidates on the same states. The fact that we are likely to see a national election where neither candidate does much in three of the largest states of the union (California, NY, and Texas) then there's also a problem with that. Its not like Wyoming is getting a lot of love from the EC, forgone conclusion again, even though a vote in Wyoming is worth 3 to 4 times as much as one in California.

By letting the decision get decided by who ekes out a win in the closest states we are adding a lot of randomness and potential for small errors be magnified. The butterfly ballot and Trump winning by a combined 100,000 votes in 5 key states show the effects of this.

[TheDeamon]

If Biden gets over 50% nationwide and wins by 5+ points as he's polling to do currently and still loses then it points to a real flaw in the system. Gore and Clinton both failed to get majorities, simply getting pluralities but if we end up in a system where a majority loses and a plurality has lost 3 times in 7 elections it points to a larger democratic issue.

The flaw is called the Electoral College, gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Design feature. Madison may have mocked "the conspiracy of the (populous) states" but it was the entire reason delegates from Rhode Island (not Virginia--that was Madison) wanted both the Senate and the Electoral College.

And where it concerns the EC as practiced in all but two states, it can hardly be called Gerrymandering. The borders as they are have existed for over 100 years for every state involved.

Voter suppression can be argued, but don't confuse voters not being bothered to vote because "their guy" isn't that exciting(as happened to Romney when over 2 million Conservative voters remained at home--Republicans didn't cry about voter suppression then), with some vast conspiracy to keep Democrats from voting.

[Fenring]

I don't see any way to avoid candidates maximizing their time and efforts by avoiding spending efforts where they are not needed. The only way to prevent his is to create a system where they are needed everywhere always. Not sure if that would strain the budgets of these campaigns, which are already way, way too expensive. In my view the reforms needed should include vastly reducing campaign budgets, and even capping what can be spent. Even better, for it all to be provided with public monies and no private contributions allowed at all. But I digress: so long as spending efficiency is relevant, you can't get away from it no matter what your system. Make small states matter a lot, or matter little, either way a candidate will ignore that state if it's considered to already be in the bag (or impossible).

The only way I can see to make candidates threat every single state as being terribly relevant would be to have the election decided based at least in part by gains made in a state. So if in the previous general election D got 47% and R 51%, D getting 49% this time would be worth 'something' in terms of final score, even if they 'lose the state'. That way you'd have to fight to prevent any gains by the other side. This is just a mathematical thought experiment, meant to be an example of how to refocus campaign goals: there has to be incentive.

[TheDeamon]

Let's face it, the founders didn't conceive of having states where one state had nearly 100x the population of another. The way the country has grown is straining that compromise to the breaking point. At the time Virginia had about 10x the population of the smallest states. We've moved an order of magnitude away from that and to compound it we capped the number of representatives about 100 years ago so that a representative from the smallest states represents about 1/2 as many people as those from the rest of the country.

If the Democrats wanted to fix that, they could have done so any number of times. The cap on 435 representatives is a rule passed by the House, which can be altered by the House any time they wish. It only requires a majority vote.

[DonaldD]

Voter suppression can be argued, but don't confuse voters not being bothered to vote because "their guy" isn't that exciting(as happened to Romney when over 2 million Conservative voters remained at home--Republicans didn't cry about voter suppression then), with some vast conspiracy to keep Democrats from voting.

Exactly right - Romney was a "meh" vote, whereas multiple southern states had to be basically colonized by the federal government (for the purposes of voting) in order to impede their attempts to deny the franchise to minorities and opponents.  And now, with parts of the voting rights act being successfully stripped, those tendencies have been returning with a vengeance.

[TheDrake]

Let's face it, the founders didn't conceive of having states where one state had nearly 100x the population of another. The way the country has grown is straining that compromise to the breaking point. At the time Virginia had about 10x the population of the smallest states. We've moved an order of magnitude away from that and to compound it we capped the number of representatives about 100 years ago so that a representative from the smallest states represents about 1/2 as many people as those from the rest of the country.

If the Democrats wanted to fix that, they could have done so any number of times. The cap on 435 representatives is a rule passed by the House, which can be altered by the House any time they wish. It only requires a majority vote.

Fake news. It is not a rule, it is a law. It can be changed, but only through the normal legislative process. Permanent Apportionment Act

[TheDeamon]

The only way I can see to make candidates threat every single state as being terribly relevant would be to have the election decided based at least in part by gains made in a state. So if in the previous general election D got 47% and R 51%, D getting 49% this time would be worth 'something' in terms of final score, even if they 'lose the state'. That way you'd have to fight to prevent any gains by the other side. This is just a mathematical thought experiment, meant to be an example of how to refocus campaign goals: there has to be incentive.

I think you're basically saying keep the elector selection statewide. But apportion the delegates proportionately to the votes cast in the state? (Where obviously that would end up being a function of how many electors a state has)

I could see good and bad things from that. It would make California and New York matter more, as even shifting a couple percentage points could mean several more EC votes(and fewer for the other guy). While Wyoming still wouldn't matter much, with three electors, the cutoffs would likely be 34% and 67% respectively. Although it could warrant a little more Democratic attention.

Trump won Wyoming in 2016 with 67.4% of the vote. Hillary won 21.6% of the vote. Which actually brings in another question when you're dealing with a fractional apportionment as would have happened there.

Also we need to revisit the bigger states for a moment as well, in this case I'm going to look at Utah in 2016. They have 6 EC votes. Every 16.66~% of the vote is 1 EC ballot.

Hillary won 27.46% of the vote. So she's at 1 and 2/3rds of an EC vote.
Trump won 45.54% of the vote. So he's at 2 and 3/4ths of an EC vote.
McMullin won 21.54 of the vote. So he's at 1 and 1/3rd of an EC vote.
nobody else obtained more than 4% of the vote in Utah. In this case it would like Utah would have split 2 EC votes for Hillary, 3 for Trump, and the final vote would have gone to McMullin for a total of 6 EC votes cast.

So now we have a three way race for president in the EC vote in the House.

But now let us take a look at California, where wither 55 EC votes, 1.8181~% of the vote(simplified to 1.8%) equals 1 EC vote.
Hillary won 61.73% of the vote. That nets her 34.29 EC Votes
Trump won 31.62% of the vote. That nets him 17.56 EC Votes
That makes 51.85 EC votes between them out of 55.
Johnson(libertarian) won 3.37% of the vote. That nets him 1.87 EC Votes.
Stein(Green) won 1.96% of the vote. That would net her 1.09 votes.
Which gets up to 54.81 EC votes cast
As per Wiki, McMullin won 0.28% of the vote, and "others" won another 1.04% of the vote. So not enough to decisively apportion another EC ballot.
Trump and Johnson are the two candidates with a greater than .5 EC Vote apportioned to them so they'll be rounded up.
34 EC votes for Hillary, 18 for Trump, 2 for Johnson, 1 for Stein for a total of 55 so thankfully we're not needing to play other games to get the correct total.

Except now just between Utah and California, we now have a 5 way race for PotUS in the EC. The constitution limits congress to the top three, so it'd be a race between Trump, Clinton, and Johnson(with 2 EC votes).

I'm not going to "math out" New York, but with 29 EC votes, a candidate would need 3.44% to get a full EC vote apportioned. Johnson obtained 2.29% of the vote in New York, and Stein obtained 1.40% of it. McMullin and others combined amassed a further 0.79% of the vote. So it would be a reasonable bet that Johnson would have picked up a third EC vote from New York as well.

Texas would have given Johnson another EC Vote as well. With 38 EC votes, 2.63% of the vote is needed for a full EC vote apportionment.
Johnson won 3.16% of the vote, for  1.2 EC votes
Stein/McMullin/"others" combine for 1.37% of the vote for a combined share of 0.52 EC votes
Trump won 52.23% of the vote, for 19.85 EC votes
Hillary won 43.24% of the vote, 16.44 EC Votes

So that'd be 20 for Trump, 16(+1?) for Hillary, and 1 for Johnson.

From a quick run down the table, I don't see that apportionment method throwing any other EC votes to a third party in 2016, but it would have thrown 6 EC votes to third parties in 2016.

Not sure how the rest of the electoral landscape would have altered with the change to methodology across the various states. Trump won 304 to 227 in 2016(7 faithless electors).
In making Texas, and Utah proportional, Trump loses 21 EC votes while Hillary gains 19 EC votes.
But in exchange Hillary lost 21 EC votes in California, while Trump gains 18.
So 304 to 227 turns into 301 to 225 to 3 to 1 to 1

[TheDeamon]

Let's face it, the founders didn't conceive of having states where one state had nearly 100x the population of another. The way the country has grown is straining that compromise to the breaking point. At the time Virginia had about 10x the population of the smallest states. We've moved an order of magnitude away from that and to compound it we capped the number of representatives about 100 years ago so that a representative from the smallest states represents about 1/2 as many people as those from the rest of the country.

If the Democrats wanted to fix that, they could have done so any number of times. The cap on 435 representatives is a rule passed by the House, which can be altered by the House any time they wish. It only requires a majority vote.

Fake news. It is not a rule, it is a law. It can be changed, but only through the normal legislative process. Permanent Apportionment Act

Still only requires a majority vote of congress. And do you seriously think the Republicans are going to fight that? (Unless the Democrats monkey with more than just the number of seats available)

The problem here is nobody in the House of Representatives has an interest in diluting their own power, and neither party wants to pursue the matter.

[NobleHunter]

Sure, the Republicans are totally going to be on board with giving more seats to the urban centers that reliably go Democrat. The current set up greatly favors rural areas which tend to vote GOP.

So of course the Republicans will fight it.

[TheDeamon]

Sure, the Republicans are totally going to be on board with giving more seats to the urban centers that reliably go Democrat. The current set up greatly favors rural areas which tend to vote GOP.

So of course the Republicans will fight it.

Last time I checked, the states most likely to benefit from more seats in the House tend to vote (R) on the Presidential scale. Unless they massively boosted the number of seats involved. Which is probably why the Democrats haven't been chomping at the bit on that.

[yossarian22c]

Sure, the Republicans are totally going to be on board with giving more seats to the urban centers that reliably go Democrat. The current set up greatly favors rural areas which tend to vote GOP.

So of course the Republicans will fight it.

Last time I checked, the states most likely to benefit from more seats in the House tend to vote (R) on the Presidential scale. Unless they massively boosted the number of seats involved. Which is probably why the Democrats haven't been chomping at the bit on that.

To "Wyoming scale" the house would require almost doubling the number of reps. Increasing the number of reps by 10 or 20 at this point doesn't impact that much. Increasing by 5-10 seats just depends on who was closest to the cutoff at the last census. The only real bill that had a chance several years ago was one that increased the number of reps by 2. DC was going to get one and at the time Utah would have gotten the other.

The only reason democrats would get on board with a massive increase like doubling the size of reps would be to dilute the +2 impact of the EC, since the republicans tend to have an advantage in the number of states that matter there. Another weird, but not mainstream, dem pro-proposals have been to split California into 3 or 4 smaller states, the danger there would be that at least 1 would likely be a swing state but it definitely shifts the balance in the Senate.

[TheDeamon]

To "Wyoming scale" the house would require almost doubling the number of reps. Increasing the number of reps by 10 or 20 at this point doesn't impact that much. Increasing by 5-10 seats just depends on who was closest to the cutoff at the last census. The only real bill that had a chance several years ago was one that increased the number of reps by 2. DC was going to get one and at the time Utah would have gotten the other.

The only reason democrats would get on board with a massive increase like doubling the size of reps would be to dilute the +2 impact of the EC, since the republicans tend to have an advantage in the number of states that matter there. Another weird, but not mainstream, dem pro-proposals have been to split California into 3 or 4 smaller states, the danger there would be that at least 1 would likely be a swing state but it definitely shifts the balance in the Senate.

Doing some googling around, I found someone seems to have done the math on 2016. It's the +2 seats from the senate that really skew it, but doesn't completely change things in 2016.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/99qpo4/2016_electoral_map_if_the_wyoming_rule_was_used/

Basically if the Wyoming Rule had been used prior to 2016, Trump would have won 368 to 280.

Although it seems there are some minor discrepancies between sites I'm looking at. The numbers from that reddit post would suggest 435 house seats. While another writeup based on the 2010 census claims 434 House Seats. So I guess I'll attribute the extra seat to a rounding error on the part of one of them.

[Fenring]

I think you're basically saying keep the elector selection statewide. But apportion the delegates proportionately to the votes cast in the state? (Where obviously that would end up being a function of how many electors a state has)

Well, I wasn't really meaning that, but rather just invented a mathematical construct as a thought experiment to say that if shifts in voting materially mattered then it wouldn't be enough to just say 'we won'. I wasn't specifying what the mechanism should be of weighing the effect of it, only that without any mechanism what you will see is a candidate avoiding areas where their efforts would have little effect. If shifts in voting percentages materially affected the final tally then perhaps it would give incentive at least to the other side to get in there and steal your numbers, even if only by a few percent, and even if they knew they would still not 'win'.

As far as what the mechanism should be, I should think that it would be separate from the electors altogether, and maybe be a separate calculation, so that maybe electors count for (I'm making this up) 80% of your total 'score' in the election, the other 20% being gains/losses in various states (which could very well come up as net zero if both sides do roughly as well as each other). And I would say percentage gains, not absolute numbers, because then we get into ignoring small stages again.

[TheDeamon]

I've now stumbled upon mention of the cube root rule, and looking to see if anyone has crunched numbers on it relative to 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_root_rule

That would massively change the size of congress. Although I've seen two descriptions of it. Wiki having the second.

The other place I encountered it did the cube root calculation, then subtracted 100 to reflect the Senate.

Wiki's description doesn't account for the Senate, and comes up with 676 House seats after the 2010 Census.

[yossarian22c]

To "Wyoming scale" the house would require almost doubling the number of reps. Increasing the number of reps by 10 or 20 at this point doesn't impact that much. Increasing by 5-10 seats just depends on who was closest to the cutoff at the last census. The only real bill that had a chance several years ago was one that increased the number of reps by 2. DC was going to get one and at the time Utah would have gotten the other.

The only reason democrats would get on board with a massive increase like doubling the size of reps would be to dilute the +2 impact of the EC, since the republicans tend to have an advantage in the number of states that matter there. Another weird, but not mainstream, dem pro-proposals have been to split California into 3 or 4 smaller states, the danger there would be that at least 1 would likely be a swing state but it definitely shifts the balance in the Senate.

Doing some googling around, I found someone seems to have done the math on 2016. It's the +2 seats from the senate that really skew it, but doesn't completely change things in 2016.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/99qpo4/2016_electoral_map_if_the_wyoming_rule_was_used/

Basically if the Wyoming Rule had been used prior to 2016, Trump would have won 368 to 280.

Although it seems there are some minor discrepancies between sites I'm looking at. The numbers from that reddit post would suggest 435 house seats. While another writeup based on the 2010 census claims 434 House Seats. So I guess I'll attribute the extra seat to a rounding error on the part of one of them.

What skewed results in 2016 was Trump basically winning every close state, particularly the big ones. Penn, Mich, Wi, and a couple others were combined decided by less than 100k votes. The +2 from the Senate impacts things but not as much as the winner take all format that the states operate under. Imagine how different elections would be if Cali with all its delegates was a swing state. If 50,000 votes in California could swing an election then the tone of presidential elections could be insanely different.

[TheDrake]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the last thing the country needs is more members of Congress.

[yossarian22c]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the last thing the country needs is more members of Congress.

Why? It dilutes their individual power.

But there is an upper limit on the number of people who can work together as functional group. On the other hand it puts the representatives closer to the people.

[TheDeamon]

Well, I stumbled into this political science paper in one of my search queries:
http://polisci.uci.edu/~jcervas/papers/2019/SSQ/inversions.pdf

One portion stuck out in the quick skim through it:

There are a number of interesting results shown in Table 2. First, malapportionment effects, and especially the effects of the two-state bonus, are not that large. For example, in 2016, Donald Trump would have been elected even had there been no two-seat bonus. In fact, he would have won in all the different unit-rule configurations, only losing when a proportional rule such as the popular vote is instituted. Indeed, as can be derived from the differences between Columns 2 and 3 of Table 2, in only three elections in American history has the two-seat bonus feature of the EC been decisive in reversing an election result. The first time this happened was in 1876 when the two-seat bonus benefited the Republican candidate, then again in 1916 when it benefited the Democratic candidate, and finally again in 2000 when it benefited the Republican candidate. However, we observe that the over the last seven elections, the two-seat bonus has consistently favored the Republican candidate, even when it has not had an impact on election outcome. On the other hand, glancing through Table 2’s first two columns reveals several instances where a reversal almost happened. In most of these instances, the Democratic candidate came out on top, for example, in 1960.

Second, while proportionality variants of EC allocations clearly can dramatically change the magnitude of seat outcomes relative to vote outcomes, it is only in the period from 1880 to 1900 that we see repeated evidence of changes in the presidential winner based on choice of a proportional as opposed to a winner-take-all rule, though, of course, we also see this in 2000 and 2016.

Third, we note that the “reform” that would have the most dramatic effect on recent elections is a winner-take-all rule based on district outcomes. In recent elections where a Democratic Party candidate won the election, such a rule would reverse the EC. That such inversions provide net benefits to the Republican Party can be explained by the degree to which Democratic voting strength is inefficiently concentrated in urban districts (Chen and Rodden, 2013), and the degree to which there is greater Republican unified control of state legislatures and governorship than is true for Democrats, giving Republicans a much greater opportunity to engage in successful partisan gerrymandering of congressional district lines. In 1960, 1976, and 2012, for example, the outcomes would have been reversed (all three times benefiting the Republican candidate) if we allocated based on the results within congressional districts plus the plurality state winner getting two bonus seats. In 1976, however, not giving the two-seat bonus to the state plurality winner reverses yet again back to the actual winner, Jimmy Carter (i.e., benefits the Democratic candidate).

[TheDeamon]

Oh, have another quote block coming shortly. That above block wasn't expanding the size of the EC, just found the section where they tackle that one, although it should ALSO be noted that they "simplified" their simulations, they're only counting the Democrat and Republican votes for their purposes.

So their results are based on Republican and Democratic President votes only, third party votes aren't part of their model.

[TheDeamon]

Well, they didn't write-up that one as concisely as the other. They're also using the wiki version where the Senate is not being used to count against the size of the House. But going by their tables...

Under the Cubed Root Rule on its own(remember, they're not factoring in third parties), they show that Gore would have won in 2000, but Trump would have still won in 2016.

If you did Cubed Root Rule with national application of proportional vote allocation (to whole numbers) including the +2 votes through the senate, Bush wins in 2000, but Trump loses in 2016. Getting rid of the +2 senate votes would make 2000 a Gore win, and would have also been a Trump loss in 2016. Allowing for fractional values would have made 2000 and 2016 Democrat wins.

Cubed Root by itself would have prevented the electoral flip in 1876, but would have done nothing about 1888.

Cubed Root proportional vote would have caused an electoral flip of the popular votes in 1880 without regard to which of the 4 methods they used. (The EC went with the popular vote winner that year) BUT any of the four variants would have prevented an electoral flip in 1888.

Cubed Root proportional vote (whole number) would have cause an electoral flip in 1900, where the EC didn't flip in reality.

Obviously they can't do historical comparisons by district for cubed root as those districts never existed historically.

[Kasandra]

Totalitaritism is not actually a thing.  It's a cognitive failure connecting ideas to words, usually indicating a lack of understanding of or aversion to the concept the person is trying to express.  Other examples that support this view:

"Discgrace" - referring to members of the non-FOX media and press
"Melanie" - His wife's name
"tarrifs" - referring to relaxing tariffs in discussions with Xi
"Marine Core" - Talking about visiting Marine Corps Miramar base
"dieing mediocre career" - Comment about Alec Baldwin
"President Rajoy" - Referring to Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy; Trump made the mistake twice in the meeting
"Sometimes protest is needed in order to heel,and heel we will!"
"covfefe" - Tweet about negative press coverage he receives

Bonus:

"Promote the possibility of lasting peach" - Israel and Palestinians

There are dozens more.

[TheDeamon]

It is not policies at all that matters, or else the most successful President of all time (outside of the Wuhan Flu) would be universally supported.

It's almost frightening that I'm sure you believe the things you say.  Are you aware that he never has had more than 43% approval in the entire time he's been President?  That's the lowest continual rating of any President in modern history, and since that sort of poll wasn't around until the past several decades, many historians think he has the highest disapproval rating of any US President in history.  If he's competing in a race to be the "most ... President of all time", he's running a race to the bottom, not the top. 

Put down the kool-aid, it's got disinfectant in it now.

You need to remember that is a raw number, and it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. Any other President and you'd probably be right, but traditional understandings go out the window with Trump.

Most Conservatives(/independents -- So not identifying as Republicans) find Trump to be disgusting, so if they're polled about their approval/disapproval of Trump, they're going to disapprove.

But come election time, if they have to chose to pull a lever for Trump or Biden, they'll be voting for Trump despite their disapproval of him as a human being.

To frame it another way, they disapprove of his comportment, style, and general presentation of a great many things. As such "they disapprove of how he's doing things" However, they do approve of the results and many of the goals behind those actions, but they're justifiably hung up on Trump the sleezy used car salesman presentation so in total it's showing as disapproval. They don't mind the function, but the form is terrible.

Meanwhile the Dems are offering them terrible function, and terrible form from their POV. They'll take Trump over that.

And now, Newsweek has some data to support what I was talking about, only in regards to a demographic I wasn't expecting. LGBTQI+ community members who identify as men:

https://www.newsweek.com/though-most-lgbtqs-vote-democratic-new-poll-shows-45-queer-men-backing-trump-1531867

A recent survey of 1,200 queer men in the United States found that 45 percent planned on voting for Republican President Donald Trump. Comparatively, 51 percent said they would vote for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

...

The poll, conducted by the queer men's social app Hornet, actually asked 10,000 of its users worldwide about their preferred presidential candidate. But while 66 percent of worldwide users supported Biden and 34 percent supported Trump, the percentages among U.S. men were much closer.

Of the 1,200 men living in the United States, 49 percent said that they do not support Trump at all and 11 percent said they disagree with him on most issues. Nine percent said they agree with Trump on some issues and disagree with him on others. Only 27 percent of U.S.-based respondents said they either mostly or fully supported Trump.

However, 10 percent of the U.S. men who said they "do not support [Trump] at all" said that they will vote for him regardless.

[DonaldD]

So you're saying that queer men are 6% points less likely to vote for Trump than men in general?  That's a pretty significant disparity, and not even getting into self-selection issues when a particular dating app polls its own users and then generalizes.

I wonder how queer women would poll?

[DonaldD]

As an aside, Trump's favourable/unfavourable range is always much larger than Trump/Biden head to head deficits.  Just because people disapprove, doesn't mean they don't also disapprove of the other guy.

[TheDeamon]

So you're saying that queer men are 6% points less likely to vote for Trump than men in general?  That's a pretty significant disparity, and not even getting into self-selection issues when a particular dating app polls its own users and then generalizes.

I wonder how queer women would poll?

From the same article:

Exit polls from the 2016 presidential elections found that at least 75 percent of LGBTQ voters supported Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over Trump. A reported 14 percent favored Trump.

45% support for Trump is an improvement, a very significant one at that.

[TheDeamon]

Okay, looks like they clickbaited that one, although I'm surprised they'd lead with the pro-trump side of it... Then again, on second thought, I guess it was an attempt to mobilize the Biden voters by scaring them?

Hornet's male users may not reflect the larger LGBTQ community which largely votes Democrat, and LGBTQ voters may have soured on Trump having seen his administration's handling of queer issues.

Recent polling also suggests that most LGBTQ voters will oppose Trump. A June 2020 poll of more than 30,000 registered voters conducted by the technology company Morning Consult found that 53 percent of LGBTQ-identified voters favored Biden and only 20 percent favored Trump.

Still, 20% support according to the June poll instead of the 14% he had in November 2016 is an improvement all the same.

[oldbrian]

Then again, on second thought, I guess it was an attempt to mobilize the Biden voters by scaring them?

Or, you know, honest reporting.  That thing you are convinced doesn't exist?

[TheDeamon]

Then again, on second thought, I guess it was an attempt to mobilize the Biden voters by scaring them?

Or, you know, honest reporting.  That thing you are convinced doesn't exist?

Honest by technicality, we've had this discussion in the past in regards to studies involving people's "engagement" with the written word online. Many people won't make it past either the headline, or the byline if one is present. Most people won't read more than the first few paragraphs.

So you can tell a LOT about the objectives of either the writer, or their editor, based upon how they write the article. What they want people to perceive will be front loaded in the article. Only after that has been accomplished will they then start getting into the "objective facts" which quite possibly negate the take-away they're going for.

That article is a prime example of that. Reporting that there is high support for Trump among LGBTQI+ men from the United States using that platform, leading with it, going into many paragraphs breaking it down, and only after making it through several screens of texts and advertisements, do you get to the part where they then pretty much dismantle their own story with three paragraphs.

So they want people to perceive that Trump is doing far better among men with "alternative preferences" than people otherwise thought, while they have every reason to think the reality of the matter is quite different. So it becomes a question of they think benefits from people buying into that perception of things. Were they boosting for Trump, or Biden by doing that?

Making Trump supporters think he's going to landslide could get them to not vote, while making Biden voters think the race is closer than it seems may encourage them to get out and vote, or more dangerously, demoralize them from voting in the first place. Given Newsweek as a general practice has been antagonistic towards Trump, the more likely option is they're trying to scare Biden voters into voting.

[DonaldD]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

Or the internet corollary "that which can be explained by having fired all the copyeditors in the world and hoping that spell check and the "report a problem" buttons are cost effective substitutes."

[TheDeamon]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

Or the internet corollary "that which can be explained by having fired all the copyeditors in the world and hoping that spell check and the "report a problem" buttons are cost effective substitutes."

I'd believe that, if it wasn't for the fact that finding articles that pull stunts like that are a dime a dozen. Deceptive headline, many paragraphs worth of material to support the headline/byline, and then after you've gone through 10+ paragraphs of them building up what they lead with, only for them to take the air out of the balloon they were inflating once you get to the the last 3 or 4 paragraphs.

It's soundbite culture, only custom tailored for the short-attention span world of TLDR.

[wmLambert]

With the debates quickly coming, will any networks even cover it? It is on Fox News, after all.

My guess is they will concentrate on the paraphrase game.

[wmLambert]

...the more likely option is they're trying to scare Biden voters into voting.

It doesn't matter. In the long run, of course for the Left, any votes is a plus - especially for exit-polling data. But there have never been such Machiavellian political leaders as Pelosi and Schumer. people say McConnell is a "rules master, but he pales in comparison to how those two operate. Pelosi regained the House majority by blaming what her party had done onto Trump. She somehow got a complicit MSM not to report on the greatest economy of all time, and the exceptional civil rights actions and resurgence of minority benefits. Pelosi and Schumer were part and parcel to Reid's cloture rule-change. They allowed unhinged spokes persons, like Maxine Waters to call for violence with no censure. They allowed anti-Jewish rhetoric with no censure. They allowed hearings where the invitee was not allowed to be heard. And worse, they allow violence in the streets and call it a Summer of Love.

No, the entire plan is too diabolical to be accidental. They want a disputed election. They disputed the last one and never apologized when proved wrong. The long-reaching results from Reid's rule change was designed for their use, and that use cannot be ignored as mere politics.

[wmLambert]

The official report is out, and it names names. Biden is toast:

• In early 2015 the former Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent, raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board. Kent’s concerns went unaddressed, and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”
• In October 2015, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine.
• Although Kent believed that Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board was awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine, the Committees are only aware of two individuals — Kent and former U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein — who raised concerns to Vice President Joe Biden (Hochstein) or his staff (Kent).
• The awkwardness for Obama administration officials continued well past his presidency. Former Secretary of State John Kerry had knowledge of Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board, but when asked about it at a town hall event in Nashua, N.H. on Dec. 8, 2019, Kerry falsely said, “I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No.” Evidence to the contrary is detailed in Section V.
• Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testified that confronting oligarchs would send an anticorruption message in Ukraine. Kent told the Committees that Zlochevsky was an “odious oligarch.” However, in December 2015, instead of following U.S. objectives of confronting oligarchs, Vice President Biden’s staff advised him to avoid commenting on Zlochevsky and recommended he say, “I’m not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals.”
• Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky.” Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the Resident Legal Advisor reported this allegation to the FBI.
• Hunter Biden was a U.S. Secret Service protectee from Jan. 29, 2009 to July 8, 2014. A day before his last trip as a protectee, Time published an article describing Burisma’s ramped up lobbying efforts to U.S. officials and Hunter’s involvement in Burisma’s board. Before ending his protective detail, Hunter Biden received Secret Service protection on trips to multiple foreign locations, including Moscow, Beijing, Doha, Paris, Seoul, Manila, Tokyo, Mexico City, Milan, Florence, Shanghai, Geneva, London, Dublin, Munich, Berlin, Bogota, Abu Dhabi, Nairobi, Hong Kong, Taipei, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Johannesburg, Brussels, Madrid, Mumbai and Lake Como.
• Andrii Telizhenko, the Democrats’ personification of Russian disinformation, met with Obama administration officials, including Elisabeth Zentos, a member of Obama’s National Security Council, at least 10 times. A Democrat lobbying firm, Blue Star Strategies, contracted with Telizhenko from 2016 to 2017 and continued to request his assistance as recent as the summer of 2019. A recent news article detailed other extensive contacts between Telizhenko and Obama administration officials.
• In addition to the over $4 million paid by Burisma for Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s board memberships, Hunter Biden, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds.
• Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.
• Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow.
• Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong to fund a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden.
• Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and the People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow.
• Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an “Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.”

[wmLambert]

The full Legislative Committee report ( U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Majority Staff Report )runs 87 pages: https://www.scribd.com/document/477171053/Hunter-Biden-Burisma-and-Corruption-The-Impact-on-U-S-Government-Policy-and-Related-Concerns#from_embed

[LetterRip]

So curious what you think makes him 'toast'?  The pay he received as a board member was pretty typical for the industry perhaps a bit low - 200k a year.

3.5 million in consulting for a wealthy Russian (worth 1.5 billion) I'm curious what he was consulting on - but it isn't an out of line number for consultants. If there is any evidence of corrupt influence then there would be a story but since there isn't it is a non issue.

Anyone who does business in China at a high level will do business with people linked to the PLA and Communist party.

[yossarian22c]

So curious what you think makes him 'toast'?  The pay he received as a board member was pretty typical for the industry perhaps a bit low - 200k a year.

3.5 million in consulting for a wealthy Russian (worth 1.5 billion) I'm curious what he was consulting on - but it isn't an out of line number for consultants. If there is any evidence of corrupt influence then there would be a story but since there isn't it is a non issue.

Anyone who does business in China at a high level will do business with people linked to the PLA and Communist party.

Highlighted portion is the key. Hunter's business deals kind of stink. We're deluding ourselves if we think he gets those jobs without his dad being Joe Biden.

At the same time we have no insight into what deals the Trump kids have been cutting around the world. We do know lots of foreign nationals have just happened to stay at Trump's hotel in DC. We'll have to wait on the report to how that potentially impacted any foreign policy.

I don't think this sways any votes.

[TheDeamon]

At the same time we have no insight into what deals the Trump kids have been cutting around the world. We do know lots of foreign nationals have just happened to stay at Trump's hotel in DC. We'll have to wait on the report to how that potentially impacted any foreign policy.

The problem with "lots of foreign nationals have just happened to stay at Trump's hotel in DC." Is that I imagine that was also a common occurrence prior to 2016 as well. So it becomes hard to differentiate between Business as usual vs Business unusual.

If Paris Hilton obtains a high federal office, do we need to audit the activity of every foreign official that happens to stay at a hotel affiliated with the Hilton Hotel chain?

[TheDrake]

In the days before its release, Mr. Johnson conceded in an interview that there would be no “massive smoking guns,” saying that there was “a misconception on the part of the public that there would be.”

It doesn't appear that the guy who led the investigation and wrote the report thinks Biden is toast.

[wmLambert]

Don't act so clueless. Hunter and Joe, and his entire family made millions of dollars off of Joe's position. The name of the game is corruption, and Joe and Hunter tapped into that corruption and made a fortune. Once a prosecutor started investigating Hunter, Joe bragged about his quid pro quo to block a billion dollars of funds to quash that investigation. Stop excusing what they did. It is not normal activity - nor should it be.

[rightleft22]

Don't act so clueless. Hunter and Joe, and his entire family made millions of dollars off of Joe's position. The name of the game is corruption, and Joe and Hunter tapped into that corruption and made a fortune. Once a prosecutor started investigating Hunter, Joe bragged about his quid pro quo to block a billion dollars of funds to quash that investigation. Stop excusing what they did. It is not normal activity - nor should it be.

Projection much. Untill you take your own advice about excusing everything your man does you have no grounds to criticizes others in the manner you to for failing to see thing you way

[LetterRip]

I think his network due to being the son of a long time popular senator who then became vice president was relevant to his hiring.  Board of directors and consultants are primarily hired because of who they can get you on the phone or in a room with.

There simply isn't any evidence that there was corruption, I'm not aware of any of his deals 'stinking' or those he consulted with or sat on boards for getting any special consideration.  It is why you hire MBAs and lawyers who went to Harvard and Yale etc.  They usually have about the same skill as a middle tier University at 2-3 times the price due to the presumed useful contacts.

[wmLambert]

...we have no insight into what deals the Trump kids have been cutting around the world.

It's a world of difference. Trump's kids have always been competent and successful on their own, way before Trump's Presidency. Hunter and the rest of the family just cashed in on Joe Biden's position to shake down foreign oligarchs and crooks. Remember, Hunter had zero experience in the fields he was hired to be an advisor for.

At the same time, Rich foreigners and royalty always stayed at Trump properties around the world before he ran for office. i don't think Chinese billionaires stayed overnight in Hunter's back bedroom.