LogFAQs > #921887618

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 224: The Congressional Contempt for Political Buggery
xp1337 05/14/19 3:07:21 PM #300:	NFUN posted... the electoral college isn't why we have a two party system. it's the FPTP winner take all mechanic in general Fair. FPTP winner take all is definitely the engine behind it, and honestly probably the better answer since the EC is only truly a factor at the presidential level while FPTP is driving it on every other level. I was thinking in terms of how the EC handles the "no one reaches 270" scenario. Kicking it to the House and then not even an actual House vote but each state voting as a delegation (meaning that, hypothetically, if 2020 ended in a 269-269 scenario, Trump probably wins even though the Dems hold the House by a large margin because atm the Republicans still hold more state delegations. I say probably because this is theoretically flippable with a strong 2020 performance but you get the point) you can hardly provide a stronger disincentive to a robust third party. TheRock1525 posted... Was Montana a necessary flip to win the Senate? No, but it really doesn't help. 2020 Senate map is pretty good for the Dems, other than AL they don't really have any vulnerable seats. At 53-47 they need to net 3 (plus win presidency) Assume CO and AL exchange hands for no gain. Dems would probably then want to look to pickup: AZ, ME, NC, and IA. Those are probably the best bets for flipping seats. "Stretch" goals would include: GA, MT, and TX... but not only are all of those unlikely, they all likely required having Abrams, Bullock, and Beto running for the seats to even have a chance and that's an 0/3. I mean, I guess if Beto gets on the presidential ticket maybe TX is still a stretch goal but yeah... Also, if the Republicans mess up in Alabama maybe holding it somehow is a stretch goal too lol. tl;dr: Bullock not running for MT Senate is not needed to regain the Senate but dammit it would have helped make the math better. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:921887618] in Politics C... [t:77687499]...</cite> <quote><cite>NFUN posted...</cite> <quote>the electoral college isn't why we have a two party system. it's the FPTP winner take all mechanic in general</quote> Fair. FPTP winner take all is definitely the engine behind it, and honestly probably the better answer since the EC is only truly a factor at the presidential level while FPTP is driving it on every other level. I was thinking in terms of how the EC handles the "no one reaches 270" scenario. Kicking it to the House and then not even an actual House vote but each state voting as a delegation (meaning that, hypothetically, if 2020 ended in a 269-269 scenario, Trump probably wins even though the Dems hold the House by a large margin because atm the Republicans still hold more state delegations. I say probably because this is theoretically flippable with a strong 2020 performance but you get the point) you can hardly provide a stronger disincentive to a robust third party. <cite>TheRock1525 posted...</cite> <quote>Was Montana a necessary flip to win the Senate?</quote> No, but it really doesn't help. 2020 Senate map is pretty good for the Dems, other than AL they don't really have any vulnerable seats. At 53-47 they need to net 3 (plus win presidency) Assume CO and AL exchange hands for no gain. Dems would probably then want to look to pickup: AZ, ME, NC, and IA. Those are probably the best bets for flipping seats. "Stretch" goals would include: GA, MT, and TX... but not only are all of those unlikely, they all likely required having Abrams, Bullock, and Beto running for the seats to even have a chance and that's an 0/3. I mean, I guess if Beto gets on the presidential ticket maybe TX is still a stretch goal but yeah... Also, if the Republicans mess up in Alabama maybe holding it somehow is a stretch goal too lol. tl;dr: Bullock not running for MT Senate is not needed to regain the Senate but dammit it would have helped make the math better. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1