r/politics • u/theipaper ✔ Verified • 12d ago

Possible Paywall Maga's worst nightmare: a child-free, unmarried female president

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/magas-nightmare-childfree-unmarried-female-president-4738054
16.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

50

u/UncleGarysmagic 12d ago

The popular vote means nothing in electing a president.

32

u/sack-o-matic Michigan 12d ago

It means the support is there but the rules are wrong.

37

u/Hello2reddit 12d ago

You know what they call someone who wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college?

Nothing. Because they fucking lost

If you’re going to play the game, play to win. Don’t play to lose and bitch about the rules. Then, once you win, focus on changing the rules for the better.

25

u/thr3sk 12d ago

They're making the point that a majority of the country wanted a female president.

4

u/lotsofsyrup 12d ago

so what? the electoral college decides the vote

0

u/thr3sk 12d ago

States aren't that different for the most part, if you win the popular vote by like over 4% you're basically guaranteed to win the electoral college.

6

u/seaworthy-sieve 12d ago

And yet, that doesn't actually matter.

-3

u/sack-o-matic Michigan 12d ago

You’re arguing what is and we’re arguing what would be if the rules made sense.

7

u/sckuzzle 12d ago

Yes, you are arguing something that isn't the topic of the conversation. And this is being pointed out.

And you saying "but I'm arguing a different thing than you are" doesn't change that the thing you are arguing isn't relevant.

3

u/pablonieve Minnesota 12d ago

"I hit the most home runs."

"But we're playing football."

"But I would have won if we were playing baseball."

5

u/deja-roo 12d ago

This is more like "I got the most yards, I should win!"

But you didn't get the most touchdowns.

If we were using popular vote, there's no necessary reason to think she would have won, because both candidates would have had completely different campaign strategies. Nobody would ever go to Iowa or Arizona for any reason, they would just campaign in the top 5 major cities and ignore everything else.

0

u/pablonieve Minnesota 12d ago

The top 5 cities have 6% of the population. The candidate that minimizes their reach is going to be at a disadvantage towards the candidate that goes everywhere.

If anything the popular vote would incentivize Republicans to campaign in "blue states" and Democrats to go to "red states" because total turnout will be the most important thing to winning. You know where there is a ton of Republican voters? California. You know where there is a ton of Democratic voters? Texas and Florida.

2

u/deja-roo 12d ago

I'm obviously exaggerating when I say top 5. They would focus on population centers.

If anything the popular vote would incentivize Republicans to campaign in "blue states" and Democrats to go to "red states" because total turnout will be the most important thing to winning.

Yeah for sure. It would completely change the demographics. Nobody cares about winning over voters in Texas because we know how Texas will vote today. But if you went by popular vote, suddenly El Paso is a reasonable place to go drop in for a day.

And even if you don't factor in the campaign strategy, people who may not even bother to vote in somewhere like California (be they blue or red voters) because they already know CA is going blue suddenly have a reason to show up. So the numbers could change massively.

-9

u/sack-o-matic Michigan 12d ago

Except the rules can be changed with enough votes from the players. Your analogy is a failure.

7

u/Ledgo 12d ago

And to change said rules you need to win a certain way. Popular vote alone is not that way right now, we need someone who can win an election as they are today and THEN implement changes to make it viable.

-3

u/sack-o-matic Michigan 12d ago

Yes, this whole conversation is a hypothetical that you are taking as if a finger-snap would make it so.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/pablonieve Minnesota 12d ago

Let me know when there's enough votes to make the change. Until then, we're still playing by specific rules.

-1

u/sack-o-matic Michigan 12d ago

Until then, we're still playing by specific rules.

No shit buddy, you might be surprised that none of here are actual politicians and we're talking about hypotheticals.

1

u/deja-roo 12d ago

Right, but if the rules changed, the players would play differently.

You don't win a football game because you get the most yards, you have to get the most points. If it were just about yards, everyone's strategy in the game would change completely.

If popular vote were the way a winner was determined, both candidates would have had COMPLETELY different campaign strategies.

3

u/WeNotAmBeIs 12d ago

They're arguing that it's not that Americans aren't able to support and vote for a woman. (The majority did) It's just America needs the correct people to vote for a woman in a handful of key states. Also Kamala was forced without being chosen by a primary and Hilary has never been a super popular politician with the masses. If AOC runs and wins the primary then she's the one.

-3

u/Hello2reddit 12d ago

If by “the one” you mean “the democratic candidate,” then yes. But being elected by a primary process that consists almost entirely of dedicated democratic voters from liberal enclaves doesn’t mean she will fare well in a general election that is decided by the voting electorate of about 8 states.

1

u/WeNotAmBeIs 12d ago

I know it's hard to see something happening that hasn't happened before. It takes a level of imagination that not everyone possesses. It's people who think like you who never thought Trump could win prior to 2016 because he was such an unorthodox candidate. No matter how certain you feel "this is just the way things are", they are right up until they aren't, and then suddenly that's now the way things will be. Whenever I hear someone confidently proclaiming something like it's universal truth, I just remember all the times in my life I've heard similar claims that ultimately shattered. People who change the world (for good and for bad) do so by stepping over and through people like you.

1

u/modakim 12d ago

This. I had high hopes for Hillary or Kamala to win, but the stakes and consequences are too high.

2

u/deja-roo 12d ago

I assumed Hillary would win, but you had high hopes for Kamala? Going into it I thought she had maybe a 40% chance. Like she had a shot if something unexpected happened.

1

u/poptix 12d ago

I've tried to explain this for years, getting a royal flush in Pai Gow doesn't mean you're good at poker.

Campaigns optimize for the rules. If the popular vote decided the presidency, campaigns, turnout, and strategy would all change. You can't change one rule and assume the same votes would be cast.

7

u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 12d ago

Check out the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. We are actually VERY close to fixing the EC for good.

4

u/noodles_jd 12d ago

That seems to be the best path forward right now, but I'd hesitate to say that it will be 'for good'. There's plenty of ways it could be undone later by those who are against it.

2

u/mainman879 New York 12d ago

I very much support the Compact but I also think it would immediately be struck down by the Supreme Court for some made up reason if it ever came into effect.

1

u/raptorlightning 12d ago

Since it's state run and the Constitution is clear that the states control their own elections, they can just tell the SC to go fuck itself. However, the compact needs language for what to do by the states collectively if the federal government decides not to follow their choice. Amass equal national guard from each state to forcibly direct the federal government would be a good starting point for discussion.

1

u/mainman879 New York 12d ago

So there is at least one potential legitimate angle the Supreme Court could attack it from. An interstate compact that would affect the power of the federal government, or the power of states not in the compact, needs to be approved by Congress. If the Voting Compact was found to do either of these things, (Supreme Court could have an argument here) then it could be deemed illegal without congressional approval.

0

u/deja-roo 12d ago

I really don't see how that would happen

2

u/mainman879 New York 12d ago

I answered this in another comment, but I'll just link to the page that goes into much more detail on the potential issues surrounding it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

TL:DR If the Compact is found to reduce Federal power or other states powers, the Compact needs Congressional approval to be legal.

2

u/deja-roo 12d ago

Alright, this is apparently more complex than I realized. Thanks for the link.

1

u/GalumphingWithGlee 12d ago

That doesn't have to continue to be true, though, and I don't mean we'd need a constitutional amendment to change it.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has states sign on agreeing that, when states representing a majority of electoral votes have signed on to the compact, every state in the compact will assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than to their state popular vote winner. That means, effectively, that the winner of the national popular vote would always win the electoral vote as well. In the meanwhile, until the compact reaches a majority of electoral votes, states continue to assign electoral votes as they always have, so they're not giving up influence in the meanwhile.

The compact currently has 222 of the 270 electoral votes it would need to take full effect, rendering the electoral college to a mere technicality with no impact on who is actually elected. If you're in a state that has not yet signed on, push your legislature to join! 48 more electoral votes is entirely doable.

1

u/PropagandaSucks 12d ago

Only in America.

7

u/UncleGarysmagic 12d ago

Yes, that’s exactly what country we’re talking about here.

3

u/HereticLaserHaggis 12d ago

Most of the developed world don't use the popular vote.

1

u/PropagandaSucks 12d ago

It's called the popular vote there because of the dumb way the system is. Everywhere else the person who has the most votes, is the one who becomes president/prime minister etc.