Among likely voters, it's Biden 49%, Trump 45%

You should memorize it.

 

In which state?

 

Among likely voters, it's Biden 49%, Trump 45%
Since one person in North Dakota is worth nearly three in California, that sounds like a sure win for Trump.

 

Your only "worth" is against other voters in YOUR state. The only polls that matter are the polls in the battleground states. You don't when by getting a mythical "popular vote" win. The STATES select the President.

 

My point is that only electoral votes count and since red states count more in electoral votes, that 49 to 45 poll is meaningless.

 

I think it's still anybody's game. Will republicans be galvanized by their hero being subject to the law (fairly or unfairly), will young democrats sit at home because of Israel, will women seek revenge for Roe? Will the economy get better or worse between now and then? Those are some of the unknowns.

 

Unfortunately, this is correct. The votes of Alaskans count for more than the votes of Californians, but they're still a non-factor as we know which way they'll vote. The polls of Florida matter more than the polls of California. It doesn't matter if you win california 80:20 rather than 60:40 if you lose Florida 49:51. Only purple states matter in politics. Yep, our system is screwed up.

 

Votes in Alaska don't count in California. Again the STATES select the President as designed by the framers. We are the Unted STATES not the United PEOPLE

 

But you have claimed that simply excluding several such states from the total is a valid legal "theory." Why is it valid to exclude Alaska from the total entirely?

 

It is interesting trivia but nithing to do with actually winning.

 

Right. And it's stupid: Arbitrarily assigning more power to people based upon what state they live in, because that state "needs" an equal number of senators.

 

We used to be before the republicans went adrift.

 

Yep. It is time for the DNC to find a candidate who can beat Trump. It isn't Biden.

 

Every state has two senators. The House is filled based on population. You may want to read up on why the founders did that. Who knows? It might make sense to you.

 

No, it doesn't. I'm not a big democracy cheerleader, but illogical bullshit is worse. I get why conservatives try to justify it though - it gives them disproportionate power. And I don't mean this as a criticism of framers, they had to find a way to put a government together, but rather to our dedication to it today.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that we have lost our way in terms government since the founding. The voters keep asking government for things and government complies. Over the years it has created the monstrosity we have today. Government by the people creates 300 million different priorities and government tries to provide for all of them. It needs to learn to say no. Or we need to train voters on how to identify and appreciate the best interest of the nation over personal interest.

 

That's just not true. Where we started to run off the rails was when, in 1913, Congress abdicated their control of our money and gave it to private bankers. Giving them the right to create money from nothing and charge U.S. interest for it. Reagan really put it into the ditch when he borrowed more money than ALL presidents before him ... COMBINED ... taking debt growth from a "somewhat" manageable linear growth to the insane exponential growth we have today. He also starved the government of revenue and deregulated commerce that allowed industry to move over seas which devastated the tax base. Ever since the wealth have bought their way (with campaign donations) into the most lopsided revenue scheme in history. Congress to make up for all the favors it showers on the rich have cut the social safety net to the point it hardly exists. And re no, now, tRump ublicans accuse anyone wanting a more equitable distribution of wealth Communists.

 

We have ALWAYS been the United STATES and the People have never had a direct vote for the President the STATES have ALWAYS selected the President.

 

It's doesn't assign any power to people. The STATES select the President not the PEOPLE. Don't they teach that in school anymore? You have NO RIGHT to vote for the President under the Constitution did you not know that? Some states could hold elections some could let the state legislature choose the electors and the Constitution would allow it.

 

No I haven't made such an argument.

 

You didn't make the argument that the Eastman memo was a set of valid legal theories? Interesting pivot. I welcome this change of heart.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again more tersely. I understand that. I disagree with it.

 

No, "we" have NOT always been The United States, we had to fight a war against the greatest military in the world, at the time, to become The United States. It took a lot of sacrifice of blood and treasure by ALL involved, which brought U.S. together as Americans. It created what was to become THE Greatest Nation on earth, the GREAT Nation WE are TODAY!

The Founders created the Electoral College to guard against a vulnerable electorate becoming beguiled by a glib Conman that would deviously get their votes. So they made created the Electoral College, to be selected by the populous, to vote in their place. These would be educated men that would vote for a qualified "magistrate" in the case that general populous chose the Conman.
-Federalist 68

But that was all short circuited by States passing laws requiring the Electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. AND, that's how we got tRaitor tRump as President. Proving the Electoral College is an antiquated anachronism that's out lived it's usefulness. Hopefully the many other built in mechanisms will save U.S. from another tRaitor tRump Presidency.

 

They never did because it's not true.

That is just not true, no State has a law that appoints Electoral College Electors without a vote of the people.