This is great analysis

HRC got 3M more votes in 2016. In 2024, more people voted for a woman than a man (Harris+Stein > than Trump+others).

I heard the same thing about a black president. Your take is extremely unhelpful, not supported by fact, and helps MAGA discourage voting (because we’re in a hopeless patriarchy!)

Nobody? Ok.

In most forums, the answer is “because when he talked to chefs he would curry favor”.

In this forum, the answer is “because his name is Tom Nichols”.

Half cat
Half bodyguard
All perv

I cannot figure out why the MSM doesn’t invoke frequently that week where the WH official line re why Trump’s name *might* appear often in the Epstein files was because he was super secretly working undercover for the FBI. 🤣

Is there some inside baseball reason they ignore it?

Cool but not a new idea. They were all over Big Hero 6 a dozen years ago.

Why was the Indian food critic fired?

The GOP won’t trade voter ID for a an Election Day holiday because they know the latter would result in more blue collar citizens voting. They agreed to the Juneteenth holiday because it’s symbolic; it doesn’t actually increase black voter turnout like an election holiday would.

I say this as a pragmatic Dem who thinks Trump might literally be the antichrist:

Dems refusing to have an answer to the question “what is a woman” moves the Overton Window to the right.

The left has its crazies, but the right is orders of magnitude worse.

Well said.

Just started rewatching The Wire. Even better than I remember!

You didn’t.

Prince of Darkness is a weird and excellent, and the source of my most memorable nightmare as a kid.

Another assertion made without evidence (kind of meta, actually— you’re asserting you’re not a person who doesn’t provide evidence… without providing evidence). 😂

It’s cool. It’s been a nice run. Unfollowed.

Fantasizing? You are the one making multiple assertions with zero citations or evidence, and then bailing the moment you’re asked to back up what you say.

Thanks for reminding me what conversations on “X” were like.

Scholars are divided on the issue. Full stop.

Ok then. Please cite another source that you deem more credible that contradicts that result.

My question is: why are you so invested in a particular outcome? It seems like you’re just trying to win an argument rather than gain understanding. What’s the big deal?

This is awesome

And you’re wrong on the idea that they are by and large against. In fact most think it would pass muster.

It’s not settled. Sadly, whether it’s constitutional or not will seem to depend on who has a majority on SCOTUS at the time it goes under review.

I’ve read it. It’s not in there. Feel free to cite it.

What you’re probably thinking of is that several states have passed *state* law saying that whomever wins the pop vote *in their state* gets their state’s EC votes. Those laws are to prevent “rogue electors”.

Elections are run by the states.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

The whole point of the EC was supposed to be that states chose respected and clear thinking electors, and then they vote for whoever the hell they want and think will make the best POTUS (why we are technically a Constitutional Republic).

Is that supposed to mean something? The plural of anecdote is not data.

Look up the public positions of legislators on DC and PR statehood. MAGA hates it because that would add 4 blue Senators and they would never win control of the Senate ever again.

It doesn’t conflict with the constitution. If enough states agree through their own state law to assign their electors to whoever wins the pop. vote, it will de facto change our presidential elections to national popular vote, even if de jure, it’s still the electoral college.

Puerto Ricans prefer statehood to independence 6 to 1.

MAGA does NOT want statehood because that would add two Dems to the U.S. Senate and shift the balance of power away towards the Democrats.

He flew off the handle at me for pointing out the national popular vote movement doesn’t need a constitutional amendment abolishing the EC, saying I was “moving goal posts” then admonished me for not just admitting I was wrong.

Then he wouldn’t admit he’s wrong when I proved it. 🤷‍♂️ He’s a hypocrite.

I’m not the OP. So, JFC, why don’t you read gooder and then admit you misspoke or were wrong.

I respect your POV here, but the strong majority of the island disagrees with you. 6x more Puerto Ricans prefer statehood (~60%) to full independence (~10%).

You completely misunderstand.

The interstate compact is a way to circumvent the Electoral
College, obviating the need for a const. amendment.

17 states + DC have passed it. 7 more states have partially passed it. If those 7 can fully pass, it would total >270 electoral votes and go into effect.

Not necessarily. There is an interstate compact where states pass a law that they will give their electoral college votes to the winner if the national popular vote, but the law only triggers when enough states pass the same law so that their electoral votes would be enough to win.

So… you’re saying it wasn’t a message of unity?