"Popular vote is not a thing" is maybe the problem.
Yes, Democrats were dumb in 2004 to object to Ohio's electoral votes and the calls to have the EC reject Trump was unfounded, but crafting a system where the minority rules is a great way to lose legitimacy.
Presidential systems are already historically precarious but if you're building a presidential system where it becomes routinely easy for the minority of the country to win elections, it's not really that surprising some would take issue with that system.
They absolutely would win at some point (there is no forever in American politics), just not with the coalition they have now, and it would require soul searching about how to be a Conservative party that can get a majority of votes. But that would probably be a longer journey.
I see another member of Twitter’s best and brightest has Logged On, this time to tell us how third party voting works (note: as we know from 2020, this is absolutely not how third party voting and their references work).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I can assure you that what is driving Manchin's opposition to S1 has literally nothing to do with his donors. Especially because on issues such as this, the donor class is probably to the left of a lot of MOC.
This might shock you but people sometimes legitimately believe stupid things because of misplaced principles and it's not because their donors told them to do so.
If these were a priority for the voters of West Virginia instead of something they maybe approve in theory but doesn’t animate their vote choice, then Biden would’ve easily carried the state and Paula Jean Swearengin would be a Senator.
People should ask themselves why *some* progressive policy might be popular in West Virginia but almost no Democratic politicians outside of legacy cases like Manchin are popular and why it's so difficult to make inroads with those voters.
In 30 minutes, we’ll learn that California is going to lose a congressional district for the first time in its history and we should purge every elected NIMBY from the Democratic Party because it’s their fault.
It's a loss of a congressional seat that will go to a state like Texas or Florida that will be easily gerrymandered into a Republican seat, and it will most likely be a Republican electoral vote in 2024. All of this could have been avoided with real housing solutions. And yet.
Centrist NIMBYs will abuse our environmental review laws to stop any new multi-family developments that they worry could lower their housing prices. Fake socialist NIMBYs will have ever moving goalposts on the balance of private and public housing being built. It sucks.
Other people think the same thing you all do about me, ok?
Tweeting about TV writing: self indulgent, imposter syndrome, every show I’ve worked on is a hot bed of drama that has left me me with trauma me and my therapist are working out
Tweeting about maps: smart, not TV, can well actually people at parties, know what Waukesha is
Things Connecticut has:
- Women’s basketball
- New Haven pizza
- West Hartford Center
- Stamford???????
- The dictionary
- @KenTremendous
- Memories of the Whalers
- Max restaurant chain
- The frisbee??????? Right???
- The fucking Senate
- A decent aquarium
- Groton?
- Insurance?? Is that cool???
- D&D Italian Market in Hartford
- The 1999 Dave Matthew’s Band concert riot
Who was the party, with bare majorities and a POTUS who lost the pop vote, that tried to unilaterally throw millions off of their own health insurance, unilaterally slash taxes for the richest in the country, and unilaterally stacked the federal courts with ideologues? Anyways:
This too. You don’t vote for someone with an asterisk attached. Unlike 2016, Democrats got more votes for POTUS and the House. Democrats have a much more legitimate claim to a mandate than Republicans president ever did.