|
September 7, 2024
Democrats Are Freaking Out Over Electoral College.... Again - Favorite Liberal Pollster Now Predicts Trump Will Crush Kamala In The 'Swing States' That Will Determine The Outcome Of The 2024 Presidential Election
By Susan Duclos - All News Pipeline
The only time Democrats, including the media, aren't whining like babies missing their pacifiers over America's election system using Electoral College votes, is when they are favored in the electoral college.
As predicted right here at ANP, the "Thank heavens Biden withdrew" bounce that benefitted Kamala Harris, as well as the minor DNC Convention bounce, has begun to deflate for Harris, and while she is still showing a slight lead in national polling, Trump is ahead in state polling, and gaining ground in swing state polling.
This has brought back the Democrat freakout over America's use of the Electoral College system versus "the popular vote," which here in the good ole U.S. of A, has never been a "thing" except for Democrats to whine about when their candidate proves incapable of winning elections using the system that has been in place for more than 200 hundred years.
Using the Electoral College System prevents a minority of liberal states from determining the outcome of federal presidential elections, against the will of the majority of states.
That is just a simplified explanation because the topic of this article is the freakout now that Nate Silver, the liberal polling guru who created Five Thirty Eight and now does his work through the "Silver Bulletin," is showing Donald Trump, the Republican nominee of winning every swing state. Those states will determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential election in November.
The interesting part of Silver's findings using his models, is that Harris is actually doing worse since the DNC, rather than better.
Here are some key quotes from the Silver Bulletin:
• The problem for Harris is that Donald Trump has been gaining on her in our polling averages, too — at least in the most important Electoral College states. If, say, Harris had gained 1 point, when the convention bounce adjustment was expecting her to gain 2 points, that would look like more of a rounding error in the model. Instead, though, she’s actually losing ground since the start of the convention in swing state polls.
• In fact, relative to the start of the DNC, Harris has lost ground in 6 of these 7 states. (Again, there’s no convention bounce adjustment in these polling averages at all; that comes at a later stage.) The notable exception is Georgia, which perhaps makes sense: it had been surprising before that Harris was polling better in North Carolina than in the Peach State. And her numbers are essentially unchanged in Nevada, although with just 6 electoral votes, it only has a 3 percent chance of being the tipping-point state.
But in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, Trump has gained about a point. And the polling average has broken slightly more sharply than that against Harris in North Carolina and Arizona.
• Setting all of that aside, I’m going to say something I know our Harris-voting subscribers won’t be happy about: the new numbers look a bit more realistic than the pre-DNC ones given how the country wound up voting in 2016 and 2020.
The following chart says it all.
Hence the whining from the predictable "we want the popular vote" crowd as well as those attacking Silver for his models, which actually just curate polling data.
PLEASE HELP ANP - With attacks against Independent Media, contributions to help keep voices that counter the "official narrative" is critical Anything at all ANP readers can do to help us is hugely appreciated.)
Some of the whining in regards to the Electoral College system is coming from media personalities. No big surprise there.
Nate Silver put out a post on X, stating "National polls look decent-to-good for Harris, but the probability of an Electoral College/popular vote split is up to almost 20%."
MSNBC aka MSDNC's Chris Hayes, also sometimes dubbed the male version of Rachel Maddow, got snarky in response, stating "phenomenal system. the best. gotta keep it forever."
Hayes is not the only member of the Democrat media complaining either, as The Seattle Times has a piece titled "The Electoral College haunts our democracy."
It is extremely difficult to take people seriously when they do not even understand and/or acknowledge America was deliberately created as a Republic because our founding fathers didn't want a Democracy.
The New Hampshire Bulletin, via Yahoo News, has the same problem with confusing a Republic with a Democracy, titling their piece with "An unseen problem with the Electoral College – it tells bad guys where to target their efforts."
The widely varied pros and cons of the Electoral College have already been aired and debated extensively. But there is another problem that few have recognized: The Electoral College makes American democracy more vulnerable to people with malicious intent.
The writer goes on to call the Electoral College system "A state-centric system." Yes, it is, thank you very much, as it should be!
The original brilliance of the Electoral College has become one of its prime weaknesses. The unusual system was devised at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as a compromise that prioritized the representation of state interests. This focus helped win over reluctant delegates who feared that the most populous states would disregard small states’ concerns.
Nowadays nearly every state has chosen to award all of its electoral votes to whichever ticket wins more votes in the state. Even if a candidate gets 51% of the popular vote, use of the winner-take-all rule in these states means they will be awarded 100% of the electoral votes.
Emphasis mine.
Where the writer doesn't seem to understand the continued brilliance of the Electoral College system, is it is still "state-centric."
Deliberately conflating the fact that most states are a winner-take-all with the fact that this going against the original intent of the Electoral College, is intellectually dishonest at best, and outright stupidity, at worst.
For example: In 2016, Trump took 30 states, while Clinton took 20. The fact that states were winner-take-all, didn't matter in the least.
It worked exactly how it is was supposed to. A minority of overly populated liberal states did not get to ignore the will of the majority of states.
Other articles whining about a system that has decided America's elections
• A failing grade for the electoral college
• How the 'antiquated' Electoral College can be reformed to root out 'intrigue and corruption'
• Chris Hayes Says ‘Trust Fund’ Republicans Can Be ‘Maladjusted Psychopaths’ Thanks to the Electoral College
• Harris is ahead, but remains an underdog thanks to the Electoral College
The most amusing part of all the whining about the Electoral College, is that Democrats/Media are doing it preemptively because they see Kamala's poll numbers dropping, especially in swing states.
I would personally hazard a guess that many liberals/media are also panicked by the upcoming presidential debate, since every time Harris opens her mouth publicly without a script or teleprompter, her poll numbers decrease.
NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.....
It would take a constitutional amendment to change America from using the Electoral College to using a popular voting system, and while there have been constitutional amendments before (one gave DC electors!), this would be a very hard task for those that want to change the way our Republic elects Presidents.
The two most likely methods wouldn't be possible today as partisan as our houses of congress have become.
• The most common method of passing an amendment to the constitution is passage through the House and Senate. Nearly every constitutional amendment – 26 out of 27, in fact – have taken this course: The House of Representatives and Senate both vote on the proposed amendment; the Constitution requires that for the proposed amendment to pass, each house of Congress must pass it with a two-thirds majority. If that happens, the amendment is then sent to state legislatures for their approval. Here again, another, even larger supermajority is required: Three-fourths of all state legislatures must vote to approve the proposed amendment before it is considered ratified and added to the Constitution. This means that only 13 states can block a proposed amendment from being ratified.
• While the most common method of passing an amendment to the constitution is passage through the House and Senate, there are other ways to amend the document. The other two amendment processes have never been undertaken, and for that reason it’s unclear how they would actually function. However, the Constitution allows for two-thirds of the states, through their legislatures, to call for a national convention to amend the Constitution. This Constitutional Convention could then propose new amendments. Under the first method, these amendments would then have to be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures (i.e., 38 out of the current 50). The second method is similar to the first, except that instead of the amendment being sent to state legislatures for ratification, it would be sent to conventions within the states. Three-fourths of these conventions would have to sign off before the amendment would be ratified.
Given the fact that getting two-thirds of both houses of congress to agree on....well, anything, is improbable, if not completely impossible, all this gnashing of teeth and clutching of pearls is nothing more than theater, so if Democrats lose the Electoral College they have something to use to anger their voters into a frenzy of craziness.
ANP is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. ANP EMERGENCY Fundraiser: ‘Dangerous, Derogatory, Harmful, Unreliable!’ Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
So if you like stories like this, please consider donating to ANP.
All contributions are greatly appreciated and will absolutely be used to keep us in this fight for the future of America.
Thank you and God Bless from Susan here on Earth and Stefan from up above.
PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:
Or https://www.paypal.me/AllNewsPipeLine
Donate Via Snail Mail
Checks or money orders made payable to Susan Duclos can be sent to:
P.O. Box 575McHenry, MD. 21541
Anything at all at Amazon purchased after clicking this ANP link will allow ANP to make a bit of revenue, all of which will be used to keep ANP online and to keep a roof over our heads. |
