What Americans Think about Elections

[Doug64]

A little early, and I'm still not convinced Biden is going to make it to 2024, but ...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. voters believe Biden should not run for reelection in 2024, while only 29% think Biden should seek a second term in the White House. Another 12% are not sure. Vice President Kamala Harris recently told reporters, “The president intends to run [in 2024] and if he does, I will be his ticket-mate. We will run together.” If Biden decides against running in 2024, however, only 29% of voters think Harris should run for president, while 56% say Harris shouldn’t run and 15% are undecided. If most voters are against either Biden or Harris running in 2024, does that leave the door open for a return of former President Donald Trump? Just 37% of voters believe Trump should run for president in 2024, while 54% say Trump shouldn’t run again.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Yes

I did agree with Trump on term limits when he ran in 2016.

After he took office not a word, never mentioned again. I was hopeful as it would solve a couple problems with our political aristocracy who have been there far too long.

Congress would be even dumber (outright ignorant) without the self-taught experts on the Committees.

So instead of hard limits, why not make the threshold to win a House seat a bit higher with every election? 50% for the first election, then 51%, 54%, 58%, 63% etc? For the Senate with longer terms, it would be more like 50%, then 54% then 60% etc.

Some districts/States would still be winnable but there would be pressure on the primary voters to choose someone more certain to win.

 

[yankintx]

Congress would be even dumber (outright ignorant) without the self-taught experts on the Committees.

So instead of hard limits, why not make the threshold to win a House seat a bit higher with every election? 50% for the first election, then 51%, 54%, 58%, 63% etc? For the Senate with longer terms, it would be more like 50%, then 54% then 60% etc.

Some districts/States would still be winnable but there would be pressure on the primary voters to choose someone more certain to win.

The House every 2 years, it needs to be expanded to 4.

House members in a constant Flux of elections. One finishes the next is just on the horizon.

 

[Ug make hammer]

What money does is:
1. Buys access to the politician’s power to create and vote on laws.
2. Creates networks of power in which politicians and public officials look the other way and give you preferential treatment.
3. Buys you much more ad space and access to an audience
4. Buys infrastructure for which you can disseminate information across multiple networks.
And 5. Easily buys favors in government.

This is why we had more strict campaign finance laws.

Yes, a set amount from the taxpayer for each House district, and another for each Senate race. Any money appearing in the campaign funds other than that, would be investigated as a bribe.

There will still be vast amounts spent from the private sector, on political ads. The SC was actually right about that: lobbyists, unions, PAC's are all protected speech. And since Democrat-aligned spending was much more than Republican for both of Trump's runs, it will be interesting to see what Republicans' tame Supreme Court can come up with to stuff that genie back in the bottle.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The House every 2 years, it needs to be expanded to 4.

House members in a constant Flux of elections. One finishes the next is just on the horizon.

Interesting. Would you divide the House into two "classes" like the 3 in the Senate, or doesn't it bother you that sometimes there will be a Senate election without the House or President being contested?

 

[Lafayette]

GOOD MONEY AT THE TOP OF POLITICAL REPRESENTATION

Yes

I did agree with Trump on term limits when he ran in 2016.

After he took office not a word, never mentioned again. I was hopeful as it would solve a couple problems with our political aristocracy who have been there far too long.

The rot in American politics is nationwide and comes from the two-party system that we have. Both parties think "governance of the city/state/nation" is their due. And because the two-party system has been around so long, we take it as "due".

A third-party that melds both the Left and the Right just might make a difference. A third party, right down the middle, would help put both extremes in "due order". Both are "playing games" in order to profit personally from their presence-in-power whether city, state or nationally.

It's an old, old, old game they play that is very boring. But highly profitable to both parties (and those who spend a lifetime in "politics"). From here: Salaries of members of the United States Congress - Wikipedia

Excerpt:

Position	Salary
Senators and House Representatives	$174,000
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico	$174,000
President pro tempore of the Senate	$193,400
Majority leader and minority leader of the Senate	$193,400

Not bad, huh ... ?

 

[Lafayette]

@Lafayette, since you chose to bring poverty into the discussion, here's the breakdown of the Rasmussen poll by income:

	Under $30,000​	$30,000 - $50,000​	$50,000 - $100,000​	$100,000 - $200,000​	More than $200,000​	Not sure​
Republican	47%​	48%​	46%​	44%​	43%​	52%​
Democrat	40%​	40%​	43%​	46%​	49%​	33%​
Some other candidate	7%​	3%​	4%​	2%​	1%​	3%​
Not sure	6%​	9%​	7%​	7%​	7%​	12%​

And here's the breakdown by education:

	Attended high school, but did not graduate​	High school graduate​	Attended college, but did not complete​	College graduate​	Graduate school​	Not sure​
Republican	56%​	50%​	48%​	46%​	41%​	61%​
Democrat	27%​	37%​	39%​	43%​	51%​	35%​
Some other candidate	4%​	5%​	I non5%​	3%​	3%​	0%​
Not sure	13%​	9%​	8%​	8%​	5%​	5%​

You might notice that the group of Likely Voters giving the greatest support to Republicans is precisely those most likely to be poor and working class. In fact, the generic Democrat doesn't get at least a plurality until their income hits $100,000, and a majority until their education reaches Graduate School. I would say that the poor aren't putting much faith in Democrats these days.

I am much pleased to see above that college-graduates are about the same percentage in number between Replicants and Dems.

I nonetheless insist that Education is a key-stone element to any society and governance thereto. A post-secondary degree should not cost an "arm-and-a-leg" as it does in the US.

From here:

According to College Board, published tuition fees for 2018/19 at state colleges are an average of US $10,230 for state residents, and $26,290 for everyone else. This compares to an average of $35,830 at private non-profit colleges.

Once again I will post that a post-secondary degree attainment in Europe is practically free-gratis-and-for-nothing. In France, the fee is a ridiculous €170 (~US$190) per year.

Yeah, right, French taxation is much more onerous than in the US. But the above is only one of the reasons! (When you want to talk about National Healthcare, I'll show how much it costs to see a doctor in France vis-a-vis the cost in the US! (During standard business hours, visits are €35 ($42), while visits between 8 p.m. to midnight will run you €71 ($84), for example. As with all health services in France, you can check the fixed costs online before making your appointment. These services qualify for a 70% reimbursement.)

 

[yankintx]

Interesting. Would you divide the House into two "classes" like the 3 in the Senate, or doesn't it bother you that sometimes there will be a Senate election without the House or President being contested?

Why not in the General, turnout is always larger than the midterms.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Why not in the General, turnout is always larger than the midterms.

That's the problem I meant. Turnout would be even lower if only the Senate was in play. Being at six year intervals, there will always be one class (about a third) of Senators going to a "midterm" election.

It might not seem relevant, but bear with me. Australia was hugely influenced by the US Senate in drawing up its own 1900 constitution, but instead of the 3 classes in the Senate they chose to have only 2 classes. Each class serves two Parliamentary terms, ie the members of each class only have to contest every second election. There's a "reset" mechanism called Double Dissolution which I don't fully understand, but the most important thing is that no state is left out in Senate elections, and every state gets to vote for Senate whenever there is an election.

It's an enduring puzzle to me why the US with three classes of Senator, does not have three Senators per state. Surely being able to vote for Senator every time there is a Federal election, would be worth the Senate being 50% bigger?

 

[Doug64]

It's an enduring puzzle to me why the US with three classes of Senator, does not have three Senators per state. Surely being able to vote for Senator every time there is a Federal election, would be worth the Senate being 50% bigger?

Senators weren't supposed to be elected at all, but appointed by the state legislatures. Of course like the Electoral College it didn't work as intended, that just resulted in election by proxy like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, where each was campaigning for votes for the legislature so they could be appointed to the Senate.

And for why election integrity laws matter:

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The National Pulse finds that 52% of Likely U.S. voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 36% who think it is Very Likely. Forty-three percent (43%) don’t believe it’s likely cheating affected the 2020 outcome, including 30% who say it’s Not At All Likely. These findings are similar to previous surveys in May and March. Fifty percent (50%) of voters think it is at least somewhat likely there will be widespread cheating that will affect the outcome of this fall’s congressional elections, including 24% who say it’s Very Likely. Forty-one percent (41%) don’t believe cheating is likely to affect the November midterms, including 22% who say it’s Not At All Likely. Voters remain skeptical of the integrity of vote-by-mail. Fifty-eight percent (58%) think it’s at least somewhat likely that wider use of mail-in voting will lead to more cheating in elections, including 39% who say it’s Very Likely. Thirty-six percent (36%) don’t believe mail-in voting is likely to lead to more cheating, including 16% who say it’s Not At All Likely. In October 2021, 65% said wider use of mail-in voting would lead to more cheating in elections.

 

[Doug64]

And almost missed it, the Generic Congressional Ballot pendulum swings back yet again:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that, if the elections for Congress were held today, 48% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican candidate, while 40% would vote for the Democrat. Just four percent (4%) would vote for some other candidate, but another eight percent (8%) are not sure. The Republican lead has increased by three points since last week, when they led 47%-42%. The GOP has led the Generic Congressional Ballot all year.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Senators weren't supposed to be elected at all, but appointed by the state legislatures. Of course like the Electoral College it didn't work as intended, that just resulted in election by proxy like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, where each was campaigning for votes for the legislature so they could be appointed to the Senate.

And for why election integrity laws matter:

There is a real danger that Republicans (in particular) who believe Democrats cheated, will take that as authority for them to cheat themselves. In some cases like mail-in ballots for people they know to have died (but who are still on the electoral roll) they could get away with that. And photo ID for in-person voting will make no difference.

Then it swings the other way, with postal voting banned and older voters who really need it, becoming disenfranchised. This would help Democrats.

It's unbelievable to me that a known liar could have such success with a lie after four years but it probably reflects a more deep seated distrust of democracy in the Republican voter. Anything less than all Red, all the time, arouses their suspicion. Even more than Democrats (who at least watch FOX sometimes to see what the other side are like), Republicans now only notice the existence of their own, so they just can't believe polls or even official election results. "This can't be right! Everyone I know votes Republican!"

Actually some of the people they know are just keeping their mouths shut, to avoid nasty arguments and/or persecution.

 

[Lafayette]

VOTING FRAUD IN AMERICA

Senators weren't supposed to be elected at all, but appointed by the state legislatures. Of course like the Electoral College it didn't work as intended, that just resulted in election by proxy like the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, where each was campaigning for votes for the legislature so they could be appointed to the Senate.

And for why election integrity laws matter:

From the Brennan Center for Justice: Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth

Excerpt:

Sensationalist claims have circulated this election season about the extent of voter fraud, with some politicians going so far as to tell voters to fear that this November’s election will be “rigged.” Because electoral integrity is one of the elements necessary to making America the greatest democracy in the world, claims like this garner media attention, and frighten and concern voters. But putting rhetoric aside to look at the facts makes clear that fraud by voters at the polls is vanishingly rare, and does not happen on a scale even close to that necessary to “rig” an election.

It's one thing (in this forum) to post an opinion but quite another to post one that has factual evidence to support it. (Whether on the Right or the Left or Up-the-middle!)

Get the facts straight and maybe then - but only then - can we have a useful exchange of opinion. The beauty of a Left-Right political-divide debate is that it provokes thought - which is the fundamental basis of any truly useful democracy.

What is useless (otoh) is the useless drivel that typically invades a debate-forum regarding public elections. Calling one's political-opposite the "bad guy" (or girl) is useless nonsense unless the charge is based upon has factual evidence to support it. Which is rarely the case unfortunately ...

PS: Well written piece on the subject of political-debate in America, here: Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion

 

[Doug64]

There is a real danger that Republicans (in particular) who believe Democrats cheated, will take that as authority for them to cheat themselves. In some cases like mail-in ballots for people they know to have died (but who are still on the electoral roll) they could get away with that. And photo ID for in-person voting will make no difference.

More likely, Republicans push for voter integrity laws on the theory that they can win fair votes. And there is some evidence to back that up, Republicans are more widely spread out than Democrats.

Then it swings the other way, with postal voting banned and older voters who really need it, becoming disenfranchised. This would help Democrats.

For what I've heard for most states that restrict postal voting, there are exceptions for those that can show real issues getting to the polls.

It's unbelievable to me that a known liar could have such success with a lie after four years but it probably reflects a more deep seated distrust of democracy in the Republican voter.

The last poll I saw asking about whether Trump was legitimately elected in 2016--taken after Biden's "victory," a majority of Democrats still said no, Trump wasn't. More than four years after the fact, most Democrats still bought into the Russian collusion hoax. For all I know, they still do.

From the Brennan Center for Justice: Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth

Excerpt:

I could offer a list of cases of clear voter fraud, but it's beside the point because I agree with a larger point--it is really tough to commit traditional voter fraud on a large enough scale to flip a statewide race, the more populous the state the more difficult it is. And thanks to the Electoral College, it's even harder to do that for a presidential election. Mind, that's traditional voter fraud--it doesn't cover cases such as the massive voter fraud carried out in 2020 by the Wisconsin state government with drop boxes, as certified recently by that state's Supreme Court. Of course, the smaller the election's voter base and/or the closer the election the easier significant voter fraud becomes, so voter integrity laws matter most for local elections and tight races.

But the point I was making about the need for voter integrity laws is as much about perception as it is about the truth--and as the poll shows, currently that perception isn't good. It's a lot easier to convince voters that what traditional voter fraud there is isn't enough to flip the election when you have clear laws in place to prevent it.

 

[Lafayette]

POLITICAL CENTRISTS BY NATURE?

I could offer a list of cases of clear voter fraud, but it's beside the point because I agree with a larger point--it is really tough to commit traditional voter fraud on a large enough scale to flip a statewide race, the more populous the state the more difficult it is. And thanks to the Electoral College, it's even harder to do that for a presidential election. Mind, that's traditional voter fraud--it doesn't cover cases such as the massive voter fraud carried out in 2020 by the Wisconsin state government with drop boxes, as certified recently by that state's Supreme Court. Of course, the smaller the election's voter base and/or the closer the election the easier significant voter fraud becomes, so voter integrity laws matter most for local elections and tight races.

But the point I was making about the need for voter integrity laws is as much about perception as it is about the truth--and as the poll shows, currently that perception isn't good. It's a lot easier to convince voters that what traditional voter fraud there is isn't enough to flip the election when you have clear laws in place to prevent it.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above comment. We are not going to eff-around with the present voting-system either on the national- or the state- or the city-level. The problem is not so much the political-system but its mentality. I cannot possibly understand why the miscreant-Right thinks otherwise - and frankly I would not put their numbers too high in the voting list. After all, consider this from Wikipedia here: Right-wing politics - Wikipedia

In 2019, the United States populace leaned center-right, with 37% of Americans self-identifying as conservative, compared to 35% moderate and 24% liberal. This was continuing a decades long trend of the country leaning center-right.

Why should a country be leaning center-right? That is, why not? It could be by whimsy or simply because the opponents have no sufficiently serious counter-argument to attract votes. But, voting results can shift from center to the Right or Left - or simply stay in the middle of both. And, frankly, I suspect that the "middle of both" is arithmetically the superior number of American voters today.

Which means I suggest that the US-voter is very much unlike the European-voter. They are True Voter-Independents mentally whilst in Europe the "Right" and the "Left" are distinguished historically and not much has changed. Except that Europe is far less to the Left than it was before. Which happened due to Communist Russia's demise. Only to be replaced by the crooks that have captured illegally the political leadership of the country having falsified Putin's electoral-success to do so.

Meaning what? We-the-sheeple in America are centrists-by-nature and excesses of both the ultra-Right and the ultra-Left are simply not that much to our liking. And, that's all ... !

Whyzat? Because, of course, the duality allows us Yanks to elect ash-holes like Trump who were born with TWO golden-spoons in his mouth. And, tis a shame he did not choke on them both ... !

 

[Lafayette]

GUN VIOLENCE COMPARISON - US VS EU

From here a comparison between both entities that are roughly similar one to the other economically: On gun violence, the United States is an outlier

Excerpt:

Among 64 high-income countries and territories, the United States stands out for its high levels of gun violence. The US ranks eighth out of 64 for homicides by firearm (age-adjusted). Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, two US territories, rank first and third on that list. Firearm injuries tend to be more frequent in places where people have easy access to firearms, according to findings from the 2018 Global Burden of Disease study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

As I live in France at a rate of 0.32 for which I'm a bit surprised that it is that high. It is virtually impossible to buy arms in a center-of-town gun-store here. Hunting has been reduced because the supply of some wild-animals was reduced almost to the point of extinction. (Just so some guys could show the antlers in his living-room ...)

 

[Ug make hammer]

More likely, Republicans push for voter integrity laws on the theory that they can win fair votes. And there is some evidence to back that up, Republicans are more widely spread out than Democrats.


For what I've heard for most states that restrict postal voting, there are exceptions for those that can show real issues getting to the polls.

Eg "I'm seventy five years old and live at home" will always be acceptable. Such people are the most likely to die soon to the election, however.

The last poll I saw asking about whether Trump was legitimately elected in 2016--taken after Biden's "victory," a majority of Democrats still said no, Trump wasn't. More than four years after the fact, most Democrats still bought into the Russian collusion hoax. For all I know, they still do.

It depends on how the question is asked. "Did Russia interfere in the election?" only has one true answer: it's Yes. Did Trump, with numerous Russian contacts among this staff, give Russia anything in return? It simply doesn't matter to me. Once elected he was in a position to "pardon" Russia and he did so. It is irrelevant whether that was an agreement at the time of Russia's hacking.

Trump did not distance himself from Russia's crimes, in fact he publicly encouraged them, and once elected he perpetrated the lie that Russia did nothing wrong at all. Please tell me you don't fall for that.

 

[Lafayette]

THE POLITICS ON THE RIGHT IS NOT ALWAYS WRONG

A little early, and I'm still not convinced Biden is going to make it to 2024, but ...

Why should he NOT "make it?" The economy is recovering - that is the major factor that makes most people wrongly decide how bad or good a presidency was.

Biden is doing OK, that is, the economy is recovering from Covid - and let's be thankful that most Americans don't blame the Dems for that unwanted fiasco that Trump never wanted to touch. It's human nature to have unforeseen events be blamed on the Person in the White House. It is soooo foolish but convenient.!

So, the economy-that-did-not-recuperate-fast-enough was a major fault of the Trump-administration. But there is also the argument, "What did he actually accomplish for America in the four-years as PotUS?"

In fact, we have to give the guy some respect for some actions he took and accomplished. Here is that report: from Politico: 30 Things Trump Did As President

Excerpt:

Many Americans will remember President Donald Trump’s presidency as a four-yearlong storm of tweets, rallies and on-air rants that ended in a mob riot and historic second impeachment. But there was more to the Trump presidency than attention-hogging political drama and conflict; often unnoticed, Trump and his administration actually did succeed in changing some of the ways Washington works.

From imposing a ban on Chinese-made drones to rolling back rules on sexual harassment, from cracking down on robocalls to letting states legalize marijuana, Trump changed some key areas of federal policy in ways that may have lasting impact well after he’s gone.

The point being that, for all his warped intent (as a first class nutter warped by his exaggerated wealth), he did some things right. Or "On the Right" - take your pick. They both apply.

Read the above "30-Things" and decide for yourself ....

 

[Lafayette]

SIMPLE IS AS SIMPLE DOES

Someday, I would like to see someone (here) explain how it is that the makeup of a government decides whether it fails of not.

When, in fact, "economic failure" is a well known attribute that depends upon only one aspect of any economy. And that aspect is, "Consumer Demand". (Wanna see the key participant in economic activity? Look in the mirror!)

We-the-sheeple like to think that it depends upon the person - and if that person is a multi-millionaire that's EXACTLY the kind of PotUS we want! Because, supposedly, what s/he did for him/herself they can do for the rest of us! (Wow! From where-in-hell did that piece of idiocy derive?)

Which is tantamount to pure bullshat of the highest order but we idiots like to believe that a successful person in business is going to run the economy in exactly the same manner!

But that eventuality aint-necessarily-true! The key-attributes of running a successful economy (that is fair and equitable) depends upon only one economic aspect. Which is called Consumer Demand for goods/services. (Always has been and always will be.)

Anytime and for any reason that Consumer Demand falters, then so does economic-activity. Which induces companies to reduce costs. So, they lay-of workers! Which affects negatively consumer-demand and worsens even further economic activity resulting in higher unemployment.

It's as simple as that ... !

 

[Lafayette]

GUN VIOLENCE COMPARISON - US VS EU

As I live in France at a rate of 0.32 for which I'm a bit surprised that it is that high. It is virtually impossible to buy arms in a center-of-town gun-store here. Hunting has been reduced because the supply of some wild-animals was reduced almost to the point of extinction. (Just so some guys could show the antlers in his living-room ...)

All the EU rates are low in gun-related deaths because arms of a particular type and of a particular purpose must be registered. Hand-guns are simply not registered (and thus not for sale) for any reason whatsoever. They are employed only by the police.

From here:

Europe already bans all automatic weapons, plus some semi-automatic guns widely available in the United States. But European officials say gun laws passed in 2008 are inadequate, and leave Europe "vulnerable to criminal activity" and terrorist attacks. (Jan 5, 2016)

 

[jdog21]

All the EU rates are low in gun-related deaths because arms of a particular type and of a particular purpose must be registered. Hand-guns are simply not registered (and thus not for sale) for any reason whatsoever. They are employed only by the police.

From here:

What of the Swiss? Doesnt every adult have a gun

 

[Lafayette]

What of the Swiss? Doesnt every adult have a gun

Every adult is a member of the Armed Forces in Switzerland, so yes those in the Army all have arms for which they are solely responsible. Of course, if desired, they can be kept by the Swiss Army as well.

Murder rates for the two countries are comparatively very different (from Nationmaster here): Crime Levels

Switzerland -------------------------------------US

27.4 Ranked 74th.

55.84 Ranked 30th. (2 times more than Switzerland)

 

[Lafayette]

Every adult is a member of the Armed Forces in Switzerland, so yes those in the Army all have arms for which they are solely responsible. Of course, if desired, they can be kept by the Swiss Army as well.

Every adult male must do military service (for ten years after inscription at the age of 18) - but females are not obliged to do so. They can and do enlist as well, however.

Frankly, I think that is a damn good idea for the US as well. That military service just might put some sense into their heads - rather than the rotgut that plays with them nowadays.

Also, off the Net:

What country has the most youth crime?

Crime > Murders committed by youths: Countries Compared

#	COUNTRY	AMOUNT
1	Brazil	20,386
2	Colombia	12,834
3	United States	8,226
4	Russia	7,885

It's no wonder Russia wants to seen them off to the Ukraine. I'll bet Putin started his assinine war with that very much in his mind .... !

 

[jdog21]

Every adult is a member of the Armed Forces in Switzerland, so yes those in the Army all have arms for which they are solely responsible. Of course, if desired, they can be kept by the Swiss Army as well.

Murder rates for the two countries are comparatively very different (from Nationmaster here): Crime Levels

Switzerland -------------------------------------US

27.4 Ranked 74th.

55.84 Ranked 30th. (2 times more than Switzerland)

So let the US be more like Switzerland

 

[BitterPill]

Time for another "What Americans Think ..." thread! Like the others these will generally be Rasmussen polls, when they do something specific enough. In this case, it's the Trump/DeSantis matchup!

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is very popular with Republican voters, but if former President Donald Trump seeks the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, most expect Trump would beat DeSantis.



Personally, I hope Trump doesn't run--in which case we'll almost certainly see a President-elect DeSantis taking the oath in 2025. If Trump does run things get a lot more iffy, and the disapproval and "Very" numbers they each have show why.

I still have a lot of Trump merch to sell and have held-off on ordering more, so, on the personal economic level, I sure hope Trump is the nominee, and Trump already beat Biden once.

MAGA.