Achilles

Yes

You're still confusing blue shift with blue wave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_shift_(politics)

Uh...based on what? 2.7m ballots cast in 2016. 3.2m cast in 2020. That's an increase, sure, but pretty consistent with other states. You're confusing "blue shift" with "blue wave" Added by edit: also, there were several states that went for Trump as a result of red shifts in those states. Can't have it both ways.

Politicos have been reminding people about the potential for a "blue shift" for weeks, if not months. The part where low information voters get their minds blown.

That's one take. Another is that legalizing it makes it easier to get people off of it (because they are no long self-reporting illegal activity if they ask for help) and safer for those that can't (needle exchanges, etc).

lol

Yes, the expectation is that the reality TV guy who can't govern will be replaced with the career politician who can. lol

I think you've answered your own question :) There's nothing requiring that a voting block be united in a democracy. Every single person who votes for a winning candidate can have a different reason for doing so.

Considering that both the candidates are ancient, I think the smart money has always been that this is a VP race. I'm not sure what the second question is asking.

It'd be a heck of a thing to lose his home state

Good news is that the model accounts for education, which it didn't in 2016. Bad news is that there might come other measure that the model doesn't account for in 2020, but smart pollsters will be sure to include in 2024 (because thanks hindsight). But as @KaineParker pointed out, polling models and vote counts aren't the same thing. https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/what-are-the-chances-well-know-the-next-president-on-election-night/

A lot to unpack here, but I'm hoping that I can address most of it with two observations: 1. You're assuming that elections will always be a race between "least bad options". While this is often the case now, I will continue to argue that this is a function of "the feedback mechanism being broken" (i.e. people don't pay attention or vote so only s**theads make it). If the feedback mechanism worked, then the incentive structure would be different and we would have better candidates. Again, "In a democracy, people get the leaders they deserve". 2. You're assuming that the state will always be compromised of poorly qualified people. We can debate what "qualified" should mean, but the whole idea of leaving things up to a group of individuals is that they will, collectively, produce better outcomes than individuals acting alone. If I have bad intentions and unfettered access to the levers of power, then yeah, you're absolutely at my mercy. If I have bad intentions, but only have shared access to the levers of power, then there are obstacles to me imposing my will on you. Agreed. My argument is that "not participating" a) doesn't make that better and b) definitely makes it worse. It sounds like we're mostly in agreement on a majority of the points here. The biggest differences being how we got here and what to do about it.

Fair enough. Re: the other points, I completely agree. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau (didn't finish), Paine, Alexis de Tocqueville, and list goes on. Hobbes would have us believe that individuals cannot be trusted to be reasoned, dispassionate, impartial executors of justice and that society is better off when we give authority to arbitrate such matters over to "the state". I could not agree more. Such realizations rank up there with things like "don't s**t where you eat". "Freedom" is a vague notion that most people cannot clearly define and that some people are happy to operationally define in ways that further their argument. Suffice it to say, like every other vague concept that we refer to as a "right", it isn't an absolute. I'm not "free" to drive on the wrong side of the road without consequence, or walk around in public without pants on, or set fire to the property of others if I feel like it. "Freedom" has constraints. We live in a just society when those constraints are reasonable. We live in an unjust society when they are not. So, my argument is "freedom" has a lot more nuance than how it's described in the quote above, and the expectation that any of us get to live in a society in which no constraint exists above us isn't realistic. We can either be active, engaged participants or we can be passive, disengaged critics. Furthermore, the former is the only hope we have of creating or maintaining a just society, whereas the latter almost assuredly leads to an unjust society. Since I know you're also a voracious reader, I'd like to pass along the following recommendations: The Empathy Gap (J.D. Trout) Justice (Michael Sandel)

There are things to agree with and disagree with here, but the overarching point is that, regardless of specifics, there is a social contract. And so long as "they" = "the people voters elect to represent them" and some people opt out of their end of the bargain by not voting, I think it fair to label those people as free riders. "In a democracy, people get the leaders they deserve" Oh, so I didn't have to remind my son to register with Selective Service on his 18th birthday or risk legal/financial consequences?

Not to mention that the lifestyle makes one a free rider in the social contract.

Sarcasm?

@Aarik D can't just play with our emotions like that! This better mean, "back for good"! :)

Didn't see "teach students to understand the value of history" or "foster love for the subject" anywhere on that list

This is making your job more difficult. The other was trying to help

Have you read this?

I normally vote by mail, but I did early, in-person voting this time around. I went expecting lines, but got in and out with no wait.

Yeah, I just know that they're pulling out all the stops on this one.

My guess is the church told them to play nice

Just Push Buttons Until Something Happens 2020

2 point game might not seem like much to get worked up about until you remember that it's Texas we're talking about. Anything could happen.