Trump Administration

[fsquid]

I stumbled across this while reviewing MSNBC updates.

https://www.youtube.com/v/PyEXshBOwEU

The one showing the Young Turks over the span of the night is a great one.

[Adam White]

if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

But that's the whole point.  How can you say they lost "huge portions of the country" when they received more votes than the "winner"?  The government exists to serve human beings, not empty space. Continuing to deflect the fact that a larger number of voters picked the "loser" by defaulting to lectures on how to change the electoral college and then following up with the idea that they lost because of their message when more people chose that message is willful blindness.

Which kind of takes me back to PSU's comment. Clearly, Hillary is winning the popular vote. So the logic of his (? - hard to tell from the pic) post was completely flawed. Clearly Clinton's message resonated with more voters than Trump's did.

[BridgeTroll]

if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

But that's the whole point.  How can you say they lost "huge portions of the country" when they received more votes than the "winner"?  The government exists to serve human beings, not empty space. Continuing to deflect the fact that a larger number of voters picked the "loser" by defaulting to lectures on how to change the electoral college and then following up with the idea that they lost because of their message when more people chose that message is willful blindness.

Thats not the "whole point".  Apparently it is for you... but not others.  I... and many others... believe the electoral college protects and represents those in smaller rural areas.  Hillary and company lost because they overlooked those in flyover country... My guess is next election they wont...  See... the system works...

[peestandingup]

"Omg, why can't sparsely populated reactionary rural counties impose their will onto the rest of the country?!"

Why does that make any more sense?

They dont. States with smaller populations (less urban cities) have less electorates. And Dems still had their asses handed to them.

Believe me, keeping up with you isn't very hard.

Nice deflection. Is this considered winning the debate in your world?

[fsquid]

The USA is a democracy. Seriously - quit with that "republic, not a democracy" shit. It's not clever.

Second - The current "winner take all" approach to apportioning electoral votes is down to the individual states and has nothing to do with the intent of the so-called "founding fathers". If the electors were split and awarded on percentage of votes in each state, the outcome would be fairer.

representative democracy then.

[fsquid]

if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

But that's the whole point.  How can you say they lost "huge portions of the country" when they received more votes than the "winner"?  The government exists to serve human beings, not empty space. Continuing to deflect the fact that a larger number of voters picked the "loser" by defaulting to lectures on how to change the electoral college and then following up with the idea that they lost because of their message when more people chose that message is willful blindness.

Thats not the "whole point".  Apparently it is for you... but not others.  I... and many others... believe the electoral college protects and represents those in smaller rural areas.  Hillary and company lost because they overlooked those in flyover country... My guess is next election they wont...  See... the system works...

Agreed.  They took the blue collar rust belt for granted.

[Adam White]

Thats not the "whole point".  Apparently it is for you... but not others.  I... and many others... believe the electoral college protects and represents those in smaller rural areas.  Hillary and company lost because they overlooked those in flyover country... My guess is next election they wont...  See... the system works...

But the "system" is simply to apportion electoral votes amongst the states. It doesn't dictate - or isn't required to dictate - that 48 states give 100% of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state. That's ludicrous. The EC is based on Congressional representation (more or less). Think about what that means.

[Adam White]

if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

But that's the whole point.  How can you say they lost "huge portions of the country" when they received more votes than the "winner"?  The government exists to serve human beings, not empty space. Continuing to deflect the fact that a larger number of voters picked the "loser" by defaulting to lectures on how to change the electoral college and then following up with the idea that they lost because of their message when more people chose that message is willful blindness.

Thats not the "whole point".  Apparently it is for you... but not others.  I... and many others... believe the electoral college protects and represents those in smaller rural areas.  Hillary and company lost because they overlooked those in flyover country... My guess is next election they wont...  See... the system works...

Agreed.  They took the blue collar rust belt for granted.

That's very likely - and it certainly is the narrative we seem to hear. But I've not seen anything to show how much campaigning Clinton did in those states vs others (like Florida). I know Ohio and NC were viewed as being battleground states, so I'd assume Clinton did a lot in those, for example. But it would be interesting to see where she concentrated her campaigning and how that looks when compared to MI, WI, OH and PA. She did do okay in NY, though not so hot in the 'rust belt' region of that state.

[fsquid]

if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

But that's the whole point.  How can you say they lost "huge portions of the country" when they received more votes than the "winner"?  The government exists to serve human beings, not empty space. Continuing to deflect the fact that a larger number of voters picked the "loser" by defaulting to lectures on how to change the electoral college and then following up with the idea that they lost because of their message when more people chose that message is willful blindness.

Thats not the "whole point".  Apparently it is for you... but not others.  I... and many others... believe the electoral college protects and represents those in smaller rural areas.  Hillary and company lost because they overlooked those in flyover country... My guess is next election they wont...  See... the system works...

Agreed.  They took the blue collar rust belt for granted.

That's very likely - and it certainly is the narrative we seem to hear. But I've not seen anything to show how much campaigning Clinton did in those states vs others (like Florida). I know Ohio and NC were viewed as being battleground states, so I'd assume Clinton did a lot in those, for example. But it would be interesting to see where she concentrated her campaigning and how that looks when compared to MI, WI, OH and PA. She did do okay in NY, though not so hot in the 'rust belt' region of that state.

NBC has had some long reports from MI and WI in the last few weeks.  Basically that is what the people say in those.  They saw Trump, but never saw Clinton

[MusicMan]

"Well, I think it would be more accurate to say that the electoral college protects the interests of the less populated states.  Not the interests of the people."

Correct sir, but also The Senate is also a means whereby small states have an over sized voice in the debate.

Let's just agree that more citizens of this fine country preferred HRC to be PREZ, but the electoral college allowed DJT to win. Can't argue the fact of that .

Sooner or later , The Trump Train will come off the tracks. And you can be certain of one thing, HE WILL TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. HE'LL BLAME IT ON OBAMA, SOME ONE, ANYONE!! BUT NO WAY IT COULD BE HIS FAULT. DJT HAS NEVER ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY OF THE MISTAKES OR WRONGDOINGS HE HAS EVER PERPETUATED ON OTHERS AND HE WONT START NOW!

[Tacachale]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

What's beyond me is that people actually think "a couple of big cities in New York and California" would be enough to decide an election.

Taca... if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

Meh... its over... let it go or fix it...

My take is this: the electoral college does serve a purpose in ensuring that flyoverland doesn't get totally railroaded by the big states. However, it creates other problems of its own, which were never foreseen by the Founders. Back then, states decided how to apportion their electoral votes individually, and few used the winner-take-all popular vote that's now common. In fact most didn't use voting at all - the state legislatures chose. Now that virtually everyone has switched to the popular vote, we've created a system where someone can win the vote - by a fairly wide margin in this case - and still lose. While the Founders were interested in protecting the smaller states, I doubt they would have wanted a system where we actually take votes, and then someone can win by a fairly decisive margin - over 2 million people - and still lose out.

The straight popular vote does have its own downsides, which supporters should acknowledge. But it's increasingly hard to argue that the wonky, patched-together system we have now is really a better or fairer way to choose the President.

[Adam White]

And why you think the people in a couple of big cities in New York and California should decide who governs for all of flyover country is beyond me...

Then I guess democracy is beyond you.

What's beyond me is that people actually think "a couple of big cities in New York and California" would be enough to decide an election.

Taca... if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

Meh... its over... let it go or fix it...

My take is this: the electoral college does serve a purpose in ensuring that flyoverland doesn't get totally railroaded by the big states. However, it creates other problems of its own, which were never foreseen by the Founders. Back then, states decided how to apportion their electoral votes individually, and few used the winner-take-all popular vote that's now common. In fact most didn't use voting at all - the state legislatures chose. Now that virtually everyone has switched to the popular vote, we've created a system where someone can win the vote - by a fairly wide margin in this case - and still lose. While the Founders were interested in protecting the smaller states, I doubt they would have wanted a system where we actually take votes, and then someone can win by a fairly decisive margin - over 2 million people - and still lose out.

The straight popular vote does have its own downsides, which supporters should acknowledge. But it's increasingly hard to argue that the wonky, patched-together system we have now is really a better or fairer way to choose the President.

I think the best solution would be for the states to use instant runoff voting and then split the electoral votes based on popular vote. I think it makes sense to keep some sort of control (like the EC) to ensure that the smaller states still get a place at the table.

[icarus]

The electoral college serves to protect the interests of our entire country and the integrity of our democracy.  If you were to break the entire country out by county votes, Trump actually won well over 90% of the county wide votes in this country.  If you look where HRC won, it is quite easy to see that her votes were concentrated in large urban centers in California and NY. 

In a popular vote only system, you would see the rights and say of most of the country abdicated to the will of voters in California and NY. I personally dont understand how anyone would want to waive their voting rights by doing away with the electoral college.  The prospect of that seems to me like some plot from a dystopia/eutopia movie.

Further, focusing the blame on the electoral college is nothing but a waste  of time.  HRC lost because she was a flawed candidate and both her and the DNC have lost touch with middle america who overwhelmingly cast their county wide votes for Trump. (opinion of someone who was a democrat most of his life)

[Tacachale]

if not apparent my quip it was a bit of an exaggeration in response to the "woe is us" folks who still seem unwilling to address the fundamental issues as to why they lost... referring to huge portions of the country as rustbelt rednecks. 

But that's the whole point.  How can you say they lost "huge portions of the country" when they received more votes than the "winner"?  The government exists to serve human beings, not empty space. Continuing to deflect the fact that a larger number of voters picked the "loser" by defaulting to lectures on how to change the electoral college and then following up with the idea that they lost because of their message when more people chose that message is willful blindness.

Thats not the "whole point".  Apparently it is for you... but not others.  I... and many others... believe the electoral college protects and represents those in smaller rural areas.  Hillary and company lost because they overlooked those in flyover country... My guess is next election they wont...  See... the system works...

Agreed.  They took the blue collar rust belt for granted.

That's very likely - and it certainly is the narrative we seem to hear. But I've not seen anything to show how much campaigning Clinton did in those states vs others (like Florida). I know Ohio and NC were viewed as being battleground states, so I'd assume Clinton did a lot in those, for example. But it would be interesting to see where she concentrated her campaigning and how that looks when compared to MI, WI, OH and PA. She did do okay in NY, though not so hot in the 'rust belt' region of that state.

They did take the rust belt for granted.  No one realized how widespread the voter suppression was going to be in four of the midwestern states.

In a way, its kind of encouraging for people who hate the Republican Party, that their only route to a national win is through blatant widespread cheating, and the only way that they maintain local control is through delicate and omnipresent gerrymandering.  Of the votes that were counted nationally, she still won by more than two million (and its looking like greater than three million before its over).  There were over another million voters 'purged' across the country from very specific democratic leaning demographic groups---including the midwestern states. People who either were turned away from the polls, or whose vote was not counted after they cast their ballots.  While its a way of 'winning' an election, its not a way of keeping power for very long.

Tom Delay pioneered this method about 25 years ago, prior to the internet.

Ive been pretty immersed in whats happening nationally for the past three weeks, and I think there are going to be some pretty significant structural changes over the next couple of election cycles.

Regardless of any of the things outside of Clinton's control, she still dropped the ball on her end when it comes to the Rust Belt. In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the votes were close enough that nearly anything could have swung it the other way. Tweaking her economic messaging and actually campaigning there would have done it.

Trump's advisors determined, correctly as it turned out, that his message would play better in the Rust Belt than anyone would have thought. Clinton took them for granted as part of the "firewall" and spent too much time going after long shots like Georgia and North Carolina (which Trump easily won), and trying to run up the score in California (which was never vulnerable).

[Tacachale]

The electoral college serves to protect the interests of our entire country and the integrity of our democracy.  If you were to break the entire country out by county votes, Trump actually won well over 90% of the county wide votes in this country.  If you look where HRC won, it is quite easy to see that her votes were concentrated in large urban centers in California and NY. 

In a popular vote only system, you would see the rights and say of most of the country abdicated to the will of voters in California and NY. I personally dont understand how anyone would want to waive their voting rights by doing away with the electoral college.  The prospect of that seems to me like some plot from a dystopia/eutopia movie.

Further, focusing the blame on the electoral college is nothing but a waste  of time.  HRC lost because she was a flawed candidate and both her and the DNC have lost touch with middle america who overwhelmingly cast their county wide votes for Trump. (opinion of someone who was a democrat most of his life)

You're wrong about where Clinton's base was. Here's the actual county map:



The counties don't matter much anyway, as there are always both Democratic and Republican voters within any county. We really should start thinking in terms of gradients of purple.