Trump Administration

[icarus]

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.

Its this line of thinking that lost HRC the election.  Certainly, there are Republicans and Democrats in each community that cast their votes.  Hopefully, we can work in our communities to make that gradient purple but I think this election we saw how far out of touch the DNC has become.

As to demographics and geography, your map shows her votes almost exclusively grouped in urban areas or in areas with significant immigrant populations. Within our own state, her votes were concentrated in Miami and the campus communities of the state's major universities.  It kind of makes my case. The DNC has lost touch with the real people/voters living in the Sea of Red.

The DNC has some soul searching to do as to whether or not they are a national party or a fringe party.  Regardless, I would personally like to see at least a third party option.

[Adam White]

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.

Its this line of thinking that lost HRC the election.  Certainly, there are Republicans and Democrats in each community that cast their votes.  Hopefully, we can work in our communities to make that gradient purple but I think this election we saw how far out of touch the DNC has become.

As to demographics and geography, your map shows her votes almost exclusively grouped in urban areas or in areas with significant immigrant populations.

Look at the big blue patch along the Mississippi river. Those are likely black voters, though that's an assumption. And it's reasonable to assume that a number of the people who voted for her in the Southwest are Hispanic. But are we saying those people and their votes don't matter because of that? That only the votes of white people in flyover states count?

Either way, I think you're overlooking a lot of the blue counties when reaching your conclusion.

[icarus]

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.

Its this line of thinking that lost HRC the election.  Certainly, there are Republicans and Democrats in each community that cast their votes.  Hopefully, we can work in our communities to make that gradient purple but I think this election we saw how far out of touch the DNC has become.

As to demographics and geography, your map shows her votes almost exclusively grouped in urban areas or in areas with significant immigrant populations.

Look at the big blue patch along the Mississippi river. Those are likely black voters, though that's an assumption. And it's reasonable to assume that a number of the people who voted for her in the Southwest are Hispanic. But are we saying those people and their votes don't matter because of that? That only the votes of white people in flyover states count?

Either way, I think you're overlooking a lot of the blue counties when reaching your conclusion.

The Big Blue patch is St. Louis and surrounding areas of high polulation density (I wasnt considering race as much as geography).  My commment about demographics is more or less that the map presented tracks what voter turnout results showed this last election cycle.  HRC carried urban areas and the hispanic vote.

My point is that all votes matter and if you do away with the electoral college those blue urban areas trump (lol) the will of the majority of the country in terms of geography.  Further, the DNC has to move beyond those urban centers and the demogrpahics from the last election or they risk losing significance as a national party.

[Adam White]

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.

Its this line of thinking that lost HRC the election.  Certainly, there are Republicans and Democrats in each community that cast their votes.  Hopefully, we can work in our communities to make that gradient purple but I think this election we saw how far out of touch the DNC has become.

As to demographics and geography, your map shows her votes almost exclusively grouped in urban areas or in areas with significant immigrant populations.

Look at the big blue patch along the Mississippi river. Those are likely black voters, though that's an assumption. And it's reasonable to assume that a number of the people who voted for her in the Southwest are Hispanic. But are we saying those people and their votes don't matter because of that? That only the votes of white people in flyover states count?

Either way, I think you're overlooking a lot of the blue counties when reaching your conclusion.

The Big Blue patch is St. Louis and surrounding areas of high polulation density (I wasnt considering race as much as geography).  My commment about demographics is more or less that the map presented tracks what voter turnout results showed this last election cycle.  HRC carried urban areas and the hispanic vote.

My point is that all votes matter and if you do away with the electoral college those blue urban areas trump (lol) the will of the majority of the country in terms of geography.  Further, the DNC has to move beyond those urban centers and the demogrpahics from the last election or they risk losing significance as a national party.

I was referring to the bit running up from LA, though MS. Yeah, the bit around AK and TN is likely Memphis, but still - Memphis is no NYC. And we have to appreciate that the majority of the country lives in cities.

As I said earlier - I have no real issue with the EC. I do, however, have a problem with the winner-take-all apportionment of electors.

[finehoe]

I think this election we saw how far out of touch the DNC has become.

Again, if they're getting more votes than the Republicans, how does that make them "out of touch"?

The DNC has lost touch with the real people/voters living in the Sea of Red.

In other words, if you live where it's Blue, you aren't a "real person". 

The DNC has some soul searching to do as to whether or not they are a national party or a fringe party. 

A "fringe party" by definition doesn't receive more votes than it's opponent.

[finehoe]

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...

It is the point if you're saying the Democrats need to change their platform in order to get more voters, when they are already getting more voters than the other guys.

[Tacachale]

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.

Its this line of thinking that lost HRC the election.  Certainly, there are Republicans and Democrats in each community that cast their votes.  Hopefully, we can work in our communities to make that gradient purple but I think this election we saw how far out of touch the DNC has become.

As to demographics and geography, your map shows her votes almost exclusively grouped in urban areas or in areas with significant immigrant populations. Within our own state, her votes were concentrated in Miami and the campus communities of the state's major universities.  It kind of makes my case. The DNC has lost touch with the real people/voters living in the Sea of Red.

The DNC has some soul searching to do as to whether or not they are a national party or a fringe party.  Regardless, I would personally like to see at least a third party option.

As I said above, what lost Clinton the election was not shoring up her Rust Belt blue states. Getting less than 100k more votes across Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin - or flipping less than 50k Trump voters - and she'd be President in January. If she was out of touch about anything, it was spending too much time in some flyover states (Georgia, Florida and North Carolina that she lost anyway) instead of her own flyover states.

The county votes are telling, but don't tell the whole story. You don't win states by coming ahead in the most counties. You win by coming ahead bigger across all counties than your opponent. In Florida, for instance, Trump could have easily gotten the most counties and still lost (this is exactly what happened to Romney and McCain). He won by getting the most votes across all counties. Yes, much of his support was in the rural areas and suburban counties, but he also came ahead in St. Petersburg and Jacksonville, and got large numbers of votes in other urban counties, mitigating Clinton's gains in Democratic strongholds.

Conversely, Clinton got 233,701 votes in Hillsborough County (St. Petersburg) and 205,704 in Duval, though she "lost" both counties by small margins. That was more important to her than "winning" by large margins in Alachua County (Gainesville), which only got her 75,820 votes.

[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...

It is the point if you're saying the Democrats need to change their platform in order to get more voters, when they are already getting more voters than the other guys.

True.

I think they'd be smart to see what they can do to increase the number of voters - I think most people would agree. Clearly, they shouldn't ignore the fact that they lost some states that went pretty convincingly to Obama (PA, WI, MI).

[thelakelander]

My point is that all votes matter and if you do away with the electoral college those blue urban areas trump (lol) the will of the majority of the country in terms of geography.  Further, the DNC has to move beyond those urban centers and the demogrpahics from the last election or they risk losing significance as a national party.

It may look red on that map but the majority of the country is undeveloped and the majority of the population does reside in urban and suburban areas. It's always been that way and will never change. I don't have a dog in this particular party debate or the presidential race results but I am a minority who believes the EC was established in an effort to deal with issues involving slavery. It's debatable to claim that the EC represents the will of the country in the 21st century. If anything, it's an 18th century relic still hanging on because of our natural tendency to embrace tradition and fight change until pulled kicking and screaming.

[Tacachale]

My point is that all votes matter and if you do away with the electoral college those blue urban areas trump (lol) the will of the majority of the country in terms of geography.  Further, the DNC has to move beyond those urban centers and the demogrpahics from the last election or they risk losing significance as a national party.

It may look red on that map but the majority of the country is undeveloped and the majority of the population does reside in urban and suburban areas. It's always been that way and will never change. I don't have a dog in this particular party debate or the presidential race results but I am a minority who believes the EC was established in an effort to deal with issues involving slavery. It's debatable to claim that the EC represents the will of the country in the 21st century. If anything, it's an 18th century relic still hanging on because of our natural tendency to embrace tradition and fight change until pulled kicking and screaming.

[finehoe]

My point is that all votes matter and if you do away with the electoral college those blue urban areas trump (lol) the will of the majority of the country in terms of geography. 

So what?  Why does land matter more than people?

[Tacachale]

My point is that all votes matter and if you do away with the electoral college those blue urban areas trump (lol) the will of the majority of the country in terms of geography. 

So what?  Why does land matter more than people?

I know people who think that, but they are not Trump supporters.

[Adam White]

My point is that all votes matter and if you do away with the electoral college those blue urban areas trump (lol) the will of the majority of the country in terms of geography.  Further, the DNC has to move beyond those urban centers and the demogrpahics from the last election or they risk losing significance as a national party.

It may look red on that map but the majority of the country is undeveloped and the majority of the population does reside in urban and suburban areas. It's always been that way and will never change. I don't have a dog in this particular party debate or the presidential race results but I am a minority who believes the EC was established in an effort to deal with issues involving slavery. It's debatable to claim that the EC represents the will of the country in the 21st century. If anything, it's an 18th century relic still hanging on because of our natural tendency to embrace tradition and fight change until pulled kicking and screaming.

Took me a second.

[finehoe]

Back on topic...

The use of Twitter to keep track of the who and not whos for the Trump Administration is reaching a feverish pitch.

Goldman Sachs COO is being considered for WH Budget Office
Sarah Palin is being considered for Veterans Affairs
Preet Bharara turned down any role with Trump, he is a top prosecutor in Manhattan district
Steve Mnuchin will be Treasury secretary

Donald Trump's Finance Chair Is the Anti-Populist From Hell

Mnuchin's presence in the campaign reveals how the qualities Trump loyalists projected on their hero don't measure up to the truth. They have venerated him throughout the Republican primary for rejecting the dirty business of pay-to-play politics, and for populist vows to protect the ordinary worker. But in selecting Mnuchin, not only has Trump submitted to the realities of presidential campaign finance; he's chosen one of the most notorious bankers in America to carry it out.

Critics have raised many questions about Mnuchin's financial dealings, from a lawsuit over pocketing profits in the Bernie Madoff case to his suspiciously quiet exit from the Hollywood production company Relativity Media just before it took huge losses and filed for bankruptcy. Just his association with "vampire squid" Goldman Sachs has motivated some anger. But another part of Mnuchin's history is more relevant: his chairmanship of OneWest Bank, a major cog in America's relentless foreclosure machine.

Even among the many bad actors in the national foreclosure crisis, OneWest stood out. It routinely jumped to foreclosure rather than pursue options to keep borrowers in their homes; used fabricated and "robo-signed" documents to secure the evictions; and had a particular talent for dispossessing the homes of senior citizens.

https://newrepublic.com/article/133368/donald-trumps-finance-chair-anti-populist-hell

[Tacachale]

My point is that all votes matter and if you do away with the electoral college those blue urban areas trump (lol) the will of the majority of the country in terms of geography.  Further, the DNC has to move beyond those urban centers and the demogrpahics from the last election or they risk losing significance as a national party.

It may look red on that map but the majority of the country is undeveloped and the majority of the population does reside in urban and suburban areas. It's always been that way and will never change. I don't have a dog in this particular party debate or the presidential race results but I am a minority who believes the EC was established in an effort to deal with issues involving slavery. It's debatable to claim that the EC represents the will of the country in the 21st century. If anything, it's an 18th century relic still hanging on because of our natural tendency to embrace tradition and fight change until pulled kicking and screaming.

Took me a second.

The EC was chosen over popular voting due to slavery, but it was still a matter of protecting "smaller" states. The slave states had a much smaller number of whites - ie people who counted as people - than most free states,  so were "smaller" in that way. Short of allowing blacks to vote, which was not happening, the slave states would have had a lot less representation. However, by the 3/5ths compromise, the slave population was included in the count for legislative representation, so the slave states (but not the slaves) benefited from the Electoral College. So it was chosen by compromise.

It's an inauspicious beginning, but the EC does still serve a purpose in keeping states that are small even when all people are actually counted from getting railroaded. Al Gore, who's been on the wrong end of the EC stick more than anyone besides Clinton, said we need to acknowledge that both systems have their own problems; rather than seeing the popular vote as a "solution" we need to look at it as a balancing act of what's more fair. It's hard to argue that a system is more fair when it's as out of step with the election results as this one has been.