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
Elaine Chao will be Transporation Secretary
My friend made this:
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15220068_10101945294905462_6459614127966616572_n.jpg?oh=771fec7d7cde5e5be26ffdf2e272a585&oe=58C5EAEB)
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on November 30, 2016, 02:51:25 PM
Man, that swamp drainin' is going swimmingly.
I am sure all the voters who voted for him because they wanted an "outsider" who wasn't part of the "establishment" will certainly be up in arms over this, as it proves Trump was a huckster charlatan all along. Oh, wait. No, no they won't.
Trump supporters won't be up in arms. Every single one of the Trump supporters I know will blindly think all his picks are great. I bet he could break every law in our country and they would think he is wonderful. Look at his record and the things the right wingers abhor. He is a draft evader, didn't pay taxes for decades, has filed for bankruptcy numerous times, has a reputation of bullying and stiffing suppliers, and is a multi-time adulterer. He could do anything and the religious right supported him, women professionals supported him, the military supports him, and every redneck in the USA supports him. It's truly amazing. This says more about the American voter (and the many who didn't bother to vote), than it does about Trump. Get ready America! We are going to become one big Mississippi.
I stumbled across this while reviewing MSNBC updates.
https://www.youtube.com/v/PyEXshBOwEU
Quote from: spuwho on November 30, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
I stumbled across this while reviewing MSNBC updates.
https://www.youtube.com/v/PyEXshBOwEU
Awesome.Not one of them ever had any credibility
Quote from: spuwho on November 30, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
I stumbled across this while reviewing MSNBC updates.
https://www.youtube.com/v/PyEXshBOwEU
Hillary had Hollywood, the music industry, fashion industry, daytime & late night talk shows, basically every news/newspaper outlet, blogs, paid social media brigades, faux protests full of provocateurs, etc & still lost. That tells us most everyday people don't give two shits of the opinions of these people. Or are we supposed to care what Jay Z or some Hollywood snob thinks about politics (as if their opinion is more valid than anyone else's)? It makes me think of this Dave Chappelle piece: https://youtu.be/H7b5hJ0G_9c
I always said they would get better results had any of these people or organizations not dialed it up to 11 & kept their mouths shut, but we know that'll never happen.
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 05:29:05 AM
Quote from: spuwho on November 30, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
I stumbled across this while reviewing MSNBC updates.
https://www.youtube.com/v/PyEXshBOwEU
Hillary had Hollywood, the music industry, fashion industry, daytime & late night talk shows, basically every news/newspaper outlet, blogs, paid social media brigades, faux protests full of provocateurs, etc & still lost. That tells us most everyday people don't give two shits of the opinions of these people. Or are we supposed to care what Jay Z or some Hollywood snob thinks about politics (as if their opinion is more valid than anyone else's)? It makes me think of this Dave Chappelle piece: https://youtu.be/H7b5hJ0G_9c
I always said they would get better results had any of these people or organizations not dialed it up to 11 & kept their mouths shut, but we know that'll never happen.
Hillary's also winning the popular vote by 2.3 million votes at the moment. So you might want to revisit your thesis.
^Oh, look. Its the "large liberal cities pushed her ahead in the popular vote, lulz" argument. That doesn't win elections, sport & its one of the reason the electoral college exists.
And since the popular means dick, Trump won 3084 out of 3141 counties (including Duval). Let that sink in. Or don't.
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 07:06:11 AM
And since the popular means dick, Trump won 3084 out of 3141 counties (including Duval). Let that sink in. Or don't.
Government of the counties, by the counties, for the counties, shall not perish from the Earth.
-A. Lincoln
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 07:36:21 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 07:06:11 AM
And since the popular means dick, Trump won 3084 out of 3141 counties (including Duval). Let that sink in. Or don't.
Government of the counties, by the counties, for the counties, shall not perish from the Earth.
-A. Lincoln
K. Are you aware there's people in these counties, and that the actual county itself doesn't vote, because its, like a piece of land with water & trees & stuff? And that he carried way WAY more of these counties in an electoral college system hence why he won?
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:00:47 AM
K. Are you aware there's people in these counties, and that the actual county itself doesn't vote, because its, like a piece of land with water & trees & stuff?
Exactly. Why you think a geographical entity should count for more than, you know, actual voters, is beyond me.
Do people on this forum really not understand the purpose of the electoral college?
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:10:02 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:00:47 AM
K. Are you aware there's people in these counties, and that the actual county itself doesn't vote, because its, like a piece of land with water & trees & stuff?
Exactly. Why you think a geographical entity should count for more than, you know, actual voters, is beyond me.
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...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 07:06:11 AM
^Oh, look. Its the "large liberal cities pushed her ahead in the popular vote, lulz" argument. That doesn't win elections, sport & its one of the reason the electoral college exists.
And since the popular means dick, Trump won 3084 out of 3141 counties (including Duval). Let that sink in. Or don't.
She didn't just win in "large liberal cities", sport, and she lost pretty narrowly in many of the individual states she lost in. Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 100k *total*. Any number of things could have changed that. Sure, maybe fewer ads with rich celebrities preaching to the choir, but also, you know, better economic messaging on Clinton's part, better GOTV, not underestimating Trump's appeal in rust belt blue states would probably have had an even bigger impact.
Can you imagine a country, declaring itself to be a democracy, where they set up an electoral process that would allow a person who gets fewer votes wins?
Me neither.
And what other nations in the world have a similar process?
Republican motto: "It's not how many votes you get, it's where you get them."
Headlines: "Rustbelt Rednecks get to choose the PREZ. Yippee KaiYaY M@therF%ucker!!!"
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."
That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."
That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.
It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace. There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it. It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.
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.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:44:01 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."
That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.
It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace. There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it. It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.
It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 08:46:15 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:44:01 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."
That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.
It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace. There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it. It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.
It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.
It has worked exactly as designed. Apparently not in your favor on this occasion...
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 08:46:15 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:44:01 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."
That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.
It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace. There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it. It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.
It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.
Five times it has picked the loser of the Popular vote. Each time it cost the Democratic party the Presidency. It has outlived its usefulness but when has that ever stop anything.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 01, 2016, 08:56:51 AM
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 08:46:15 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:44:01 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."
That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.
It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace. There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it. It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.
It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.
Five times it has picked the loser of the Popular vote. Each time it cost the Democratic party the Presidency. It has outlived its usefulness but when has that ever stop anything.
The Constitution provides the means to change it... I suggest that those who have an issue with the Electoral College actually... you know... do what you say needs to be done...
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."
"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?
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
Try to keep up.
Believe me, keeping up with you isn't very hard.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:44:01 AM
... or ignore huge swaths of the populace.
So let's see, having the person with
fewer votes win isn't ignoring huge swaths of the populace. Got it.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:04:45 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 01, 2016, 08:56:51 AM
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 08:46:15 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:44:01 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."
That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.
It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace. There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it. It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.
It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.
Five times it has picked the loser of the Popular vote. Each time it cost the Democratic party the Presidency. It has outlived its usefulness but when has that ever stop anything.
The Constitution provides the means to change it... I suggest that those who have an issue with the Electoral College actually... you know... do what you say needs to be done...
The constitution doesn't address how electoral votes are apportioned by the states. I don't know what would be easier - get each state to make changes to distribute the votes based on percentage of popular votes or to get a constitutional amendment passed that would address it.
All that aside - no one is saying there aren't methods to fix the issue. So I don't get your response - the commentary is simply a discussion of how it is flawed.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:48:11 AM
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 08:46:15 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:44:01 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
"Omg, why can't giant liberal cities impose their will onto the rest of the country?! Literally shaking right now! Boo boo."
That's you. That's what you sound like. Stay mad I guess. And we're a republic in this sense, not a democracy. Try to keep up.
It has worked very well for over 200 years... except when Dems fail to vote or are "confused" by the ballots... or ignore huge swaths of the populace. There is a mechanism built into the Constitution to modify it. It has been used successfully many times... Either modify how we do things properly... or take the time to consider the folks in the rest of the country.
It hasn't worked four times. Probably not just Democrats with the problem.
It has worked exactly as designed. Apparently not in your favor on this occasion...
I didn't vote and had I voted, it wouldn't have been for Clinton. So try again.
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 09:09:54 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
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.
Quote from: spuwho on November 30, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
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.
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 09:26:55 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
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.
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 09:26:55 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
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...
Quote"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.
QuoteBelieve me, keeping up with you isn't very hard.
Nice deflection. Is this considered winning the debate in your world?
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 08:45:01 AM
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.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 09:26:55 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
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.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:36:19 AM
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.
Quote from: fsquid on December 01, 2016, 09:41:23 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 09:26:55 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 09:46:41 AM
Quote from: fsquid on December 01, 2016, 09:41:23 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 09:26:55 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
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
"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!
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 09:09:54 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 10:11:32 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 09:09:54 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 08:22:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 08:19:31 AM
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.
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)
Quote from: stephendare on December 01, 2016, 09:54:40 AM
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 09:46:41 AM
Quote from: fsquid on December 01, 2016, 09:41:23 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 09:26:55 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
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).
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 10:25:54 AM
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:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/2016nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg/1280px-2016nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg.png)
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
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.
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 10:58:05 AM
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
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.
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 10:58:05 AM
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
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.
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 10:48:35 AM
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"?
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 10:48:35 AM
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". ::)
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 10:48:35 AM
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.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:36:19 AM
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.
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
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.
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 11:17:36 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 01, 2016, 09:36:19 AM
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).
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 01, 2016, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
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.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/bvwvh1B2L4J8c/giphy.gif)
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
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?
Quote from: finehoe on December 01, 2016, 11:32:36 AM
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 01, 2016, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
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.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/bvwvh1B2L4J8c/giphy.gif)
Took me a second.
Back on topic...
Quote from: spuwho on November 30, 2016, 02:28:07 PM
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 HellMnuchin'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
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 01, 2016, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
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.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/bvwvh1B2L4J8c/giphy.gif)
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Adam White on December 01, 2016, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 01, 2016, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 01, 2016, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: icarus on December 01, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
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.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/bvwvh1B2L4J8c/giphy.gif)
Took me a second.
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.
You get no argument from me.
I'd argue that things would go on just fine if the EC was finally taken out back and shot. However, I'm not passionate enough about the issue to spend much effort into debating it. There's more pressing issues to deal with in this country to me.
Let's see, Clinton has registered 64,654,483 total votes, compared to 62,418,820 for Trump, according to a Cook Political Report analysis Monday (11/28 16). That represents a margin of 2,235,663 (more than Trump) in the popular vote.
Which makes this statement : "The DNC has some soul searching to do as to whether or not they are a national party or a fringe party"
at the top of the list for Dumbest Post of 2016.
Quote from: peestandingup on December 01, 2016, 05:29:05 AM
Hillary had Hollywood, the music industry, fashion industry, daytime & late night talk shows, basically every news/newspaper outlet, blogs, paid social media brigades, faux protests full of provocateurs, etc & still lost. That tells us most everyday people don't give two shits of the opinions of these people. Or are we supposed to care what Jay Z or some Hollywood snob thinks about politics (as if their opinion is more valid than anyone else's)? It makes me think of this Dave Chappelle piece: https://youtu.be/H7b5hJ0G_9c
I always said they would get better results had any of these people or organizations not dialed it up to 11 & kept their mouths shut, but we know that'll never happen.
Exactly right.
However, they get far, far too much out of virtue signaling to ever STFU and quit with the crazy caricaturizations of their political opponents. They seem to be so addicted to it they can't even
see how ridiculous they are being. Not even after watching that incredibly dismissive video
after the fact. That should have been a clincher but . . . nope, nope, nope. Everybody else is just stupid and racist and xenophobic and misogynistic. So, let us go re-elect aging got-rich-off-of-politics Nancy Pelosi as leader in the House of Representatives.
Incredible.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 01, 2016, 11:23:29 AM
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.
Ennis, this is patently absurd. It has most definitely
not always been that. Where the heck did you learn your history? Additionally, and more importantly, there would be no United States of America without the electoral college. That isn't open for debate. That's a fact and to casually dismiss it seriously diminishes your point. It was essential to the formation of this country and most definitely wasn't some relice then and clearly isn't some relic today.
Far from it.
It's also never going to be changed, and this election (along with the crazy responses in this thread) only make that point more certain. Republicans can only hope people like Stephen keep driving the train with Democrats. They keep ignoring illegals voting, or President Obama on the sly actually ENCOURAGING illegals to break the law and vote, or California having two democrats running for the Senate and thereby depressing Republican turnout in our most populous state to the tune of about 2 million Republican voters.
As a constitutional federal republic (something apparently beyond the comprehension of Adam), there are two sovereigns that serve the people -- not two sovereigns that lord over the people. And guess what, cities aren't political entities that factor into those two sovereigns that serve the people. That's only the federal government and the state government.
There is no city sovereign. Think about it.
As Trump has clearly said, if the contest was to win the popular vote his very effective strategy would have been modified and likely just as effective. That's the cold, hard truth. But if you're dismissive of a candidate winning 3,084 out of 3,151 counties in this nation you have a very warped understanding of this country.
So yeah, Stephen & Adam & finehoe, etc., keep hanging your hat on the popular vote "win" -- it would earn you a grade of F in any objective grading scheme.
^Ok. I'm more than happy to take the position that even when the country was founded, the majority of the population (assuming we're not counting slaves, since they were considered property), lived in cities, as opposed to rural homesteads. I'm also still of the belief that the EC came about as a method of dealing with issues with slavery and its political/economic impact. US history doesn't change because RattlerGator doesn't like the story told a certain way. Feel free to counter with some statistical data suggesting otherwise.
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 02, 2016, 07:33:08 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 01, 2016, 11:23:29 AM
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.
Ennis, this is patently absurd. It has most definitely not always been that. Where the heck did you learn your history? Additionally, and more importantly, there would be no United States of America without the electoral college. That isn't open for debate. That's a fact and to casually dismiss it seriously diminishes your point. It was essential to the formation of this country and most definitely wasn't some relice then and clearly isn't some relic today.
Far from it.
It's also never going to be changed, and this election (along with the crazy responses in this thread) only make that point more certain. Republicans can only hope people like Stephen keep driving the train with Democrats. They keep ignoring illegals voting, or President Obama on the sly actually ENCOURAGING illegals to break the law and vote, or California having two democrats running for the Senate and thereby depressing Republican turnout in our most populous state to the tune of about 2 million Republican voters.
As a constitutional federal republic (something apparently beyond the comprehension of Adam), there are two sovereigns that serve the people -- not two sovereigns that lord over the people. And guess what, cities aren't political entities that factor into those two sovereigns that serve the people. That's only the federal government and the state government.
There is no city sovereign. Think about it.
As Trump has clearly said, if the contest was to win the popular vote his very effective strategy would have been modified and likely just as effective. That's the cold, hard truth. But if you're dismissive of a candidate winning 3,084 out of 3,151 counties in this nation you have a very warped understanding of this country.
So yeah, Stephen & Adam & finehoe, etc., keep hanging your hat on the popular vote "win" -- it would earn you a grade of F in any objective grading scheme.
A) I have not said the EC should be eliminated - I've agreed it has its benefits. My issue is one with the states.
B) The USA is a democracy and a republic. The two terms are not mutually-exclusive. I don't suppose you were a poly-sci major, were you? If you were, I'd start investigating UF or FAMU's refunds policy.
C) I have never disputed the election outcome. And my comment about the popular vote was in response to PSU's post - his post makes no sense when you consider that Clinton received more votes than Trump.
Sometimes your comments read like a case study of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I've posted this elsewhere. Apparently I'm not the only person who can't comprehend the nature of the USA's system of government. Eminent legal scholar (and conservative) Eugene Volokh is equally ignorant, it seems:
QuoteThe United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it's only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.
And indeed the American form of government has been called a "democracy" by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It's true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished "democracy" and "republic"; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between "pure democracy" and a "republic," only later just saying "democracy." But even in that era, "representative democracy" was understood as a form of democracy, alongside "pure democracy": John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.f39ae5b87bb2
Quote from: Adam White on December 02, 2016, 07:57:01 AM
I've posted this elsewhere. Apparently I'm not the only person who can't comprehend the nature of the USA's system of government. Eminent legal scholar (and conservative) Eugene Volokh is equally ignorant, it seems:
QuoteThe United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it's only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.
And indeed the American form of government has been called a "democracy" by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It's true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished "democracy" and "republic"; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between "pure democracy" and a "republic," only later just saying "democracy." But even in that era, "representative democracy" was understood as a form of democracy, alongside "pure democracy": John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.f39ae5b87bb2
In addition, somewhere in the early papers it talks about using the electoral college to correct the vote if the people basically screwed up and elected someone who was not qualified to be President. So, I'm guessing that the EC also was not to protect the voice of those "fly over" rural folk but to potentially protect the republic from them.
Stop with the facts, Adam.
Quote from: strider on December 02, 2016, 09:45:30 AM
Quote from: Adam White on December 02, 2016, 07:57:01 AM
I've posted this elsewhere. Apparently I'm not the only person who can't comprehend the nature of the USA's system of government. Eminent legal scholar (and conservative) Eugene Volokh is equally ignorant, it seems:
QuoteThe United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it's only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.
And indeed the American form of government has been called a "democracy" by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It's true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished "democracy" and "republic"; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between "pure democracy" and a "republic," only later just saying "democracy." But even in that era, "representative democracy" was understood as a form of democracy, alongside "pure democracy": John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.f39ae5b87bb2
In addition, somewhere in the early papers it talks about using the electoral college to correct the vote if the people basically screwed up and elected someone who was not qualified to be President. So, I'm guessing that the EC also was not to protect the voice of those "fly over" rural folk but to potentially protect the republic from them.
You'd think we'd all be able to agree that more democracy is usually a good thing - and that a system that has permitted (unintentionally) the loser of the popular vote to be elected President five times (including twice in the last 16 years)
might benefit from reform*.
*note: I did not say "abolition," did I?
Quote from: strider on December 02, 2016, 09:45:30 AM
In addition, somewhere in the early papers it talks about using the electoral college to correct the vote if the people basically screwed up and elected someone who was not qualified to be President. So, I'm guessing that the EC also was not to protect the voice of those "fly over" rural folk but to potentially protect the republic from them.
Exactly. Alexander Hamilton wrote in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."
It has nothing to do with giving affirmative action-type help to voters who happen to live in less-populous states.
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68
Quote from: finehoe on December 02, 2016, 10:04:02 AM
Quote from: strider on December 02, 2016, 09:45:30 AM
In addition, somewhere in the early papers it talks about using the electoral college to correct the vote if the people basically screwed up and elected someone who was not qualified to be President. So, I'm guessing that the EC also was not to protect the voice of those "fly over" rural folk but to potentially protect the republic from them.
Exactly. Alexander Hamilton wrote in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."
It has nothing to do with giving affirmative action-type help to voters who happen to live in less-populous states.
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68
Yes - our wise "founding fathers" were actually elitists. But whatever - doesn't fit the narrative for some.
Quote from: coredumped on December 01, 2016, 08:15:09 AM
Do people on this forum really not understand the purpose of the electoral college?
Apparently not.
"The Packers should be the NFC North leaders right now because they have scored 274 total points this season whereas the Lions have only scored 244. The fact that the Lions are 7 and 4 and the Packers are 5 and 6 should be irrelevant. I like the Packers. The NFL needs to change their rules because I prefer the Packers..."
Quote from: blizz01 on December 02, 2016, 11:07:09 AM
"The Packers should be the NFC North leaders right now because they have scored 274 total points this season whereas the Lions have only scored 244. The fact that the Lions are 7 and 4 and the Packers are 5 and 6 should be irrelevant. I like the Packers. The NFL needs to change their rules because I prefer the Packers..."
I know what you were attempting to do but your example represents the opposite. The winners and losers of an NFL game are directly decided by the actual participants on the field, in head-to-head matchups. With this particular topic, they'd represent the popular vote.
If you went to a points based system, you'd create a situation where the players have less influence on the result. A suit in the NFL office could influence the amount of overall points a team could put up over a season through scheduling and individual team game location. For example, a decent offense playing most of its games in a climate controlled dome or good weather conditions will most likely put up more points than one playing more games in rain and snow. This would be more representative of the EC.
Or, you know, we could just accept that the NFL and presidential elections are completely different things. Just a thought.
Fair enough.
I just can't help notice though, how this site has manifested into a repository for butt-hurt political views instead of what (I believe?) it was originally intended to be - as I rifle through countless threads essentially saying the same thing ad nauseum. Seems to have been hijacked, really. 2¢ .
Quote from: blizz01 on December 02, 2016, 11:29:56 AM
Fair enough.
I just can't help notice though, how this site has manifested into a repository for butt-hurt political views instead of what (I believe?) it was originally intended to be - as I rifle through countless threads essentially saying the same thing ad nauseum. Seems to have been hijacked, really. 2¢ .
Well, this bit of butt-hurt (I loathe that term, btw) wouldn't have happened if a particular poster hadn't brought up the electoral college. It's actually not the "butt hurty" ones who are responsible here.
Quote from: stephendare on December 02, 2016, 11:41:27 AM
Quote from: Adam White on December 02, 2016, 11:38:30 AM
Quote from: blizz01 on December 02, 2016, 11:29:56 AM
Fair enough.
I just can't help notice though, how this site has manifested into a repository for butt-hurt political views instead of what (I believe?) it was originally intended to be - as I rifle through countless threads essentially saying the same thing ad nauseum. Seems to have been hijacked, really. 2¢ .
Well, this bit of butt-hurt (I loathe that term, btw) wouldn't have happened if a particular poster hadn't brought up the electoral college. It's actually not the "butt hurty" ones who are responsible here.
And I like the discussion. I grew up in the generation that had mandatory civics classes, and its astonishing to me that so many grown adults don't have that knowledge.
These discussions over the past couple of weeks have actually been some of the finest dissections of basics civics that its been my pleasure to read in a long time.
Most of the discussions are pretty tame. And the politics ones are politics ones - we kind of expect those to be a bit different. But it's not like the forum is becoming a politics - or "butt hurt" - forum. There are plenty of good other topics right now (like the Hart bridge ones, for example).
Agree about the butt hurt ridiculousness. No one is arguing Trump won the EC, only about it's purpose, history, and usefulness going forward. Oh yeah, and the "Republican mandate" thing. When the other candidate gets 2,000,000 more votes, there ain't no mandate.
Re-posting Trumps comments (aka 'Tweets' ) on the EC in 2012: "It's a disaster for our country." In 2016 : "It's brilliant."
Pretty sure you will see a lot of this in the coming years, Trump completely reversing his position as he actually "learns" about the issues.
Quote from: spuwho on November 30, 2016, 02:28:07 PM
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
Mattis as SecDef is an awesome pick...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 02, 2016, 01:26:47 PM
Mattis as SecDef is an awesome pick...
I don't really know anything about him. Hopefully he's not as incompetent as David Petraeus or as bat-shit crazy as Mike Flynn.
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 02, 2016, 07:33:08 AM
As Trump has clearly said, if the contest was to win the popular vote his very effective strategy would have been modified and likely just as effective. That's the cold, hard truth. But if you're dismissive of a candidate winning 3,084 out of 3,151 counties in this nation you have a very warped understanding of this country.
Apparently those numbers are basically made up:
http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/
Quote from: Adam White on December 02, 2016, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 02, 2016, 07:33:08 AM
As Trump has clearly said, if the contest was to win the popular vote his very effective strategy would have been modified and likely just as effective. That's the cold, hard truth. But if you're dismissive of a candidate winning 3,084 out of 3,151 counties in this nation you have a very warped understanding of this country.
Apparently those numbers are basically made up:
http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/
Ouch!
^ I think the appropriate term would be "moron"
Well, lets see. Maybe she won 250 of the 3,141 -- okay? That make baby feel all better?
Is the electoral college landslide made up? Is the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, even in the face of two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone, made up? Or Obama's CIA convincing a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah made up?
Look, the man took every shot from every direction -- and was the last one standing.
Ouch, indeed !!!
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 16, 2016, 09:35:57 AM
Well, lets see. Maybe she won 250 of the 3,141 -- okay? That make baby feel all better?
Is the electoral college landslide made up? Is the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, even in the face of two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone, made up? Or Obama's CIA convincing a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah made up?
Look, the man took every shot from every direction -- and was the last one standing.
Ouch, indeed !!!
Where did you get your info on the above bolded statement?
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 16, 2016, 09:35:57 AM
Well, lets see. Maybe she won 250 of the 3,141 -- okay? That make baby feel all better?
Is the electoral college landslide made up? Is the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, even in the face of two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone, made up? Or Obama's CIA convincing a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah made up?
Look, the man took every shot from every direction -- and was the last one standing.
Ouch, indeed !!!
Is the electoral college landslide made up?
I realize we are in a Post-truth era now, but yes it is made up. 306 EV is not anywhere close to a landslide. It is only 3 more than JFK got in one of the closest elections in modern times. Obama won 332 and 365 EVs and no one claim that as a landslide.
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 16, 2016, 09:35:57 AM
Well, lets see. Maybe she won 250 of the 3,141 -- okay? That make baby feel all better?
Is the electoral college landslide made up? Is the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, even in the face of two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone, made up? Or Obama's CIA convincing a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah made up?
Look, the man took every shot from every direction -- and was the last one standing.
Ouch, indeed !!!
Okay, so what the hell? I simply linked an article to show that the numbers you quoted on more than one occasion were wrong. And you call me a "baby" for it.
Anyway, I think you revised numbers are still wrong - I believe Clinton won over 400 counties. But I don't really understand your preoccupation with the counties anyway. And I
really don't get the other stuff you have now introduced.
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 16, 2016, 09:35:57 AM
Well, lets see. Maybe she won 250 of the 3,141 -- okay? That make baby feel all better?
Is the electoral college landslide made up? Is the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, even in the face of two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone, made up? Or Obama's CIA convincing a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah made up?
Look, the man took every shot from every direction -- and was the last one standing.
Ouch, indeed !!!
Clinton "won" at least 487 out of 3141 counties.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/clinton-counties/
There wasn't an "electoral landslide". Depending on how you count it, up to 8 of the last 17 elections have had wider margins, including Obama's wins. Trump got 57% of the electoral college.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/21/reince-priebus/despite-losing-popular-vote-donald-trump-won-elect/
I have no idea what you're talking about with "two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone". There was one Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson; he's not an "establishment Republican", and he wasn't running to defeat Trump.
The conspiratorial claim that "Obama's CIA convinc[ed] a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah" isn't worth dignifying.
Clinton's defeat was stunning, I'll give you that. Otherwise, yes, all your other claims do appear to be "made up".
Quote from: Tacachale on December 16, 2016, 02:16:12 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 16, 2016, 09:35:57 AM
Well, lets see. Maybe she won 250 of the 3,141 -- okay? That make baby feel all better?
Is the electoral college landslide made up? Is the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, even in the face of two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone, made up? Or Obama's CIA convincing a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah made up?
Look, the man took every shot from every direction -- and was the last one standing.
Ouch, indeed !!!
Clinton "won" at least 487 out of 3141 counties.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/clinton-counties/
There wasn't an "electoral landslide". Depending on how you count it, up to 8 of the last 17 elections have had wider margins, including Obama's wins. Trump got 57% of the electoral college.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/21/reince-priebus/despite-losing-popular-vote-donald-trump-won-elect/
I have no idea what you're talking about with "two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone". There was one Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson; he's not an "establishment Republican", and he wasn't running to defeat Trump.
The conspiratorial claim that "Obama's CIA convinc[ed] a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah" isn't worth dignifying.
Clinton's defeat was stunning, I'll give you that. Otherwise, yes, all your other claims do appear to be "made up".
Actually, Trump's electoral victory is only the 46th widest margin out of 58 elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin
We actually won't know the electoral margin until those votes are cast in a few days. Super Tuesday is only the first step in the vote skewing system. First people vote then the government uses other representation statistics to take the value of some votes down and others up. Step two Electors vote for who ever they want (according to the 12th amendment) so if you want to change the election lobbying the electors seems to be in line with the founders vision. Possible step three House appoints President and Senate appoints VP.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 16, 2016, 03:21:41 PM
We actually won't know the electoral margin until those votes are cast in a few days. Super Tuesday is only the first step in the vote skewing system. First people vote then the government uses other representation statistics to take the value of some votes down and others up. Step two Electors vote for who ever they want (according to the 12th amendment) so if you want to change the election lobbying the electors seems to be in line with the founders vision. Possible step three House appoints President and Senate appoints VP.
They can't vote for whomever they want in some states (like, I believe, CO). Some states have laws about that sort of thing.
Quote from: stephendare on December 16, 2016, 05:54:06 PM
Except those laws have never been tested. The electors are properly a Federal matter, instead of State
A federal judge just ruled that CO electors have to vote for Clinton:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colorado-faithless-electors-appeal-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-judge-10th-appeals-court-19-december-a7473026.html
I think it's being appealed, of course. Whether states can do this or not hasn't been decided, as far as I know, and I don't believe there is a consensus anyway.
The whole "gave Hillary a question beforehand" is utterly pathetic. It's like saying Trump new about the debate questions because they were going to ask about National Security. The "question" alluded to was in regards to the water crisis in Flint Michigan. That would have been, or should have been, included in any serious debate preparation, it would not have been a surprise.
Quote from: MusicMan on December 17, 2016, 12:51:12 PM
The whole "gave Hillary a question beforehand" is utterly pathetic. It's like saying Trump new about the debate questions because they were going to ask about National Security. The "question" alluded to was in regards to the water crisis in Flint Michigan. That would have been, or should have been, included in any serious debate preparation, it would not have been a surprise.
Bullshit. She was given an advantage that was not given to her opponent. The scales were tipped in her favour.
She cheated and acted unethically. But what she did wasn't illegal, as she simply cheated in a debate scheduled as part of a party's candidate selection process.
Actually, while it was true that Hillary Clinton did get told about a few (the exact number seems to be unknown but from 1 to 3 perhaps) potential debate questions, the exact questions were not given to her and yes, common sense says that the subject matters mentioned would be likely subjects to be asked about. I also can not find where Hillary Clinton actually asked for the questions and unless you can prove to me that Trump did not get the same heads up from someone on his side of the aisle, it is and will remain a pretty lame argument to say she got any kind of advantage. Let's face facts here, Trump still has trouble telling the truth about much of anything and he is also known to be as sleasy as anyone so it is not a stretch that he too got prior notice from someone and in fact, you would be hard pressed to get me to belive it is not a common occurrence.
Quote from: strider on December 17, 2016, 01:58:27 PM
Actually, while it was true that Hillary Clinton did get told about a few (the exact number seems to be unknown but from 1 to 3 perhaps) potential debate questions, the exact questions were not given to her and yes, common sense says that the subject matters mentioned would be likely subjects to be asked about. I also can not find where Hillary Clinton actually asked for the questions and unless you can prove to me that Trump did not get the same heads up from someone on his side of the aisle, it is and will remain a pretty lame argument to say she got any kind of advantage. Let's face facts here, Trump still has trouble telling the truth about much of anything and he is also known to be as sleasy as anyone so it is not a stretch that he too got prior notice from someone and in fact, you would be hard pressed to get me to belive it is not a common occurrence.
These were questions in advance of her debates with Sanders - not Trump.
Yes I know. In all honesty the debates (all of them) proved to be without merit. There was not any "surprise" questions, like "Who is the leader of Isis?" or stuff like that. Stuff you kind of hope the next President would know.
I would have preferred a "current events " test, where the candidates needed to show a more than rudimentary knowledge of recent world events. Questions like ,
"Name the leaders of the G-8."
Fill in the unlabeled map of the Middle East. Or Central America, or South America.
Discuss the differences between Sunni and Shia.
Describe the fundamental science behind the theory of global climate change.
Explain how a bill becomes a law.
Describe the process of hydraulic fracturing to a layman.
Does that seem fair? I'd bet $1000 Trump would struggle with those.
He's good at branding and other business related items, and surely knows more about bankruptcy and maybe financing debt,
but I prefer a President who is well versed in items related to governance and policy, not a branding and marketing guru.
That being said, we will see in the near future just how well Trump will do. He boasted of "knowing more about Isis than the Generals,"
which I personally think is a crock of sh!t, but we'll see.
Quote from: MusicMan on December 17, 2016, 06:17:24 PM
That being said, we will see in the near future just how well Trump will do. He boasted of "knowing more about Isis than the Generals,"
which I personally think is a crock of sh!t, but we'll see.
I think it's not unreasonable to believe that pretty much everything Trump says is total bullshit. I had hoped he'd surround himself with really competent people, but I am losing hope. And if he had an ounce of good sense, he'd stop tweeting and let his PR team take care of that.