Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[薔薇語]

Hillary's popular vote margin is now in excess of 2.5 million votes. This is by far the largest popular vote victory margin of any electoral college loss, and is one of the bigger popular vote margins of any presidential election.

 

 

That is a bit of odd information. We have far more people in this election than any other in our history. Of course we would expect that margin to be bigger in raw numbers. And the fact that this event is so rare in our history (only four times in our history if memory serves me) any percent spread is hardly out of the normal since no 'normal' can exist. 

 

It is of note that while Sec. Clinton has more vote than President Elect Trump, she still can't even break into a simple majority. Even with the increase in total numbers coming in, more people still didn't want her to be president than people wanted her to. So, she won the race no one was running. Congrats. That is like being the fastest breast-stroke swimmer in the butterfly competition. It doesn't matter. 

 

It is also of note that even if we got rid of the senatorial portion of the EC, thus bring the vote power of each citizen into far closer alignment, President Elect Trump would still win 190-246. 

 

The system we have isn't going to be changing anytime soon. Perhaps states adjusting their winner-take-all status could have some effect and actually be feasible but no one is going to actually push that view in any of the power-house states (Cal, Tex, NY). The California Dems are not going to give up 15+ electors in a cycle. Nor would the Texas Repubs. And of course if they do do proportional representation, the California Dems risk exciting a few million Republicans in their state and god only knows how many stay home just because of our system. Indeed, Given the big states (minus Texas) tend to swing Dem and have some of the lowest turnouts - the Democratic party has far more to fear from such a re-gearing towards 'democracy' than  the Republicans do. But perhaps I am wrong and there are not millions of disenfranchised Republicans in NY and Cali. 

 

Soar. 

[Badger]

Well, I suspect those disenfranchised GOPers do leave if possible those states.  I had an uncle who lived in CA most of his adult life.  DIdnt take long for him to move back here after retirement.

[TheDarkness]

That's partly right.  A simple blue or red per county, would show a whole lot of red.   But, a whole lot of the red werent exactly huge percentage wins.  So yeah, if you purple-ized counties that were within a certain percentage difference, yeah it would be a huge amount of purple.

 

If I remember (without looking for it) my area looked purple, though Trump won by about 7 percent in my county.  And all the counties in my immediate area are save one also went to Trump.

If you mean election results, that's a different animal. By voting patterns, we're purple, nowhere near predominantly red or blue almost anywhere. The vast majority of American territory is populated by purple by any estimation.

 

We don't show up as particularly red or blue in any election by our voting habits, either in the cities or in the rural areas.

[megaplayboy]

For some recent perspective on the loser's margin of popular vote lead, consider Dubya's win in 2004. He won the popular vote by 3.01 million votes and claimed a mandate. Karl Rove talked about a "permanent Republican majority ". That is the only time in the last 7 presidential elections that a Republican candidate won the popular vote. So if Trump loses the popular vote by a margin similar to the Republicans only popular vote win, well...what's the opposite of a mandate?

[Hermit]

The opposite of a mandate?

 

A womanscorn?

[Enforcer84]

didn't want to drag Funny Pics down with this so here it goes. 

 

if It steps over a line I'll delete it.  

 

[Old Man]

That is a bit of odd information. We have far more people in this election than any other in our history. Of course we would expect that margin to be bigger in raw numbers.

Actually voter turnout in 2016 was a twenty-year low. Her popular vote margin is better than that of ten prior presidents.

 

 

Even with the increase in total numbers coming in, more people still didn't want her to be president than people wanted her to.

What does this even mean? Even fewer people wanted Trump to be president, so...?

 

It is also of note that even if we got rid of the senatorial portion of the EC, thus bring the vote power of each citizen into far closer alignment, President Elect Trump would still win 190-246.

Of course it doesn't change anything if you add or subtract EC votes from each state. Why would it? That just proves how messed up the EC is.

 

 

But perhaps I am wrong and there are not millions of disenfranchised Republicans in NY and Cali.

Do you know what would "enfranchise" those Republicans in NY and Cali? Eliminating the Electoral College.

 

I mean, seriously, what problem is the EC supposed to solve? It's supposed to make it so that people in smaller states aren't ignored or something, right? But I don't see candidates spending a whole lot of time in Wyoming or Alaska, where presidential votes count four times as much as they do in California. No, campaigns still focus on big states and Ohio. The EC is the whole reason that candidates write off "solid" red or blue states when in reality America is a lot closer to purple. If there were no EC then candidates would have to reach every voter, because that GOP voter in California and that Dem voter in Oklahoma would not get lost in the noise.

[薔薇語]

For some recent perspective on the loser's margin of popular vote lead, consider Dubya's win in 2004. He won the popular vote by 3.01 million votes and claimed a mandate.

I like how you conveniently forgot that majority of the people in the nation actually wanted President Bush to be president where as the majority of people do not want secretary Clinton to be president. Indeed the people who didn't vote for secretary Clinton are greater than the people who didn't vote for President Bush.

 

Soar.

[Ranxerox]

I like how you conveniently forgot that majority of the people in the nation actually wanted President Bush to be president where are the majority of people do not want secretary Clinton to be president. Indeed the people who didn't vote for secretary Clinton are greater than the people who didn't vote for President Bush.

 

Soar.

 

If the majority of people wanted him to be president, why did he lose the popular vote?

[薔薇語]

Actually voter turnout in 2016 was a twenty-year low. Her popular vote margin is better than that of ten prior presidents.

 

 

 

What does this even mean? Even fewer people wanted Trump to be president, so...?

 

 

Of course it doesn't change anything if you add or subtract EC votes from each state. Why would it? That just proves how messed up the EC is.

 

 

 

Do you know what would "enfranchise" those Republicans in NY and Cali? Eliminating the Electoral College.

 

I mean, seriously, what problem is the EC supposed to solve? It's supposed to make it so that people in smaller states aren't ignored or something, right? But I don't see candidates spending a whole lot of time in Wyoming or Alaska, where presidential votes count four times as much as they do in California. No, campaigns still focus on big states and Ohio. The EC is the whole reason that candidates write off "solid" red or blue states when in reality America is a lot closer to purple. If there were no EC then candidates would have to reach every voter, because that GOP voter in California and that Dem voter in Oklahoma would not get lost in the noise.

on my phone so I can't cut up the post and respond.

 

Voter turnout - not true.

 

We are less than 1% from last time. That does mean we have more than 2000 but less than subsequent. 2016-2004 is 12. Not twenty.

 

Vote margin is pointless since A) not the race B.) a strong majority still rejected her. If you can't win even a simple majority, GTFO with this mandate BS. That includes President Elect Trump.

 

The EC is a compromise between the two legislative philosophies. It does grant more voice to minority states. Is it perfect?

 

Disenfranchisement only seems to be an issue when Rep due it and dems lose.

 

Soar.

[薔薇語]

If the majority of people wanted him to be president, why did he lose the popular vote?

They don't. The majority don't want either (PE Trump - Sec. Clinton). But certain posters cant seem to reconcile that one can win the popular and still be disliked by a majority of people. This cycle saw a rejection of both major candidates.

 

Soar.

[Pattern Ghost]

If the majority of people wanted him to be president, why did he lose the popular vote?

 

Trump won the electoral college. The fact that he didn't win the popular vote is entirely irrelevant, because the goal was not to win the popular vote. Saying otherwise is like saying you can win a game of baseball by making the most touchdowns. 

 

Had the election been a straight popular vote, who would have won? It's impossible to say without actually running a popular vote election.

[薔薇語]

Saying otherwise is like saying you can win a game of baseball by making the most touchdowns.

 

Good analogy. Another one I love is: In the world series, you can score the most runs and still lose. It doesn't matter if you won 100 to 1 in game 1, if you lose 0 to 1 in the next six, you are still the loser. Dems da rulz.

 

Soar.

[megaplayboy]

Trump won the electoral college. The fact that he didn't win the popular vote is entirely irrelevant, because the goal was not to win the popular vote. Saying otherwise is like saying you can win a game of baseball by making the most touchdowns. 

 

Had the election been a straight popular vote, who would have won? It's impossible to say without actually running a popular vote election.

I would not agree that it's entirely irrelevant. To the legal outcome, sure. To the public perception of his victory, obviously not.

[薔薇語]

I would not agree that it's entirely irrelevant. To the legal outcome, sure. To the public perception of his victory, obviously not.

Yeah, people are always going to feel sour when they lose. Doesnt change or add facts to consideration.

 

Soar.

[Ranxerox]

They don't. The majority don't want either (PE Trump - Sec. Clinton). But certain posters cant seem to reconcile that one can win the popular and still be disliked by a majority of people. This cycle saw a rejection of both major candidates.

 

Soar.

 

No, I understand the EC just fine.  You made a statement that the "majority of the people in the nation actually wanted President Bush to be president".  If that was the case, why did he lose the popular vote to Al Gore?

[Pattern Ghost]

I would not agree that it's entirely irrelevant. To the legal outcome, sure. To the public perception of his victory, obviously not.

 

The fact that the public has a skewed perception on the issue is an irritant to me, not a point of data.

 

My personal opinion on the outcome is that Hillary was perceived as a shoe-in and that it resulted in a low mobilization by her supporters, who sat at home rather than got out and voted. So public perception got us in this mess to begin with.

 

Edit: That's not the only factor at work, but I think it's a big one.

[薔薇語]

No, I understand the EC just fine. You made a statement that the "majority of the people in the nation actually wanted President Bush to be president". If that was the case, why did he lose the popular vote to Al Gore?

Because I'm not talking about 2000. Mega mentioned 2004. I responded to mega's comment about 2004.

 

Soar.

[Old Man]

Thr EC os a compromise between the two legislative philosophies. It does grant more voice to minority states. Os it perfect?

 

Disenfranchisement only seems to be an issue when Rep due it and dems lose.

 

 

I literally just said that abolishing the EC would help the GOP voters in blue states that you consider disenfranchised. Giving more voice to minority states would be fine, but because EVs are awarded en bloc by state*, what matters is the relative proportion of voters within each state.

 

 

* Or district, in the case of Nebraska and Maine.

[Pattern Ghost]

I don't see any reason not to have a direct vote. The electoral college is nothing but a means to distance the unwashed masses from the election without going so far as to have Congress select the president.

 

This is from the Huffington Post: Why National Popular Vote Is a Bad Idea. I'm not swayed by the arguments presented, but thought I'd share it for the sake of discussion.

[Old Man]

The fact that the public has a skewed perception on the issue is an irritant to me, not a point of data.

 

My personal opinion on the outcome is that Hillary was perceived as a shoe-in and that it resulted in a low mobilization by her supporters, who sat at home rather than got out and voted. So public perception got us in this mess to begin with.

 

Edit: That's not the only factor at work, but I think it's a big one.

Contributing factors, three weeks post-election:

 

1. The prevailing media narrative made Clinton's victory seem all but certain, driving down Democratic turnout, as you say.

2. Comey's manufactured email scandal. The difference between early voting percentages and election day is massive--about a 16% swing. Given the relatively small number of early ballots that probably translates to 1-2% at the polls, but as it turns out that was plenty. Last minute undecideds broke hard for Trump, and media coverage just before the election was all about the email.

3. The Clinton campaign was truly incompetent. Touted as the most "data-driven" campaign ever run, behind the scenes, campaign leadership:

a. Failed to pick up on the message driving Sanders' and Trump's popular campaigns.

b. Spent many millions on TV ads without paying attention to the message (or lack thereof) behind those ads.

c. Ignored social media.

d. Had no answer for an October surprise like Comey's emailboating. (It's not as though there was any shortage of scandal on Trump's side.)

e. Relied too heavily on outside polling. The Clinton campaign had no polling in Michigan at all. Zero!

f. Failed to support downticket races, monetarily or otherwise, even when those campaigns saw the disaster looming in their own polling.

4. Back to the media, Trump spent less than half as much money on his campaign, but got the vast majority of all corporate media coverage, and analyses show that despite the constant drumbeat of Trump scandals, the tone of corporate media coverage was much more negative for Clinton than it was for Trump.

5. Social media bubbles, and a for-profit fake news industry that feeds the GOP bubble specifically.

6. An incoherent message from the Democrats in general, despite the overwhelming popularity of Obama and the ACA.

 

Basically Clinton's campaign saw resounding victories in the debates and post-debate polling, played a prevent defense, and got burned.

[megaplayboy]

They don't. The majority don't want either (PE Trump - Sec. Clinton). But certain posters cant seem to reconcile that one can win the popular and still be disliked by a majority of people. This cycle saw a rejection of both major candidates.

Soar.

By that logic the third parties should have immediately disbanded in utter disgrace, since 94% of the electorate rejected them outright.

[Pattern Ghost]

Old Man, I like that list. I agree that Comey's October surprise shouldn't have been a factor, because her lead shouldn't have been that narrow due to other factors.

 

I'll add that the country was ripe for a charismatic populist to come in, and the Democrats failed to deliver one. They pretty much defaulted to Trump on that score.

[Enforcer84]

On the other hand, I like this Irony.

 

 

Mike Pence is Planned Parenthood's biggest donor this year. 

[Old Man]

Well, that's one reason I was pulling for Bernie.  I'm certain that Hillary would have been an excellent president.  But while Democrats voted for Hillary in the primaries, Americans in general preferred Bernie, specifically over Trump.  There would still have been the "socialist" label and whatnot, but as the general election showed, you can be squeaky clean and still get swiftboated, so perhaps it would not have been that big of a deal.

 

I forgot to add to my list:

 

7. Taken as a whole, Americans are still sexist and racist.  It would be foolish to think that this was not a factor.