Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: T.O.M. on November 09, 2016, 09:42:13 AM
-
It's not even 9:30, and I'm already hearing discussion among politicians who frequent the floors of the courthouse I work in, discussing this issue. How did Trump win? By appearances, he shot himself in the proverbial foot a time or two, between some of his antics and that tape. Yet, here we are on November 9 looking at the man preparing to have a seat in the big chair in the Oval Office. So, how did it happen? Some things I've heard so far, for your discussion and debate:
1. The negative campaigning. At least here in Ohio, there were very few ads for Clinton in which she said anything positive about herself, or what her plans were if elected. People are tired of the negative, and it left a bad taste in their mouths.
2. The FBI announcement of a renewed investigation of the email debacle. Yes, it was wiped out in a couple of days, but it was a nice reminder of the mess she was trying to keep locked away.
3. Tired of the status quo. Voters were tired of having the same political insiders in power, and she's about as good a symbol of political insider as exists. She climbed to power riding on her name and got a Senate seat. She became SecState as a political favor, more or less. She was the chosen one by the democrat big wigs, as demonstrated by the email releases showing that she was going to be the candidate, no matter what the popular vote did for Bernie. I know from talking to some Dems that this pissed them off enough to get them to vote for Johnson/Weld. That was enough to sway the tide here in Ohio.
4. Voter apathy/action. A lot of Dems in Ohio are saying that if more of their core had gotten out to vote, the state would have swung in Clinton's favor. In other words, the big city and traditional Dem areas. They didn't. A lot cite to voter apathy. At the same time, a lot of people on the other side of the fence, the "non-college educated white males" came out in force. Smaller counties in Ohio saw near-record turn out, and they weren't driving down to the fire house to cast their votes for the woman who promised to shut down the coal mines and open the borders to refugees with a basket of benefits waiting for each one.
5. Hubris. When Hillary came to Ohio, she stuck to the big metro areas...Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati. Places where Dems can still win a majority. Small town, Ohio was ignored. And, I think of this as a huge case of ego costing the Dems big time. Yes, in Ohio, the population is larger in the metro areas. But, Trump won 78 of 88 counties. She won the big cities, but not by a large enough margin to make up for the ass-kicking she took in the rest of the state, which she ignored in her campaign. The rural areas don't like politicians. They don't like insiders. They want someone who isn't a professional politician. And, in choosing to ignore rural Ohio time and again, she only reinforced that image in the minds of these voters. I spent some time driving around the state this fall, and I noticed how when you got 20 miles outside the outer belt of the big cities, the signs were significantly more Trump than Hillary. She didn't do anything to counter that, and I believe her ego (and the ego of her supporters) led her to ignore the "non-college educated white male", thinking that carrying the big cities would be enough. It wasn't.
Thoughts?
-
All of the above. Add this: The Democrat Party has swung way too far to the left and became an expert at dividing America up into factions and that has backfired.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcHeuZU0.jpg&hash=657deb12667d648ef6af37f3b12e94b6c94b67f2)
-
In a nutshell the as fractured and f'ed up the Republicans are, the Democrats are more so.
-
All of the above, but mostly 3 and 5.
I also think Pence brought votes to Trump, but Kaine did not bring any to Hillary.
-
This was a direct result of the stomping on the TEA Party. People were frustrated and many who had never done so before got involved in politics, and were immediately decried as racists, fascists, etc... AND were set upon by the Federal Government. (The IRS is STILL subjecting them to unlawful delays, in addition to the previous criminal leaks of information.)
So, the people didn't get any LESS angry from that, they just lost "acceptable" outlets for that anger. Today, the "elites" have reaped the whirlwind.
-
Today, the "elites" have reaped the whirlwind.
Not yet, I don't think.
-
Not yet, I don't think.
Good point. They ought to be happy that THIS (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/09/fox-news-general-election-exit-poll-summary.html) was the revolt and not THIS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution).
-
This was a direct result of the stomping on the TEA Party. People were frustrated and many who had never done so before got involved in politics, and were immediately decried as racists, fascists, etc...
...or the people, like me, that really just want to be left alone, being constantly dehumanized and ridiculed.
I really wanted to write-in for SMOD, but just being a white middle class male was starting to feel a bit like a German Jew in the early '30s.
Its too bad we didn't have a Cruz/Rubio/Walker to choose from.
-
I think there were, as Rush and others suggested, people who had never voted before showing up. The talking heads on the MSM networks were saying that the surge in voters was probably Hispanics voting against Trump, but I think it was those never-voted-before folks. Where there were surges in voters, I also think those included Hispanics who oppose illegal immigration.
In the end, I think that even many Democrats just couldn't stomach Hillary's crimes, and the prospect of unending investigations.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi666.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv27%2FTexasPawpaw%2FPolitics%2FAlmost%2520had%2520it_zps2jypokl5.jpg&hash=1c09a83bfb3438c7aa89cbade5887ee3ca14badd)
-
I don't think I'm the only one who watched the SNL election special on... what was, CNN? Not on Saturday night, but in prime time on another network on Monday. Trump was the butt of *every* joke, and whenever anything negative about Clinton was brought up, it was winked at. If it had been even a little bit balanced it might have been funny, but it just pissed me off and maybe others as well. Made me more determined to go cast a "No, *expletive deleted*ck YOU!" vote. I was going to vote anyway, but maybe others were on the fence but felt the same as I did.
I was an election worker. In my precinct, it was a virtual tie; I think Clinton got 311 votes and Trump got something a little less than that but over 300. And that doesn't include the 30% of the votes that were cast absentee. But I'm in a Republican stronghold in this state; last I checked, they still haven't called Minnesota yet. I'm astonished by that; I was sure it would go to Clinton.
In the end, I think that even many Democrats just couldn't stomach Hillary's crimes, and the prospect of unending investigations.
That describes my wife. When people ask her who she voted for, she just says she caucused for Bernie Sanders.
-
I think #2 had a big effect on undecided voters and some of the Anti-Trump crowd. For a week or so everyone was reminded of all the evil crap that Clinton and her associates have been doing for years.
As far as the people who have never voted, I think Trump helped himself, but continuing to fight back at the media and others and never apologizing for being himself. Yeah, he stepped in it and put his foot in his mouth, but he just kept going. Other Republicans would have apologized and bowed and scraped to the media for forgiveness. Trump was seen as a fighter who wouldn't give up when the media attacked him.
On top of that, people see Trump as an outsider who is not tied in with the Republican elite. The Establishment Republicans backed that view up by doing their best to sabotage him.
I wonder if this will teach a less to some future politicians that misspeaking on TV is not the end of the world. How they respond is what people are looking to see. No one wants to their guy backing down and giving up the fight because someone was offended. They are tired of that.
-
Its too bad we didn't have a Cruz/Rubio/Walker to choose from.
The Democratic machine would have crushed any of them.
-
But I'm in a Republican stronghold in this state; last I checked, they still haven't called Minnesota yet. I'm astonished by that; I was sure it would go to Clinton.
Apparently it did at some point. Figures. Even Mondale took Minnesota.
-
Apparently it did at some point. Figures. Even Mondale took Minnesota.
Interesting. I just looked at the map; I thought Olmsted County would be one of the few red counties. In fact, it is one of the very few blue ones.
-
I think there were, as Rush and others suggested, people who had never voted before showing up. The talking heads on the MSM networks were saying that the surge in voters was probably Hispanics voting against Trump, but I think it was those never-voted-before folks. Where there were surges in voters, I also think those included Hispanics who oppose illegal immigration.
In the end, I think that even many Democrats just couldn't stomach Hillary's crimes, and the prospect of unending investigations.
I think you are right on that. One of my friends from high school posted that her dad, who had never voted before, had registered and voted for Trump.
-
All centers of power (government, finance, media) have COMPLETELY *expletive deleted*ed the American people.
The American people threw a human molotov cocktail back at them.
Peaceful revolution FTW.
-
Maybe in the next election cycle we can get more "everyday" Americans to step forward and run.
Maybe they can see that speaking your mind is actually a good thing and telling people to go f themselves can be the right answer sometimes.
No matter what, the next 4 years are going to be interesting.
-
I don't know who it was last night, but they pointed out that Trump's message resonated HEAVILY with lower middle class and blue collar Americans in a way that a political message hasn't since the Reagan years, and those people turned out in droves and SWAMPED Clinton and general pundit predictions while Clinton failed to tap into the base that Obama was able to rally.
IOW, she failed to get out large elements of the core Democratic base, while Trump energized his.
Last night is a pretty clear indication of just how screwed up the polling process has become, and how worthless it is.
I just about fell off my chair this morning when I saw that Pennsylvania went Trump. The ONLY way that can happen is if Hillary fails to get out the vote in Philly and Pittsburgh, and Trump rallies the base in the T-zone.
-
Why did Trump win?
He is the candidate of the all but in name only, "Tea Party". While flawed and imperfect his message resonated with those (former) Tea Partiers. He also presented concrete solutions to problems and issues facing the country. Immigration, Tax cuts, Reducing the grip of DC on the rest of the country, etc.
Plus as a successful businessman, they look to someone with experience leading and running business to do that in government.
-
Because of America's racist underbelly.
Oh, wait . . .
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/sorry-uncovering-americas-racist-underbelly-wasnt-why-trump-won-commentary.html
The largest single economic group in our country has been sold out and ignored by the leaders of both parties for more than a generation. They are the hourly wage-earning Americans who have been bounced around from good manufacturing jobs, to service jobs, to seasonal work without the rest of us noticing that much. And that's even though there are a lot more of them than the college-educated white collar office workers out there. You know the financial uncertainty you felt last night when you saw the Dow futures crash down by 750 points? That's the kind of emotion millions of your fellow Americans have been feeling every night for years even though they're not "poor" or even necessarily unemployed.
-
he won because the clinton campaign made average Americans, black, white, hispanic, so angry, that they finally went to the polls. Trump was able to unite the GOP base, as McCain and Romney could not do.l
The polls were wrong all along, because of the bias of those doing the polling.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xubN6ctNNv8
-
To analyse this in terms of Republican and democrat is a mistake.
Trump won because he spoke plain, common sense policies straight to voters. By doing so he united a base that crossed party and other social lines.
It is a triumph of common sense over the tortured rhetoric of billionaires trying to preserve the system that enriches them. No other candidate in my lifetime has been so frank about what the problems with government are, and what basic solutions he might offer.
The press and the "experts" did their best at telling America who to vote for, but failed. They were up against someone with more media savvy than them.
-
Because of America's racist underbelly.
Oh, wait . . .
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/sorry-uncovering-americas-racist-underbelly-wasnt-why-trump-won-commentary.html
IMO, Hourly workers have been forgotten by the unions also except as political tools. Our entire corporate tax and regulatory structure increases the cost of labor and employees to the point that businesses minimize staffing for costs and liability well beyond their actual pay.
-
Here's an opinion
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/gary-johnson-jill-stein-voters-clinton
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Here's an opinion
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/gary-johnson-jill-stein-voters-clinton
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Hahahahahaha ha
Anything to explain your bet
-
IMO, Hourly workers have been forgotten by the unions also except as political tools. Our entire corporate tax and regulatory structure increases the cost of labor and employees to the point that businesses minimize staffing for costs and liability well beyond their actual pay.
I only realized today that the "uneducated whites" they've been so derisive of are usually referred to as blue-collar workers, or the working class. Funny, that.
-
Oddly enough, I think Michael moore had the most accurate thoughts on the subject
-
Some views from this side of the pond:
i) he won because HRC fought him in almost exactly the same way (albeit with more and better mud thrown) as the Republican establishment did;
ii) because the political class that she (and her ilk like Blair and the elder Miliband, and Cameron over here) represents are just not electable now (and won't be for at least a generation);
iii) following on from i and ii - because the political class aren't actually any good at politics, or anything else for that matter;
iv) because his position (that the country was broken) was more believable than hers was - just the fact that he was a candidate proved that.
Also I think the overwhelming media support she had, and all the celebrity endorsements, actually covered up what would have been a far bigger defeat for her.
-
I will leave this here (nsfw language)
How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind | Cracked.com
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
-
To analyse this in terms of Republican and democrat is a mistake.
Trump won because he spoke plain, common sense policies straight to voters. By doing so he united a base that crossed party and other social lines.
It is a triumph of common sense over the tortured rhetoric of billionaires trying to preserve the system that enriches them. No other candidate in my lifetime has been so frank about what the problems with government are, and what basic solutions he might offer.
The press and the "experts" did their best at telling America who to vote for, but failed. They were up against someone with more media savvy than them.
Deselby hit the nail on the head. Toss in resentment at a ruling class that is trying to replace the population and made their hatred of regular folk plain.
-
A liberal perspective from a liberal with more than half a brain.
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.tbl24miv9
I don't agree that Bernie would have won, but he's spot on about how Hilary lost to Trump.
-
A liberal perspective from a liberal with more than half a brain.
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.tbl24miv9
I don't agree that Bernie would have won, but he's spot on about how Hilary lost to Trump.
I've been monitoring but seldom posting to the 2016 election thread on another forum; it's pretty much just a liberal echo chamber, with the members congratulating themselves for being so progressive and smart about politics, gender politics whatever that is, etc. Talking about how stupid and racist Trump is. And how white people suck (I assume most of them are white.) All that stuff. [barf] It's kind of funny (but sad) seeing them realize how he outsmarted them all. So now they want to do away with the electoral college, because it's racist. They still don't get it that they were living in an echo chamber and not reality, and the mass media duped them.
-
I've been monitoring but seldom posting to the 2016 election thread on another forum; it's pretty much just a liberal echo chamber, with the members congratulating themselves for being so progressive and smart about politics, gender politics whatever that is, etc. Talking about how stupid and racist Trump is. And how white people suck (I assume most of them are white.) All that stuff. [barf] It's kind of funny (but sad) seeing them realize how he outsmarted them all. So now they want to do away with the electoral college, because it's racist. They still don't get it that they were living in an echo chamber and not reality, and the mass media duped them.
Well, if they did that, they'd have to admit they are not nearly as worldly and educated as they think they are.
-
You guys do understand that Trump is basically a moderate democrat.
-
You guys do understand that Trump is basically a moderate democrat.
I know that and you know that. The democrats? Apparently not. Go figure.
-
You guys do understand that Trump is basically a moderate democrat.
He's an old-school 1950's or 1960's Democrat; there's not many of those left. (I think Biden might be also, but Trump is smarter than Biden) And I think he loves America, and realizes America has been good to him. I'm okay with that.
-
He's an old-school 1950's or 1960's Democrat; there's not many of those left. (I think Biden might be also, but Trump is smarter than Biden) And I think he loves America, and realizes America has been good to him. I'm okay with that.
The elder of my two bosses, who is the widow of a Maryland Democrat congressman, is of the opinion that the democrats who voted for Trump were Carter and Clinton era types. But overall, her opinion runs in line with what you are saying. The Democratic party is not what it once was and the old school wouldn't vote for Hilary. I think they see that Trump is really one of their Democrats.
-
You guys do understand that Trump is basically a moderate democrat.
Pretty much. But he doesnt hate americans. That was the best on offer this go around.
I will be sure to vote for my favorite republican next time he runs--calvin coolidge.
-
You guys do understand that Trump is basically a moderate democrat.
I'd rather have Trump than some of the "conservative" republicans.
Maybe a businessman will be able to get this country out of the financial mess it's in - or at least get it started on the way up.
-
You guys do understand that Trump is basically a moderate democrat.
I think you could insert the name of a number of establishment Republicans and that statement might still be pretty much true.
-
Trump won because there were finally enough voters willing to bite the hands that slapped them - first in the GOP primary, later in the general election against the Democrat* and her media allies.
You guys do understand that Trump is basically a moderate democrat.
That puts him to the right of many GOP "conservatives."
* - it helped that the Democrat was a career politician who was incredibly corrupt, utterly amoral and pathologically dishonest.
-
I like how Mitch McConnell is posturing that he's going to run the show and trump will have to take him seriously.
Someone's about to find out who really runs the party and represents its voters, me thinks
-
White, female voters favored the Donald by 53%. 'Course, that could just be exit poll subjects identifying as female, just for kicks. =)
-
White, female voters favored the Donald by 53%. 'Course, that could just be exit poll subjects identifying as female, just for kicks. =)
That's because they are racist aholes, just like the rest of us. God bless America! :rofl:
-
From 2015:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/13/1401843/-Why-Hillary-Clinton-Will-Never-Be-President
CwV
Jul 13 · 01:24:44 PM
Srsly?
Democrats turn out in Presidential elections and this time, no matter who the Dem nominee is, Hillary or Bernie, we WILL turn out.
Bernie is motivating a bunch of young voters, a la Obama 2008 and 12, Hillary will energize women all across the spectrum, picking up independent and even some Republican women.
If I had to speculate, I'd say that Hillary will pull more voters than Bernie in a General.
But what will really make the difference in this cycle will be over on the other side.
I believe tRump is going to eviscerate the GOP.
He is in the process of derailing the Koch Brothers' best laid plans. He's got the central Party tied in knots.
And he will bail before the trail ends.
Leaving the GOP in disarray.
Either Hillary or Bernie can take advantage of it, the more chaos reigns over there, the better it is for Bernie's chances.
Recommended 11 times
From January.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNeaJgulDA
-
The press and the "experts" did their best at telling America who to vote for, but failed. They were up against someone with more media savvy than them.
"Than they," you uneducated Trump supporter. ;)
-
I woukd not have guessed he woukd pull as much of the black vote as he did. And I have never understood Asians voting democrat
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
I woukd not have guessed he woukd pull as much of the black vote as he did. And I have never understood Asians voting democrat
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
That's because you're thinking race and gender, when this election was all about pay
-
I woukd not have guessed he woukd pull as much of the black vote as he did. And I have never understood Asians voting democrat
My wife saw a billboard reading "Missouri Chinese-Americans for Trump."
-
"Than they," you uneducated Trump supporter. ;)
Thou needs learnest thy communication
-
I woukd not have guessed he woukd pull as much of the black vote as he did. And I have never understood Asians voting democrat
Not all Asians - one of my best friends is a natural born American of Cantonese ancestry, and he's every bit as conservative as I am.
What I really find puzzling is the number of Jews who support civilian disarmament, JPFO notwithstanding.
-
How did Trump win?
I was going to come in here and be smartass - say that he won by getting the most votes (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-electoral-college-donald-trump)...
=|
-
I was going to come in here and be smartass - say that he won by getting the most votes (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-electoral-college-donald-trump)...
=|
Yeah, but 200,000 is easily dead people in Chicago and illegal aliens in CA. :)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fherohog.com%2Fimages%2Fpolitics%2FElectorialCollege.jpg&hash=b3d28f5c7e69e5778d14cdccc4fb6d28882a014c)
https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU
This will educate you as to why we have the voting system we have. It is a brilliant system and makes perfect sense, it's just not taught in schools or commonly understood by the ignorant masses who believe we live in a Democracy when we, in fact, live in a Representative Republic!
-
It is a brilliant system and makes perfect sense, it's just not taught in schools or commonly understood by the ignorant masses who believe we live in a Democracy when we, in fact, live in a Representative Republic!
The Representative Republic part - sure that's a good system. But the Electoral college? I'm not convinced.
-
Not all Asians - one of my best friends is a natural born American of Cantonese ancestry, and he's every bit as conservative as I am.
One of the most anti-Trump guys on APS is Asian-American. =)
-
Did you watch and understand the video?
-
Did you watch and understand the video?
Yes. We could elect the president via popular vote and still have 3 branches of government, elected representatives, and remain a Representative Republic.
-
The 2016 election is the best explanation for why we don't elect presidents through a simple, democratic vote.
-
The 2016 election is the best explanation for why we don't elect presidents through a simple, democratic vote.
I get that people are happy how it worked out this time, doesn't mean it's a good system. Likewise, no one seems to care about voter fraud or rigged elections anymore now that it worked out OK.
-
Yes. We could elect the president via popular vote and still have 3 branches of government, elected representatives, and remain a Representative Republic.
Because then the candidates would cater to the big population centers to get the most votes and ignore the rest of the country. Do you really want San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Miami to have more power than all of the midwestern states?
-
Because then the candidates would cater to the big population centers to get the most votes and ignore the rest of the country. Do you really want San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Miami to have more power than all of the midwestern states?
But with the Electoral college they just overpower the rest of the state they are in. It's the same problem it just happens in every state individually instead of nationally. I don't see how that's any better.
-
I get that people are happy how it worked out this time, doesn't mean it's a good system.
It's slapped down, what, 5 Democratic candidates thus far? Why mess with something that works so well?
Likewise, no one seems to care about voter fraud or rigged elections anymore now that it worked out OK.
Even Democrats know Republicans can't get away with that.
-
So, why did Trump win the election?
Because the wily old wizard was able to enchant more Americans than the Lizard Queen was able to deceive.
-
I haven't watched that video but one of the best things about the electoral college is it decentralizes the election process to each of the 50 states and even lower to the congressional district level (for electoral count). California could have 30 million illegals voting and they only affect the winner of the electors for California. Any cheating has to be nationwide involving a lot more people, not just one or two states. In addition, you know damn well that if we just added up vote totals nationally, someone would want to increase efficiency and have every vote totaled to a national election computer that would conveniently crash on election night and come back up with more votes for whoever controlled the computer. It may not be the original purpose of the electoral college, but it does provide benefits.
-
Any cheating has to be nationwide involving a lot more people, not just one or two states... It may not be the original purpose of the electoral college, but it does provide benefits.
This was the only argument I found compelling at all. Cheating in an already blue state doesn't really matter. However in accepting this argument you have to admit that voting at all in an already blue state doesn't really matter. That bothers me - not to mention cheating needs to be dealt with regardless of impact.
-
Two wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner.
Think about it, Dittohead.
-
Two wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner.
It's not the electoral college that protects us from that. It's decentralized power, different branches of government with different powers, states rights, elected representatives, the constitution, etc. We can have still have all of that if we directly elected the president. Getting a bare majority of the popular vote is no more prone to tyranny than getting a bare majority of the electoral votes. It's still ONE person being elected by getting the most votes - the only difference is that the electoral college adds a layer of abstraction which results in some peoples votes counting more than others. Even just switching to proportional allocation of electors instead of winner take all would be an improvement.
-
It's not the electoral college that protects us from that. It's decentralized power, different branches of government with different powers, states rights, elected representatives, the constitution, etc. We can have still have all of that if we directly elected the president. Getting a bare majority of the popular vote is no more prone to tyranny than getting a bare majority of the electoral votes. It's still ONE person being elected by getting the most votes - the only difference is that the electoral college adds a layer of abstraction which results in some peoples votes counting more than others. Even just switching to proportional allocation of electors instead of winner take all would be an improvement.
Wolves = Urban population centers
Sheep = Rural/agricultural areas with smaller populations.
The wolves and the sheep have very different ways of life. Different standards of living, different needs and different values. The urban population centers, even the ones on different coasts are going to have more in common with each other than they will with the rural/agricultural areas and the same with the rural/agricultural areas.
In a popular vote, the urban areas will end up with more representation. That representation will priorities their needs. The urban areas are going to be more likely to vote for the same things and things that the rural/agricultural areas don't want, need or even things they won't tolerate.
And just so you can understand how far back this goes, 10 years before the Civil War, if you asked the average American in what direction the country would split should there be some kind of conflict, the answer would have been East (settled/urban) and West (frontier/rural) not north and south.
-
In a popular vote, the urban areas will end up with more representation.
What you're talking about works great for congress where we elect a bunch of representatives and they fight over legislation. It gives us representatives of rural areas and urban areas. In the senate it gives smaller states equal footing with larger states. I get that.
For president we're voting on one person. If we used the popular vote, 1 person = 1 vote regardless of where they live, that would make it even. The electoral college makes it uneven by allocating electors to states and then giving ALL of those electors to whoever get's 50.1% in that state. How can you argue that system creates a more even representation than a simple 1:1 voting system ???
I've read plenty of arguments for the electoral college, but I just don't see it as necessary or even good. I don't think it has the positive effects that proponents claim. I mean, thank goodness for the electoral college - it really made Obama moderate his views to appeal to a broad coalition. And he HAD to reach out to me as a religion & gun clinger in fly-over country to earn every vote ;/ It worked to our advantage this time but it can work against us in the future.
-
The electoral college is good because in case of a tie, it limits the scope of the recounts. Imagine Florida 2000 on a national scale. [tinfoil] 16 years later and they would still be counting chads because you would have to recount every ballot in the USA, and then the recounts would be challenged, and every time you recount you'll come up with a different number because of unavoidable errors.
-
I've read plenty of arguments for the electoral college, but I just don't see it as necessary or even good. I don't think it has the positive effects that proponents claim.
What part of Hillary Clinton getting shut out, shut down, and shut up isn't a positive effect? ??? :O
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/What_the....gif)
But, but, but, it worked out this one time! What about the other times?! As I said; every time it's contradicted the popular vote, it has kept Democrats out of office. It kept Al Gore, et al, out of office. Those are all the positive effects you could possibly need.
-
The EC is about defeating factionalism as much as it is about giving low population states a reason to actually vote.
The Founders were extremely worried about factionalism. The fact that the Democrat party has, as a matter of policy, created many factions (race, income, gender, national origin, sexual proclivities etc) and then swept them under their wing verifies the fear of the Founders. The tyranny of the majority can be made up of unifying various factions of so called "minorities". As a result we need the EC more now than in any time in the past. This election points that out very well. If the Democrat party had merely remained the party of the working middle class instead of the conglomeration of the factions they saw they needed to do to remain in power, they probably would never be able to elect another D president, ever. Now, without the EC there would never be another R president. The two most dangerous people to run for office, Gore and HRC were kept from power because of the genius of the Founders and the EC. Obama was an aberration, but got elected because of the factions of the D party and the "white guilt" of quite a few Rs.
-
The EC is about defeating factionalism as much as it is about giving low population states a reason to actually vote.
The Founders were extremely worried about factionalism. The fact that the Democrat party has, as a matter of policy, created many factions (race, income, gender, national origin, sexual proclivities etc) and then swept them under their wing verifies the fear of the Founders. The tyranny of the majority can be made up of unifying various factions of so called "minorities". As a result we need the EC more now than in any time in the past. This election points that out very well. If the Democrat party had merely remained the party of the working middle class instead of the conglomeration of the factions they saw they needed to do to remain in power, they probably would never be able to elect another D president, ever. Now, without the EC there would never be another R president. The two most dangerous people to run for office, Gore and HRC were kept from power because of the genius of the Founders and the EC. Obama was an aberration, but got elected because of the factions of the D party and the "white guilt" of quite a few Rs.
I question your analysis. See Federalist No. 10.
-
every time it's contradicted the popular vote, it has kept Democrats out of office. It kept Al Gore, et al, out of office. Those are all the positive effects you could possibly need.
While I'm sure that "LOL it's bad for the libs!!1!" is enough reason for some people, I'm more interested in the non partisan principles (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy) that justify it.
Now, without the EC there would never be another R president.
Trump lost the popular vote by less than 1%. That doesn't seem insurmountable at all. Having a president that received fewer votes than their opponent reduces their legitimacy. I can't believe everyone seems to think that conservative ideas can't win the majority of the nations support.
Out of curiosity - are there ANY other elected positions that work like president with the electoral college? We directly elect senators and congressmen and judges and mayors via popular vote right? Why not have electors for those positions too? Slice and dice and allocate electors to counties and townships - people can't be trusted to vote directly because they'll vote for the wrong thing!
-
Not all Asians - one of my best friends is a natural born American of Cantonese ancestry, and he's every bit as conservative as I am.
What I really find puzzling is the number of Jews who support civilian disarmament, JPFO notwithstanding.
That's what confuses me. Most of my Asians friends and family are conservative. And yet some are dems.
And the only connection I see for Jewish folks being dems is that folks in academia and those who associate tend to be dems
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
While I'm sure that "LOL it's bad for the libs!!1!" is enough reason for some people...
There is absolutely nothing funny about keeping America's oldest, largest, most effective hate group away from the presidency. We're talking about the party of Southern segregation, and of the Klan, and that proudly wears the blood of tens of million of innocent children on its hands. The party that never stops dividing Americans by race, religion, and gender, and that works tirelessly to keep less affluent Americans dependent on government, partly by convincing them that half the country hates them. This Democratic party continually invents new ways to stifle the attempts of working and middle-class Americans to better themselves and their communities. That the electoral college has occasionally denied them the executive branch is perhaps not the founders' intent, but it is a rather obvious benefit.
Out of curiosity - are there ANY other elected positions that work like president with the electoral college? We directly elect senators and congressmen and judges and mayors via popular vote right? Why not have electors for those positions too? Slice and dice and allocate electors to counties and townships - people can't be trusted to vote directly because they'll vote for the wrong thing!
Are you unaware that the Constitutional originally called for senators to be elected by the state governments, rather than by the people, themselves; and that the founders had a reason for this, as well? Are you also unaware that the presidency/vice-presidency are the only positions for which all American voters may cast a ballot? These may help you consider the matter.
-
Out of curiosity - are there ANY other elected positions that work like president with the electoral college? We directly elect senators and congressmen and judges and mayors via popular vote right? Why not have electors for those positions too? Slice and dice and allocate electors to counties and townships - people can't be trusted to vote directly because they'll vote for the wrong thing!
We elect senators by direct popular vote now, but that's not the way the Founders set it up. Originally, the House was elected directly by the people but the Senate was elected by the legislatures of the respective states. In effect, the House was supposed to represent the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the states.
{Edit} DRAT! Fistful beat me to it!
-
Are you unaware that the Constitutional originally called for senators to be elected by the state governments, rather than by the people, themselves; and that the founders had a reason for this, as well? Are you also unaware that the presidency/vice-presidency are the only positions for which all American voters may cast a ballot? These may help you consider the matter.
I was aware of both of those but can't say either have lead me to support the electoral college. With governors being the state level equivalent of the president - wouldn't it make sense to have gubernatorial elections decided via county level electors instead of the statewide popular vote? Why not do the same for senators or even with mayor and city districts?
-
Interesting read. Mike Rowe weighs in
http://tribunist.com/news/mike-rowe-finally-weighs-in-on-trumps-victory-hillarys-supporters-wont-like-this/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I was aware of both of those but can't say either have lead me to support the electoral college. With governors being the state level equivalent of the president - wouldn't it make sense to have gubernatorial elections decided via county level electors instead of the statewide popular vote? Why not do the same for senators or even with mayor and city districts?
Each state and municipality is free to decide how their elected leadership is chosen. There is nothing in the US Constitution that dictates such.
However, the US Constitution DOES spell out that the STATES elect the President. Again, each state is free to choose how their state decides it own process.
If we were to make the grievous mistake of doing away with the Electoral College and going with a straight popular vote for president then the East and West coast will forever more decide who is elected president with us poor ignorant rural hicks out here in flyover country having no say in the matter.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.electoral-vote.com%2Fevp2012%2FImages%2Felection-by-county-2012.png&hash=bb23f493431a3d761be68b4e70cb3ab6da1eb57e)
us poor ignorant rural hicks out here in flyover country having no say in the matter.
Same problem exists at the state level, the electoral college doesn't do anything for the republicans in CA! If it was popular vote at least a CA republican could make a difference.
Right now it's relatively close in popular vote. Like I said, Trump was within 1% on the popular vote so I don't understand why everyone thinks that would mean permanent democrat control. But at some point, if urban areas keep growing doesn't it become a problem to declare a winner that received significantly fewer votes then their opponent? Heck, lets throw in some superdelegates while we're at it. Make sure people get what's best for them instead of what they vote for.
-
What part of the US Constitution dictates how a state conducts it's own internal political process? (Outside of Equal Opportunity Types stuff)
Commifornia is free to conduct elections, within certain strictures, any way the electorate sees fit to tolerate.
-
What part of the US Constitution dictates how a state conducts it's own internal political process? (Outside of Equal Opportunity Types stuff)
Commifornia is free to conduct elections, within certain strictures, any way the electorate sees fit to tolerate.
The states can change how they do things and I'm saying it should be changed. I don't think it will be, the powers that be have little interest in doing so, but there are other options (http://prospect.org/article/would-national-popular-vote-advantage-red-state-republicans) and in my opinion they're better.
-
Out of curiosity - are there ANY other elected positions that work like president with the electoral college? We directly elect senators and congressmen and judges and mayors via popular vote right? Why not have electors for those positions too? Slice and dice and allocate electors to counties and townships - people can't be trusted to vote directly because they'll vote for the wrong thing!
Up until Illinois (Go us !!!!) caused the creation of the 17th Amendment, Senators were chosen by their state's legislatures. Making them a sort of Electoral College.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhUXSX3ZnpE
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0
Trump won 53% of white chicks voting, and got 7% more of the black vote than Romney did in 2012. Compared to Romney, he got 8 times more black support,* 8% more Latinos (white Hispanics strike again!), 11% more Asian support, and 5% more of those under 30. He got 16% higher support from those making less than $30k/year, and 6% more from those making between $30k and $50k. Romney did 4% better with Republicans, but Trump got 5% more Democrat votes. Compared to Romney, he did better across all categories of religion or non-religion, except for the Jewish vote.
*Running against Obama, Romney got but 1% of black votes.
-
I was aware of both of those but can't say either have lead me to support the electoral college. With governors being the state level equivalent of the president - wouldn't it make sense to have gubernatorial elections decided via county level electors instead of the statewide popular vote? Why not do the same for senators or even with mayor and city districts?
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU
-
Interesting read. Mike Rowe weighs in
http://tribunist.com/news/mike-rowe-finally-weighs-in-on-trumps-victory-hillarys-supporters-wont-like-this/
Decent analysis, IMHO.
I think a majority of people who voted in this election did so in spite of their many misgivings about the character of both candidates. That’s why it’s very dangerous to argue that Clinton supporters condone lying under oath and obstructing justice. Just as it’s equally dangerous to suggest a Trump supporter condones gross generalizations about foreigners and women.
I disagree. Clinton supporters DID condone her lying under oath and obstructing justice, by the simple act of voting for her. Lying under oath and obstructing justice are illegal. Hillary's lying under oath and obstruction of justice pertained to direct threats to national security. Trump supporters DID condone his verbal gaffes. Verbalizing generalities about "other kinds" of people isn't illegal, and doesn't pose a direct threat to national security.
These two candidates were the choices we gave ourselves, and each came with a heaping helping of vulgarity and impropriety. Yeah, it was dirty job for sure, but the winner was NOT decided by a racist and craven nation – it was decided by millions of disgusted Americans desperate for real change. The people did not want a politician. The people wanted to be seen. Donald Trump convinced those people that he could see them. Hillary Clinton did not.
That's it, in a nutshell.
-
If you want the electoral college to be more representative then you should support a movement that splits the electors votes in your state based on geography and/or population density.
Of course that is not what the Dems want. That would have pealed off some votes in Illinois for example as Chicago pretty much guarantees all IL elector votes go to the Dem candidate. If it was more representative the rest of the state would end up with some elector votes.
If we stop importing millions of third world Democrat voters we may actually get to the point where a popular vote would always go our way.
-
If you want the electoral college to be more representative then you should support a movement that splits the electors votes in your state based on geography and/or population density.
Of course that is not what the Dems want. That would have pealed off some votes in Illinois for example as Chicago pretty much guarantees all IL elector votes go to the Dem candidate. If it was more representative the rest of the state would end up with some elector votes.
If we stop importing millions of third world Democrat voters we may actually get to the point where a popular vote would always go our way.
Right on.
-
See: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=53170.0
^ That's the "Hail Mary" thread.
We ought to start our own counter-petition based on this:
The EC is about defeating factionalism as much as it is about giving low population states a reason to actually vote.
The Founders were extremely worried about factionalism. The fact that the Democrat party has, as a matter of policy, created many factions (race, income, gender, national origin, sexual proclivities etc) and then swept them under their wing verifies the fear of the Founders. The tyranny of the majority can be made up of unifying various factions of so called "minorities". As a result we need the EC more now than in any time in the past. This election points that out very well. If the Democrat party had merely remained the party of the working middle class instead of the conglomeration of the factions they saw they needed to do to remain in power, they probably would never be able to elect another D president, ever. Now, without the EC there would never be another R president. The two most dangerous people to run for office, Gore and HRC were kept from power because of the genius of the Founders and the EC. Obama was an aberration, but got elected because of the factions of the D party and the "white guilt" of quite a few Rs.
...and some of the other comments on that thread.
Terry
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.electoral-vote.com%2Fevp2012%2FImages%2Felection-by-county-2012.png&hash=bb23f493431a3d761be68b4e70cb3ab6da1eb57e)
Same problem exists at the state level, the electoral college doesn't do anything for the republicans in CA! If it was popular vote at least a CA republican could make a difference.
Right now it's relatively close in popular vote. Like I said, Trump was within 1% on the popular vote so I don't understand why everyone thinks that would mean permanent democrat control. But at some point, if urban areas keep growing doesn't it become a problem to declare a winner that received significantly fewer votes then their opponent? Heck, lets throw in some superdelegates while we're at it. Make sure people get what's best for them instead of what they vote for.
The thing on the popular vote...if you remove LA, The Bay Area and NYC (which all were skewed extremely heavily toward HRC) , the popular vote went overwhelmingly for Trump, like a ~4 million vote margin.
-
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU
Already watched it after someone posted it on the last page.
Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082) is even with me on this!
-
If you want the electoral college to be more representative then you should support a movement that splits the electors votes in your state based on geography and/or population density.
I think that would be a step in the right direction for sure.
-
I think that would be a step in the right direction for sure.
Causing even more Gerrymandered congressional districts, to make "more" safe and non-competitive districts. The Electoral College is a nice balance of the people being heard, and the individual states being heard. We need more Federalism. Not less.
-
Causing even more Gerrymandered congressional districts, to make "more" safe and non-competitive districts.
Remove geography altogether; pick a series in the SS# and assign electors to ranges of numbers. Do the same for Senators. That ought to make campaigns entertaining.
-
My memory is fuzzy and I don't have time to look it up. But the House of Representatives was not always fixed at the current number either. I have heard occasional arguments that there should be a lot more Representatives representing fewer total people.
-
My memory is fuzzy and I don't have time to look it up. But the House of Representatives was not always fixed at the current number either. I have heard occasional arguments that there should be a lot more Representatives representing fewer total people.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
House representation shifts as the population shifts. My state lost one seat within recent memory, resulting in a mad scramble to re-gerrymander the districts. At one time, I was in one district and the house directly across the street (same town) was in another district.
-
Another compilation of pundits denying Trump had any chance, then watching him do what couldn't be done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw
I was late to the party, and I still wish there had been someone better, but man what a spectacle this has been.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.politico.com%2Fdims4%2Fdefault%2Fb24d9c5%2F2147483647%2Fresize%2F1160x%253E%2Fquality%2F90%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic.politico.com%252Fd9%252F94%252F3a777e55481bb881135c86ddc47d%252F6-mike-lester-washington-post-writers-group-and-cartoonist-group.jpg&hash=9bd301efae85f3c1bf51ed28cde00660bb6bcecc)
-
Maybe one EV for every county won.