Donald Trump

[yerrag]

Great for her. That's like winning "Time of Possession" in a Football game, but losing the game.

Here's the thing- the rules influence the contest. Trump focused on his "Rust Belt" strategy because it gave him the best chance to win, and we now know it was very effective. Had the contest been based on the Popular vote, his strategy surely would have been different, Clinton's likely as well.

It also influences voters' behavior. How many republicans in California didn't bother to vote because they pretty much knew it was going to Clinton? Throw in 2 million more votes for Trump in California, Clinton still takes the state. You could make a similar argument in a state like Texas, with the parties reversed.

The decision won't be overturned, and there is no precedent to overturn it. Three other times in US history a President won the electoral college without winning the popular. In all three of those cases, the winner took the White House. Once, in 1824, it was thrown to the house.

The Electoral College won't be eliminated anytime soon, as that would likely require an amendment. I'm also at the point where I'm not sure it should be. The Electoral College and the Senate give a voice to smaller states. Should all policy in this country come from large cities? And depending on what kind of system you replaced it with, Hillary still might not be the winner. If you replaced this system with one that required a candidate win a majority of the popular vote, for example, there would have been no winner, and it would go to a runoff or whatever other mechanism was set up.

That explains a lot of the electoral college system. And it is a good retort to the sour grape argument of Clinton having more of the popular vote. Besides, those were the rules from the start. Nobody changed these rules halfway through the election.

Just curious, are the electoral votes for each state a static number? Let's say California due to drought earthquake resulted in migration away to neighboring states, thereby reducing its population by 50%. Would California have roughly 50% less electoral votes?

 

[tankasnowgod]

That explains a lot of the electoral college system. And it is a good retort to the sour grape argument of Clinton having more of the popular vote. Besides, those were the rules from the start. Nobody changed these rules halfway through the election.

Just curious, are the electoral votes for each state a static number? Let's say California due to drought earthquake resulted in migration away to neighboring states, thereby reducing its population by 50%. Would California have roughly 50% less electoral votes?

It's not static, it changes with the census taken every ten years. So, if this happened next year (for the sake of example), it would be the same number in 2020 (the year the next census is taken), but would be dramatically lower in 2024. It's based on congressional representation so about half, but maybe closer to 45% less or so, as every state gets two senators, regardless of population.

It should also be noted that states are free to allocate their votes as they see fit. Most choose "Winner take all," but 2 states split up some of their electors. So, if California was interested in getting more attention from Republican Presidential Candidates, they could change, at the state level, how those electors are allocated (like say by county, district, or even on a percentage basis of the popular vote within the state).

 

[DaveFoster]

Here's the thing- the rules influence the contest. Trump focused on his "Rust Belt" strategy because it gave him the best chance to win, and we now know it was very effective. Had the contest been based on the Popular vote, his strategy surely would have been different, Clinton's likely as well.

It also influences voters' behavior. How many republicans in California didn't bother to vote because they pretty much knew it was going to Clinton? Throw in 2 million more votes for Trump in California, Clinton still takes the state. You could make a similar argument in a state like Texas, with the parties reversed.

How dare you use logic in this thread.

 

[yerrag]

It's not static, it changes with the census taken every ten years. So, if this happened next year (for the sake of example), it would be the same number in 2020 (the year the next census is taken), but would be dramatically lower in 2024. It's based on congressional representation so about half, but maybe closer to 45% less or so, as every state gets two senators, regardless of population.

It should also be noted that states are free to allocate their votes as they see fit. Most choose "Winner take all," but 2 states split up some of their electors. So, if California was interested in getting more attention from Republican Presidential Candidates, they could change, at the state level, how those electors are allocated (like say by county, district, or even on a percentage basis of the popular vote within the state).

Thanks. I'm glad most states choose the simple method of "Winner Takes All."

 

[Rand56]

New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly

This will probably last as long as when dems said ..."when they go low, we'll go high".

 

[redlight]

Great for her. That's like winning "Time of Possession" in a Football game, but losing the game.

Here's the thing- the rules influence the contest. Trump focused on his "Rust Belt" strategy because it gave him the best chance to win, and we now know it was very effective. Had the contest been based on the Popular vote, his strategy surely would have been different, Clinton's likely as well.

It also influences voters' behavior. How many republicans in California didn't bother to vote because they pretty much knew it was going to Clinton? Throw in 2 million more votes for Trump in California, Clinton still takes the state. You could make a similar argument in a state like Texas, with the parties reversed.

The decision won't be overturned, and there is no precedent to overturn it. Three other times in US history a President won the electoral college without winning the popular. In all three of those cases, the winner took the White House. Once, in 1824, it was thrown to the house.

The Electoral College won't be eliminated anytime soon, as that would likely require an amendment. I'm also at the point where I'm not sure it should be. The Electoral College and the Senate give a voice to smaller states. Should all policy in this country come from large cities? And depending on what kind of system you replaced it with, Hillary still might not be the winner. If you replaced this system with one that required a candidate win a majority of the popular vote, for example, there would have been no winner, and it would go to a runoff or whatever other mechanism was set up.

That is an amazing answer.. I may have to share this on my facebook

 

[tankasnowgod]

Statistically speaking, what are the chances that he's going to be there for 8 years?

If you look at history, it's pretty hard to unseat an incumbent if they run. Recently, Bill Clinton beat Bush Sr. as an incumbent, but that was after 12 years of a Republican in the White House, Bush wasn't as charismatic as Reagan, and Clinton got an assist from Ross Perot. Reagan beat Carter in 1980, but the economy really sucked, and he was Ronald Reagan. So very good chance Trump wins a second term if he runs, I'd say 85%, although clearly it depends on how the next four years go.

As for whether Trump makes it a full 8 years, there are other considerations other than just winning a re-election in four years. Trump will be the older than any other president when they first took the oath, so age and health might be a consideration. The threat of impeachment forced Nixon to resign, so it's certainly possible that some scandal plays a role. Although Bill Clinton survived eight years with numerous scandals AND impeachment. Look at Lincoln, Kennedy, and Reagan, and you realize that threats against the president are very real. Plus, Trump isn't really a politician, and he's not like any other president. He may very well have no interest in running again in four years. Even considering all that, I'd say about a 65% chance he makes it 8 years.

 

[ejalrp]

Shows how little you know of me. I'm neither a sexist or a racist. This would probably surprise you, being that you dems hold dear to your talking points, that I bet the VAST majority of people voting for Trump had nothing to do with sexism against Hillary, and Obama's dislike has nothing to do with racism. But I do understand that's what you all like to "gin up", by creating a greater divide.

Absolutely. See

 

[sladerunner69]

As I write this my life savings are going down the the tube because of a racist, narcissistic, homophobic blah blah wealthy white man. They wAnt a society of slaves to serve them. "Retirement" is a luxury for past generations.
Hilary won the popular vote. Get rid of the electoral collage. Overturn this decision.
Work on fixing the educational and social welfare systems.

Killary cheated. And she still lost.

And she didn't get the popular vote, either. All of that voter fraud, inciting violence, assassination, and you name it and still couldn't get her that elusive W.

 

[sladerunner69]

Great for her. That's like winning "Time of Possession" in a Football game, but losing the game.

Here's the thing- the rules influence the contest. Trump focused on his "Rust Belt" strategy because it gave him the best chance to win, and we now know it was very effective. Had the contest been based on the Popular vote, his strategy surely would have been different, Clinton's likely as well.

It also influences voters' behavior. How many republicans in California didn't bother to vote because they pretty much knew it was going to Clinton? Throw in 2 million more votes for Trump in California, Clinton still takes the state. You could make a similar argument in a state like Texas, with the parties reversed.

The decision won't be overturned, and there is no precedent to overturn it. Three other times in US history a President won the electoral college without winning the popular. In all three of those cases, the winner took the White House. Once, in 1824, it was thrown to the house.

The Electoral College won't be eliminated anytime soon, as that would likely require an amendment. I'm also at the point where I'm not sure it should be. The Electoral College and the Senate give a voice to smaller states. Should all policy in this country come from large cities? And depending on what kind of system you replaced it with, Hillary still might not be the winner. If you replaced this system with one that required a candidate win a majority of the popular vote, for example, there would have been no winner, and it would go to a runoff or whatever other mechanism was set up.

He won the popular vote as well, see my video above. Liberal lies.

 

[dbh25]

It should also be noted that states are free to allocate their votes as they see fit. Most choose "Winner take all," but 2 states split up some of their electors. So, if California was interested in getting more attention from Republican Presidential Candidates, they could change, at the state level, how those electors are allocated (like say by county, district, or even on a percentage basis of the popular vote within the state).

Maine and Nebraska do not have many electoral votes. There would have to be a really close vote to make a difference. Nebraska was all Trump, and he picked up 1 in Maine. But I'm for states setting their own rules.

 

[dbh25]

This will probably last as long as when dems said ..."when they go low, we'll go high".

Many papers are losing money, I'm wondering how long they will survive. Or merge with others.

 

[lollipop]

Bloomberg editor compares New York Times to The Onion

The same media that said Trump absolutely could not and would not win, the same media that tried everything they could to undermine Trump, the same media who put forward falsified polls, is still the same media who is now trying to delegitimize his future presidency. Trump knows this, so he will continue to play them like a fiddle.

The media has been exposed by Donald Trump as a mouthpiece for the establishment nor have any concern for the American people. They are still doing everything they can to bring him down while also trying to turn his base against him and squash their hopes. They will not be successful, they will continue to keep failing.

This is Katrina Pierson from the Trump administration :

Interesting @charlie. I am soooo curious to watch going forward. I tend towards seeing this result as being ultimately good because a) it can amount to good changes, b) it highlighted some real problems in US media c) it also highlighted some real gaps in our politics. Soooo many US citizens have been neglected in the past.

Thank you for keeping me in the loop :)

 

[milk_lover]

Please guys, watch this video. Great speech. I got goosebumps...

 

[yerrag]

Great video milk_lover! People like us, who have lived in the US and have built friendships there, know how meaningful this victory is for the American people. They work hard and deserve a government that will work just as hard for them. Instead, they got a government that lets big corporate crooks steal them of their life savings. The crises they've been through - the S&L, the liar loans, the sub-grade AAA credit ratings of collaterized debt obligations, the failed financial instruments based on risky use of derivatives, the subjective valuation of underwater securities, the government bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks, the bonuses awarded to undeserving and criminal bank executives, the forays into wars, the usurious rates charged on consumer loans, the equally usurious student loan debts, the rigged stock market system, the poisoning of the nation's food supply, the mandatory vaccination programs, the criminalization of marijuana and the cost of the war on marijuana, the criminal justice system and the mass incarceration of America, the privatization of jails and the burden imposed on the nation's finances from increased profit from having more prisoners, a very onerous system of healthcare based on debilitating pharma drugs and the excessive use of surgeries and operations, the misrepresentation of government statistics on inflation to rob seniors of their pension adjustments, the deceit involved in lowering unemployment numbers, the Fed's abuse of power in increasing inflation by printing more money with no solid backing, the government's continuing use of debt to meet its current obligation, consigning the future to more uncertaintly and insolvency, the incitement of wars to patronize the arms industry - all these have to stop!

 

[Drareg]

Covering a few topics here but cuts through some nonsense out there from mainstream journalists if they can even be called that anymore,not just politics suffering from this type of journalism.
He as a realistic view on trump.

 

[dbh25]

 

[dbh25]

Please guys, watch this video. Great speech. I got goosebumps...

Thanks for posting, I enjoyed it.

 

[yourke]

I know one of his family members was negatively affected by vaccines. Overall low taxes, less war prone= more freedom.

 

[charlie]

The media and my fellow Americans treat me like I am a TERRORIST because I support Trump...I am scared to show my support for Trump due to the fear of being beaten bloody, or having my belongings destroyed. When did voting... make me a terrorist? I think it's time for people to wake up...