It looks like Hillary won the popular vote. Gore Mark II

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,526
Dem vote collapsed.

Rise Of Trump | Broadsheet.ie


Turns out it’s not a Trump insurgency, but a Clinton collapse. A graph that cuts straight through [yesterday’s] punditry …

Courtesy Broadsheet obviously.
Wow so not really a groundswell of support for Trump he got less votes than McCain or Romney the real problem was the Democratic candidate turned off the Democratic base.
 


Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,526
Not at all.

I look forward to der Donalds attempts to extricate himself from his promises.

And I am delighted HRC did not win because she was on the war-path at all costs.
Yeah I'm disappointed Trump won whilst at the same time delighted Hillary lost, I didn't envy any American having to pick between them.
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,077
It seems Hillary Clinton had more people vote for her than voted for Trump.

The Guardian: Hillary Clinton poised to win popular vote despite losing presidential race

If this turns out to be true, she'll be the second candidate in recent history, after Al Gore, to have got this result.

Trumpites hold yer horses -- I'm not saying by any means that Hillary virtually won in any way.

However, I do think it worth arguing about whether a package of legislation is needed to change the system by which the president is elected (along with, say, something to allow weekend voting to maximise participation, etc.).

the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November is, however, the product of simple legislation, while the electoral college system is, I assume, part of the constitution.

What do posters think?

This one's in German: Die Zeit: Clinton holt Mehrheit der Stimmen

CNN: Hillary Clinton lost the election but is winning the popular vote

Billboard - How Hillary Clinton Won the Popular Vote But Lost the Election
Well, those are the breaks.

It is a function of how equally politically divided the US is, though it only seems to occur when Republicans gets elected.

Twice in 5 elections is a bit much, though. You have to go back to the 19th century to find the previous incidents.

Time to look at the system?
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,077
Wow so not really a groundswell of support for Trump he got less votes than McCain or Romney the real problem was the Democratic candidate turned off the Democratic base.
Personally, I think she could still have won, but her message was off, particularly on the economy.

Looks like the US still prefers an unpopular man to a less unpopular woman. Misogyny? Go figure.
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,526
Personally, I think she could still have won, but her message was off, particularly on the economy.

Looks like the US still prefers an unpopular man to a less unpopular woman. Misogyny? Go figure.
Nah I don't think it was misogyny, people just don't like or trust her, with good reason not because of her gender, the fact that she couldn't inspire the Democratic base to keep out Trump just shows she was the wrong candidate.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
35,513
Wow so not really a groundswell of support for Trump he got less votes than McCain or Romney the real problem was the Democratic candidate turned off the Democratic base.
Both parties will analyse the results in great detail, I heard that Trump was down 2m on Romney so it looks like a lot of people didn't like either. What would be interesting would be to see if they all stayed away or if some voted like the Bush's and just left the presidential ballot blank.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
Nah I don't think it was misogyny, people just don't like or trust her, with good reason not because of her gender, the fact that she couldn't inspire the Democratic base to keep out Trump just shows she was the wrong candidate.
Trump is exposing the climate change lie that the Clinton thing and a whole horde of other liars and deluded are peddling.

Probably why he won.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
Nah I don't think it was misogyny, people just don't like or trust her, with good reason not because of her gender, the fact that she couldn't inspire the Democratic base to keep out Trump just shows she was the wrong candidate.
HRC was not trusted, liked, or admired and it had nothing to do with her being a woman. The US has shown the greatest respect for women in politics who have earned the right to be respected. To this day, all polls will show you they regard Eleanor Roosevelt in a far warmer light than her husband, and they are pretty sure he was one of the Greats. They suspect she made him.

And before you say, Eleanor was never elected to any role, she was the architect of the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

HRC's main tag with voters, and this is shown by focus groups etc, is that she is corrupt. Doesnt matter if you are male or female, thats a killer.
 

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,636
The Republicans are adept at gerrymandering and suppressing minorities' voting rights. They're obviously quite happy with an electoral college system that gives outweighed importance to lightly populated yokel states at the expense of large liberal cities. Nothing is going to change
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
52,195
Changing the Electoral College won't happen. It'd be political suicide for many of the smaller States. It was put in place to prevent mob rule and while it isn't perfect, it works.


Say a State has 10 EC votes and one candidate gets 60% of the vote, and the other gets 40.

Why not give 6 EC votes to one and 4 to the other, rather than ten to the winner?

Would that not make it more representative and encourage candidates to value all of the states?
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
52,195
No it won't. It is, as expected, underreported in the media.

Before the election there was wall to wall coverage of the hypothetical "danger" posed by Trump supporters.


After the election there more sympathy for, than concern over, violent rioting Hillary mobs.



I suppose you could say the media were right about one thing. Crazy violent fascist mobs would go apeshít over the result. The only problem is the media don't know what a fascist looks like. (hint, it looks like a regressive libtard lefty)
How many people voted? 128 million?

About 61 million of them for HC.

Even if half a million of them were on the streets protesting, that would represent less than 1 percent of her voters. If it was 50,000, it was under one tenth of one percent.

So, 99.91% of her voters were not on the streets.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
Has it happened or indeed can it happen that due to population changes that the number of EV'S goes up or down for a state?
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,188
The Republicans are adept at gerrymandering and suppressing minorities' voting rights. They're obviously quite happy with an electoral college system that gives outweighed importance to lightly populated yokel states at the expense of large liberal cities. Nothing is going to change
When you talk about "lightly populated yokel states", are you including Hawaii, Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island or even the District of Columbia which is not even a state?
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,188
Say a State has 10 EC votes and one candidate gets 60% of the vote, and the other gets 40.

Why not give 6 EC votes to one and 4 to the other, rather than ten to the winner?

Would that not make it more representative and encourage candidates to value all of the states?
The electoral votes are based on each state getting one per Congressional district plus two (one for each Senator).

If it were divvied up this way, in 2012 Romney would have been comfortably elected President.

Incidentally, if all the states did as Maine and Nebraska do, then Romney would also have been elected, albeit more narrowly than above.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
52,195
The electoral votes are based on each state getting one per Congressional district plus two (one for each Senator).

If it were divvied up this way, in 2012 Romney would have been comfortably elected President.

Incidentally, if all the states did as Maine and Nebraska do, then Romney would also have been elected, albeit more narrowly than above.
Would that not be fairer and also encourage people to vote, by making their vote count?
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,188
Has it happened or indeed can it happen that due to population changes that the number of EV'S goes up or down for a state?

Yes it changes after every census, the next one is scheduled for 2020.

After the last time, a number of mostly Southern states picked up electoral votes (and Congressional districts) at the expense of some of the Northern Eastern states/rust belt states. It wasn't so much that the Northeastern states lost residents its that the Southern states grew at a faster pace.

Texas for example picked up four, while NY lost 2. Louisiana did lose one, as a result of a loss of population after Hurricane Katrina.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,188
Would that not be fairer and also encourage people to vote, by making their vote count?
That's an argument that could be made, at least if people knew in advance. It would force a different kind of contest, with more of a national campaign.
 

flavirostris

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
24,588
A lot of that Clinton surplus is hispanics in California & some of the other states who may have entered the US illegally.

That's the whole reason for Trump's wall. To stop Americans being outnumbered and outvoted by illegal aliens.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
52,195
That's an argument that could be made, at least if people knew in advance. It would force a different kind of contest, with more of a national campaign.


Seems to be a fairly obvious one...maybe a national campaign would be a bit of a physical impossibility
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
35,513
A lot of that Clinton surplus is hispanics in California & some of the other states who may have entered the US illegally.

That's the whole reason for Trump's wall. To stop Americans being outnumbered and outvoted by illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens can't vote, most of the SW was originally part of Mexico, hence the large hispanic population.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom