Platinum Contributing Member Skidooski Posted December 19, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted December 19, 2016 Thankfully one state, especially California, can't decide the fate of elections Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%. To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears. As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump. California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%. But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections. In recent years, California has been turning into what amounts to a one-party state. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Californian's who registered as Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans dropped by almost 400,000. What's more, many Republicans in the state had nobody to vote for in November. http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiSledder Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 So easy to understand, right slinger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Well it did give the country Bush and now Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 47 minutes ago, Skidooski said: Thankfully one state, especially California, can't decide the fate of elections Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%. To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears. As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump. California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%. But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections. In recent years, California has been turning into what amounts to a one-party state. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Californian's who registered as Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans dropped by almost 400,000. What's more, many Republicans in the state had nobody to vote for in November. http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/ Take away the million of illegals that voted and Thrillery didn't win California either but hey Russia and Fake News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Skidooski Posted December 19, 2016 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted December 19, 2016 19 minutes ago, Mainecat said: Well it did give the country Bush and now Trump. Maybe you should take that up with the Supreme Court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 23 minutes ago, Mainecat said: Well it did give the country Bush and now Trump. The alternatives were worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalina Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 This is way more complex than the people pushing for change are letting on. If the election was done by popular vote, the candidates would have behaved very differently. They would not concentrate all their time and effort on a few swing states, ignoring the ones that they 'know' are going to go one way or the other. They would have to spread the campaign time and dollars around the whole country in a very different way. This would make the polling process different before the election, and would change the proportion of votes in individual states (by how much, no one could tell). In that scenario, Trump may well have won the popular vote (we will never know that either. One thing for sure, it would be days after election day before we would know who won. In the current system, they start calling states like mine (Mass) right after the polls close. If we had to wait until all the ballots were counted and certified (including absentee ballots) then add it all up to get a nationwide total, it would be the better part of a week before a winner could be declared. I'm not sure that's what we want, or that it would change the result. You have to understand that if the rules are different up front, the candidates would behave differently during the campaign, changing the popular vote result in some way. It' not reasonable to change the rules after the votes have been cast, because you don't like the result. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 49 minutes ago, Skidooski said: Maybe you should take that up with the Supreme Court Stating the obvious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) It's really the only way the republican party can win theses days is getting a handicap Edited December 19, 2016 by Mainecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 18 minutes ago, Mainecat said: It's really the only way the republican party can win theses days is getting a handicap Hey, since the EC is such a handicap, how come the R's have absolutely punished the Dems in the Governorship races, Congressional Seats, State Legislators, etc? Are those all run off the EC too? I had no idea! So dumb. How do you function? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T1R9sledder Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 23 minutes ago, Mainecat said: It's really the only way the republican party can win theses days is getting a handicap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 14 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: Hey, since the EC is such a handicap, how come the R's have absolutely punished the Dems in the Governorship races, Congressional Seats, State Legislators, etc? Are those all run off the EC too? I had no idea! So dumb. How do you function? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted December 19, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/ Edited December 19, 2016 by SnowRider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted December 19, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted December 19, 2016 There is a large population segment of california thats wants to be there own country.... i am all for that but put the parts of the state that want to stay in the us should stay in the US. Liberal areas that want to leave the us, we should encourage it. We would just be a LA brexit away from never having such a horrible president as obama again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted December 19, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted December 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, BOHICA said: There is a large population segment of california thats wants to be there own country.... i am all for that but put the parts of the state that want to stay in the us should stay in the US. Liberal areas that want to leave the us, we should encourage it. We would just be a LA brexit away from never having such a horrible president as obama again. Texas....bye bye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) 33 minutes ago, SnowRider said: When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/ Now its all the spics is California mostly illegals Edited December 19, 2016 by Momorider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted December 19, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted December 19, 2016 19 minutes ago, SnowRider said: Texas....bye bye Texas would want to stay in the us if we could just shed LA snd maybe san fran. Clinton won cali by like 4 million votes. Without LA and san fran she lost the popular vote by over a million. Those 2 cities can be there own county, or a safe haven for liberals that cant handle making smerica great again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Just now, BOHICA said: Texas would want to stay in the us if we could just shed LA snd maybe san fran. Clinton won cali by like 4 million votes. Without LA and san fran she lost the popular vote by over a million. Those 2 cities can be there own county, or a safe haven for liberals that cant handle making smerica great again. A nice big earthquake could take care of those 2 cities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted December 19, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted December 19, 2016 1 minute ago, BOHICA said: Texas would want to stay in the us if we could just shed LA snd maybe san fran. Clinton won cali by like 4 million votes. Without LA and san fran she lost the popular vote by over a million. Those 2 cities can be there own county, or a safe haven for liberals that cant handle making smerica great again. So can Idaho..... If's and but's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Oh sweet Saint San Andrés hear my prayer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted December 19, 2016 Gold Member Share Posted December 19, 2016 6 minutes ago, SnowRider said: So can Idaho..... If's and but's I would be cool if the country split up... the liberal part of the country would fail big league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Watch results as they come in http://www.270towin.com/live-2016-presidential-election-vote-of-electors/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Skidooski Posted December 19, 2016 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted December 19, 2016 1 hour ago, SnowRider said: When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/ Look at this guy! OK so who had the closest date to today on the bet when this dip shit would show back up?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 8 minutes ago, Skidooski said: Look at this guy! OK so who had the closest date to today on the bet when this dip shit would show back up?????? Kev 144, with Dec 24th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.