Clinton will win the popular vote

[RunInRed 16,360]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I find it a tad ironic that the party of superdelegates and several winner-take-all primaries is griping about the Electoral College.

I'm not griping but rather making the obvious point: the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump.  And it's not Bush v Gore close.  2 Million votes.  

[AURaptor 1,121]

5 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

I'm not griping but rather making the obvious point: the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump.  And it's not Bush v Gore close.  2 Million votes.  

Proving that the Founders were wise beyond our comprehension. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

2 hours ago, RunInRed said:

I'm not griping but rather making the obvious point: the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump.  And it's not Bush v Gore close.  2 Million votes.  

simple majorities = mob rule. This election proves the genius of the founders. They devised a system that prevents the major population centers from having undue influence in national elections and for that they get nothing but bitching and whining from those whose campaign didn't win the states they needed to get over the hump. Oh well, no way to make everybody happy.  

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

3 hours ago, RunInRed said:

I'm not griping but rather making the obvious point: the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump.  And it's not Bush v Gore close.  2 Million votes.  

The margin of victory re the popular vote is not the issue.  HRC (along with Al Gore in his own election) failed to achieve a +50% majority and thus, has no credible claim on claiming a victory.  The Electoral College rules.  

[homersapien 11,352]

44 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

simple majorities = mob rule

 

[quietfan 233]

I fully accept Trump as the legitimately President-Elect.  He won it Constitutionally.

But I take some morale comfort in knowing more of the people voted against Trump than for him, that more of the people rejected him, whether for temperament, character, business ties, or alt-right leanings.  However, I also note that Hillary will not carry the majority of votes either, merely have a plurality.  Basically, I see it as the people telling both parties:  "We demand better candidates!"

[TheBlueVue 177]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

mmmhmmm..its reality and it would be wise to remember we are a Constitutional republic of 50 states not a democracy of 330 million people..also just a fact. That said, the relevance of HRC winning the popular vote really has no significance. Its like a football team losing 24-21(Im being kind with that score because Hillary actually got blown out in the ONLY stat that mattered) but claiming to be the "winner" because they out gained their opponent in total yards.  In the end, its simply a useless stat.

What is quite funny about this is that you among a gaggle of others were absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that Trump had NO CHANCE. After all, he was a political novice and alleged dumbass who not only had never served an elected office but also had obviously never run a political campaign. Despite that, he was smart enough to realize the state by state races is where it would ultimately be won. Hillary Clinton is arguably the worst presidential candidate of all time. She had every conceivable advantage ..Multi-national banks, Wall St, foreign govts who donated handsomely and illegaly to her campaign, the media, academia, Hollywood, billionaires, minorities, SJWs, gays and the sexually ambiguous crowd as well as the feminazis and the Green mafia not to mention the fact that she outspent Trump 5 to 1 and she still couldn't pull it off. What a freakin LOSER! 

In the end Trump got elected spending a meager $5.00 a vote..what a dumbass, right? LOL

[japantiger 4,051]

1 hour ago, TheBlueVue said:

mmmhmmm..its reality and it would be wise to remember we are a Constitutional republic of 50 states not a democracy of 330 million people..also just a fact. That said, the relevance of HRC winning the popular vote really has no significance. Its like a football team losing 24-21(Im being kind with that score because Hillary actually got blown out in the ONLY stat that mattered) but claiming to be the "winner" because they out gained their opponent in total yards.  In the end, its simply a useless stat.

What is quite funny about this is that you among a gaggle of others were absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that Trump had NO CHANCE. After all, he was a political novice and alleged dumbass who not only had never served an elected office but also had obviously never run a political campaign. Despite that, he was smart enough to realize the state by state races is where it would ultimately be won. Hillary Clinton is arguably the worst presidential candidate of all time. She had every conceivable advantage ..Multi-national banks, Wall St, foreign govts who donated handsomely and illegaly to her campaign, the media, academia, Hollywood, billionaires, minorities, SJWs, gays and the sexually ambiguous crowd as well as the feminazis and the Green mafia not to mention the fact that she outspent Trump 5 to 1 and she still couldn't pull it off. What a freakin LOSER! 

In the end Trump got elected spending a meager $5.00 a vote..what a dumbass, right? LOL

Reading this with a huge smile....

You nailed it...

[homersapien 11,352]

3 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

mmmhmmm..its reality and it would be wise to remember we are a Constitutional republic of 50 states not a democracy of 330 million people..also just a fact. That said, the relevance of HRC winning the popular vote really has no significance. Its like a football team losing 24-21(Im being kind with that score because Hillary actually got blown out in the ONLY stat that mattered) but claiming to be the "winner" because they out gained their opponent in total yards.  In the end, its simply a useless stat.

What is quite funny about this is that you among a gaggle of others were absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that Trump had NO CHANCE. After all, he was a political novice and alleged dumbass who not only had never served an elected office but also had obviously never run a political campaign. Despite that, he was smart enough to realize the state by state races is where it would ultimately be won. Hillary Clinton is arguably the worst presidential candidate of all time. She had every conceivable advantage ..Multi-national banks, Wall St, foreign govts who donated handsomely and illegaly to her campaign, the media, academia, Hollywood, billionaires, minorities, SJWs, gays and the sexually ambiguous crowd as well as the feminazis and the Green mafia not to mention the fact that she outspent Trump 5 to 1 and she still couldn't pull it off. What a freakin LOSER! 

In the end Trump got elected spending a meager $5.00 a vote..what a dumbass, right? LOL

Equating the majority with "mob rule" is absurd on it's face, no matter how much you rant.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

18 hours ago, RunInRed said:

I'm not griping but rather making the obvious point: the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump.  And it's not Bush v Gore close.  2 Million votes.  

You aren't the party though, you're just one guy.  But your party is making rumblings about wanting to get rid of the Electoral College. 

If at any time you were ok with or defended the idea of superdelegates having the power to override the results of the Democratic primary, or were ok with the idea of winner take all awarding of primary delegates, then the "point" that Hillary won the popular vote rings hollow.  Perhaps if the Democrats ditched superdelegates and either awarded delegates proportionally, or just had one big nationwide primary in one day and nominated whoever won the popular vote, I could at least take the complaint more seriously.  But as it stands, it's hypocrisy.

[TexasTiger 12,800]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You aren't the party though, you're just one guy.  But your party is making rumblings about wanting to get rid of the Electoral College. 

If at any time you were ok with or defended the idea of superdelegates having the power to override the results of the Democratic primary, or were ok with the idea of winner take all awarding of primary delegates, then the "point" that Hillary won the popular vote rings hollow.  Perhaps if the Democrats ditched superdelegates and either awarded delegates proportionally, or just had one big nationwide primary in one day and nominated whoever won the popular vote, I could at least take the complaint more seriously.  But as it stands, it's hypocrisy.

You're straining to dismiss the problems with the electoral college. Sad!

[AURaptor 1,121]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

Democracy is Mob Rule

By Jonathan Gardner

Our Founding Fathers really didn’t like democracy, and didn’t have any kind words to say for it. A quick reading of the history of Athens should help anyone understand why, particularly the episodes with Socrates and the Peloponnesian War. And yet we have demonstrators streaking through the state capitol in Wisconsin shouting, “This is democracy!”

A thumbnail sketch of raw democracy will show that the problem with it isn’t at all the inefficiency of the system, as we have been told in our public schools. The problem is that individuals have no rights in a democratic system, and the passions of men are the principle method of decision making. That is, whoever is more angry gets to choose what to do.

In Socrates’ day, he made quite a few enemies by preaching about the virtues of logic and against the vices of sophistry. In that day, sophists would argue that it is ok to lie to people as long as it if in their own self-interest. For instance, it’s ok to tell a man with a sore tooth that there is no pain at all when the dentist pulls the tooth out. Whatever it takes to achieve a good goal, is good. Apply the above reasoning to science and religion, and you have, well, ancient Greece, where Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were the exception, not the rule.

The way the sophists defeated Socrates was to whip the crowd up in a wild frenzy about how Socrates was leading the youth astray and worshiping false gods. With the mood properly set, nothing Socrates could say could change his chances of survival. And so, the great logician died as a result of democracy.

The Peloponnesian War is another episode of raw democracy, its history all but erased from our history books. Why? Because the democracy of Athens failed miserably against the top-down tyranny of Sparta, despite having every advantage imaginable. The democracy in Athens ate the top generals alive. One general, upon annihilating the Spartan fleet, was brought before the people in a trial, where he was charged as a traitor for the crime of allowing sailors to drown because wiping out the fleet of Sparta was a higher priority than sparing the sons of Athens. Many similar episodes of the same and eventually, the great democracy of Athens became a footnote in history. The underdog, Sparta, rose up and completely obliterated the once supreme power of that city-state.

Why don’t you hear about this in school? Because we are supposed to learn that democracy is good. Democracy, after all, means the people are in charge, and that people are free, right?

Nothing could be further from the truth. In a democratic system, the people are subject to the orators, and no individual can ever hope to protect his own rights against the onslaught of public opinion. In the words of our Founding Fathers, “Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting for what’s for dinner.”

Democracy is, indeed, on display in the Wisconsin State Capitol. The same democracy that murdered Socrates is threatening the very lives of the elected government, and turning the once-peaceful and open capitol into a spawning ground of violent leftists and fear mongers who outright lie about what is being debated mere feet away.

We, as a nation, are not democratic. Yes, we have democratic elements, but we have republican and autocratic elements as well. We also have theocratic and aristocratic elements, all by design. Our nation combines all these different styles of government and sets them at opposition so that the negative aspects of each is canceled while the positive aspects are emphasized. We would do well to stop equating democracy (rule by the popular opinion) with our system of government.

https://fwcon.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/democracy-is-mob-rule/

[homersapien 11,352]

34 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You aren't the party though, you're just one guy.  But your party is making rumblings about wanting to get rid of the Electoral College. 

If at any time you were ok with or defended the idea of superdelegates having the power to override the results of the Democratic primary, or were ok with the idea of winner take all awarding of primary delegates, then the "point" that Hillary won the popular vote rings hollow.  Perhaps if the Democrats ditched superdelegates and either awarded delegates proportionally, or just had one big nationwide primary in one day and nominated whoever won the popular vote, I could at least take the complaint more seriously.  But as it stands, it's hypocrisy.

Partys are free to make whatever rules they want. Besides, opposing the electoral college doesn't require supporting a given party's rules. So there is no logical case for hypocrisy. 

 

19 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Democracy is Mob Rule

By Jonathan Gardner

Our Founding Fathers really didn’t like democracy, and didn’t have any kind words to say for it. A quick reading of the history of Athens should help anyone understand why, particularly the episodes with Socrates and the Peloponnesian War. And yet we have demonstrators streaking through the state capitol in Wisconsin shouting, “This is democracy!”

A thumbnail sketch of raw democracy will show that the problem with it isn’t at all the inefficiency of the system, as we have been told in our public schools. The problem is that individuals have no rights in a democratic system, and the passions of men are the principle method of decision making. That is, whoever is more angry gets to choose what to do.

In Socrates’ day, he made quite a few enemies by preaching about the virtues of logic and against the vices of sophistry. In that day, sophists would argue that it is ok to lie to people as long as it if in their own self-interest. For instance, it’s ok to tell a man with a sore tooth that there is no pain at all when the dentist pulls the tooth out. Whatever it takes to achieve a good goal, is good. Apply the above reasoning to science and religion, and you have, well, ancient Greece, where Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were the exception, not the rule.

The way the sophists defeated Socrates was to whip the crowd up in a wild frenzy about how Socrates was leading the youth astray and worshiping false gods. With the mood properly set, nothing Socrates could say could change his chances of survival. And so, the great logician died as a result of democracy.

The Peloponnesian War is another episode of raw democracy, its history all but erased from our history books. Why? Because the democracy of Athens failed miserably against the top-down tyranny of Sparta, despite having every advantage imaginable. The democracy in Athens ate the top generals alive. One general, upon annihilating the Spartan fleet, was brought before the people in a trial, where he was charged as a traitor for the crime of allowing sailors to drown because wiping out the fleet of Sparta was a higher priority than sparing the sons of Athens. Many similar episodes of the same and eventually, the great democracy of Athens became a footnote in history. The underdog, Sparta, rose up and completely obliterated the once supreme power of that city-state.

Why don’t you hear about this in school? Because we are supposed to learn that democracy is good. Democracy, after all, means the people are in charge, and that people are free, right?

Nothing could be further from the truth. In a democratic system, the people are subject to the orators, and no individual can ever hope to protect his own rights against the onslaught of public opinion. In the words of our Founding Fathers, “Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting for what’s for dinner.”

Democracy is, indeed, on display in the Wisconsin State Capitol. The same democracy that murdered Socrates is threatening the very lives of the elected government, and turning the once-peaceful and open capitol into a spawning ground of violent leftists and fear mongers who outright lie about what is being debated mere feet away.

We, as a nation, are not democratic. Yes, we have democratic elements, but we have republican and autocratic elements as well. We also have theocratic and aristocratic elements, all by design. Our nation combines all these different styles of government and sets them at opposition so that the negative aspects of each is canceled while the positive aspects are emphasized. We would do well to stop equating democracy (rule by the popular opinion) with our system of government.

https://fwcon.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/democracy-is-mob-rule/

 We already understand that authoritarians like Trump are anti-democratic.  No need to try and justify it.

[quietfan 233]

I certainly do not think a simple majority has the right to deny basic human rights to a minority, so I understand a fear of a 'tyranny of the majority'.  But I also oppose a 'tyranny of the minority'.

Some quick math based on actual census figures reported here:  http://mytowntutors.com/2012/08/the-electoral-college-by-state-highest-to-lowest/   (And by 'quick' math, I mean I haven't double-checked my addition or calculator punching, so I certainly welcome correction if I made a mistake.  I also rounded population figures to the nearest thousand.)

As of the last census, California had a population of 37,254,000 and 55 Electoral College votes.

55 E.C. votes based on the smallest states & D.C. (Wyoming, Vermont, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, D.C., Delaware, Alaska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Hawaii, and 1/5th of West Virginia) would represent a population base of 12,869,000, or about 1/3rd California's population.

In a democracy (or 'representative democracy'/'republic' for the semantically obsessed) should the decisions of 12,869,000 people carry the same weight as 37,254,000 people? Should 25% of a combined group of 50 million voters have power equal to that of the other 75%?  [Or look at it this way: If American Samoa (population 55,000) were granted statehood, it would have the same electoral college voice as Wyoming with ten times the people (564,000)].

I'm not sure the writers of the Constitution envisioned such a wide disparity in population densities when setting up the Electoral College, although I don't presume to read their minds or 'intent'.

 

(Of course, it's inaccurate to suggest any of these states voted in block, i.e., all residents of that state voted the same way.  I'm just comparing total numbers by state.)

 

[RunInRed 16,360]

On 11/24/2016 at 0:20 PM, TitanTiger said:

You aren't the party though, you're just one guy.  But your party is making rumblings about wanting to get rid of the Electoral College. 

If at any time you were ok with or defended the idea of superdelegates having the power to override the results of the Democratic primary, or were ok with the idea of winner take all awarding of primary delegates, then the "point" that Hillary won the popular vote rings hollow.  Perhaps if the Democrats ditched superdelegates and either awarded delegates proportionally, or just had one big nationwide primary in one day and nominated whoever won the popular vote, I could at least take the complaint more seriously.  But as it stands, it's hypocrisy.

I don't recall ever defending the super delegates.  ... In fact, IIRC, back in 2008, I was railing against them during the Obama/Clinton primary fight.  

As for the electoral college, I'm not sure.  I see the value in the representation they provide to some of the smaller states but I also see how it has turned elections into a siloed focus across only a handful of "swing states" - essentially rendering vast parts of the country useless.  Not too mention, when a candidate loses by 2 million votes, some thing seems off.

[Mikey 16,545]

Speaking of California, Clinton won California by over 3.7 million votes. Therefore, Trump won the rest of the country by well over a million.. The state of weirdness and Hollywood freaks is the only reason Clinton has more popular votes. That would matter, if popular votes mattered, which they don't. Those founding fathers were some smart dudes, weren't they? Able to look ahead 200 years and devise a system that prevented the Left coast from dictating to the rest of the nation.

"The Clinton popular vote lead is largely driven by California, however. Clinton’s lead in California alone is more than 3.7 million votes. Trump leads in the swing state popular vote as a whole, according to Cook Political Report:"

Link:http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/popular-vote-2016-clinton-vs-trump-hillary-leads-results-totals-donald-trump-california-latest-update-new-2012-2008/

[Auburn85 432]

 

[quietfan 233]

3 hours ago, Mikey said:

Speaking of California, Clinton won California by over 3.7 million votes. Therefore, Trump won the rest of the country by well over a million.. The state of weirdness and Hollywood freaks is the only reason Clinton has more popular votes. That would matter, if popular votes mattered, which they don't. Those founding fathers were some smart dudes, weren't they? Able to look ahead 200 years and devise a system that prevented the Left coast from dictating to the rest of the nation.

You don't get to ignore 3.7 million votes because they came from a place you consider 'weird' or 'freaky'.  Since Trump got just 36 E.C. votes above than the 270 needed to win, I could just as easily argue that the only reason he won was because of those "cowboys" and "gun freaks" in the state of Texas*, with 38 E.C. votes.  Actually, he took the entire Gulf Coast: Those founding fathers let the 3rd/Gulf Coast dictate to the rest of the nation! 

In this country we don't discount or disenfranchise anyone because we find their politics, lifestyle, or place of residence 'weird' or 'freaky'.  We Americans don't even agree on a universal definition of weird or freaky:  One person's weirdness is another person's normal, and vice-versa. 

I find the alt-right and the religious right far more weird and distasteful than the "Left Coast".  But I would never suggests the votes of those on the right shouldn't count as much because I don't like their views.  But neither should they count more than others, which seems to be the end result of the Electoral College this election.

 

(*Note: I stereotype Texas only for the purpose of this argument, as you did California. I don't consider all Texans to be 'cowboys' or 'gun freaks', nor do I personally have anything against Texans, cowboys, or gun owners.)

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

1 hour ago, quietfan said:

You don't get to ignore 3.7 million votes because they came from a place you consider 'weird' or 'freaky'.  Since Trump got just 36 E.C. votes above than the 270 needed to win, I could just as easily argue that the only reason he won was because of those "cowboys" and "gun freaks" in the state of Texas*, with 38 E.C. votes.  Actually, he took the entire Gulf Coast: Those founding fathers let the 3rd/Gulf Coast dictate to the rest of the nation! 

In this country we don't discount or disenfranchise anyone because we find their politics, lifestyle, or place of residence 'weird' or 'freaky'.  We Americans don't even agree on a universal definition of weird or freaky:  One person's weirdness is another person's normal, and vice-versa. 

I find the alt-right and the religious right far more weird and distasteful than the "Left Coast".  But I would never suggests the votes of those on the right shouldn't count as much because I don't like their views.  But neither should they count more than others, which seems to be the end result of the Electoral College this election.

 

(*Note: I stereotype Texas only for the purpose of this argument, as you did California. I don't consider all Texans to be 'cowboys' or 'gun freaks', nor do I personally have anything against Texans, cowboys, or gun owners.)

what is the " religious right "? Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Christians, what "right" religion do you find weird guietfan?  

[TitanTiger 20,469]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You're straining to dismiss the problems with the electoral college. Sad!

Actually not a strain at all. I don't have problems with the electoral college. 

[AURaptor 1,121]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

 We already understand that authoritarians like Trump are anti-democratic.  No need to try and justify it.

Don't forget the Founders too. They were anti- democratic.

Seems you missed the main point of the article.

[TexasTiger 12,800]

6 hours ago, Mikey said:

Speaking of California, Clinton won California by over 3.7 million votes. Therefore, Trump won the rest of the country by well over a million.. The state of weirdness and Hollywood freaks is the only reason Clinton has more popular votes. That would matter, if popular votes mattered, which they don't. Those founding fathers were some smart dudes, weren't they? Able to look ahead 200 years and devise a system that prevented the Left coast from dictating to the rest of the nation.

"The Clinton popular vote lead is largely driven by California, however. Clinton’s lead in California alone is more than 3.7 million votes. Trump leads in the swing state popular vote as a whole, according to Cook Political Report:"

Link:http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/popular-vote-2016-clinton-vs-trump-hillary-leads-results-totals-donald-trump-california-latest-update-new-2012-2008/

The only reason the vote isn't overwhelming for Clinton is because of Trumps margin in a conglomeration of states from the former Confederacy which are the biggest drain on the federal budget. If we're discounting regions, shouldn't we discount the ones that don't carry their weight?

[TexasTiger 12,800]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Actually not a strain at all. I don't have problems with the electoral college. 

Well, you don't really understand it.

[quietfan 233]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

what is the " religious right "? Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Christians, what "right" religion do you find weird guietfan?  

Understand that just because I find something weird doesn't mean I expect others to agree with me.

But I was of course speaking of the Christian Religious Right in this country: conservative or Pentecostal Christians who reject evolution or science in general, accept their particular interpretation of the Bible as the literal, inerrant and only truth, want to discriminate against Muslims or homosexuals, seem more obsessed with 'End Times' than working to help others in the immediate present, or somehow look at Donald Trump as an agent of God.  I actually had an acquaintance post on Facebook this morning that the only 'news' she follows is what she hears on Jim Bakker's broadcasts.  To me, that's weird.

But I tolerate their right to their beliefs, and I think their vote counts just as much as mine.

(For what it's worth, some other religious sects also seem weird to me...but I respect the right of members of those groups to believe as they choose as well.)

 

[homersapien 11,352]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Don't forget the Founders too. They were anti- democratic.

Seems you missed the main point of the article.

They certainly were when it came to black people, native Americans and women.

Do you think THAT was "wise beyond our comprehension"?