Hillary Clinton: What happened

Gern Blansten · September 2017

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record, and it wasn’t particularly close. It seems very likely that if Clinton had been as well-liked as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis that she would be president today, and that if Trump had been as well-liked as Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole he’d have won the popular vote.

Trump is president whereas Mitt Romney lost in 2012. But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did — a bit below 46 percent for Trump versus a bit above 47 percent for Romney. The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election...Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent

If you don’t like Trump and never did and find yourself baffled as to how the voters could have possibly disagreed with you, the answer is simple: They didn’t. He was able to win not just because of the Electoral College, but because most voters also didn’t like his opponent.

I would say it related more to the Comey bullshit. The last minute gut punch that should have never been brought up.

Strangest thing ever, IMO.
According to investigative congressional committee members Comey did many many things that appeared as strange.
I cant find any reason why Comey would decide to do that, other than he thought it would have little to no outcome on the election.

I saw a theory where Comey felt it necessary to discuss the Clinton email crap due to the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG. Comey may have actually said that himself....can't remember.

It was definitely odd.

But when you look back and see that the FBI was also investigating the Russian stuff related to the Trump Campaign it gets even weirder. I remember Harry Reid asking that question but the media didn't pick up on it too much because the FBI wouldn't confirm anything.

Comey said he couldn't confirm or deny anything with respect to the Trump Russia investigation, I think he said its policy.
Anyway this is the same guy that said in Jan and Feb, Trump wasn't under investigation and that Flynn was cleared.
If we're placing blame other than on Hillary, then the Comey thing certainly deserves some. As I stated numerous times, 95% of it is on the DNC and Hillary, but of all the excuses, Comey at least has some validity.
JimmyV has a good point above, Hillary and the DNC thought that they could convince the public that Hillary is/was the subject to numerous investigations (and cleared if you want to call it that) simply because she is Hillary or a women. It didn't work, the smart people in the room stayed home, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either (horrendous) candidate.

I can't agree with that. She got 3 million more votes. The nation wanted her. The bullshit that went down in WI, MI and PA is the main culprit.

Comey gave tRump ammo. tRump had no momentum up until the point that Comey issued his bullshit. That gave tRump the opportunity to say that the "investigation was back on."

And then the facebook targeting started.

Understood but then one can argue that 1 state does not represent a nation, to use your words. Wouldn't all other states and commonwealths except California better represent our nation? = Trump won by 1.3M
I'm not sure either matter under the current system in place.

so now we are entering an argument where the # of EC votes doesn't jive with population. Look at the ratio of EC vote/population in Montana and compare it to CA

benjs · September 2017

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid.

Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?

no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post.

Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.

not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces.

I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?

no, that's not what I'm saying. if only the search function on someone's posts didn't include all of the quotes of every one else's posts,I'd be able to find what Benjs had explained a while back about it should work. I agreed with him, but I can't articulate it myself.

Fair enough.

In a nutshell, typically Electoral College representatives vote entirely based on the State-level winner. This means if 54% of New Hampshire voted for Trump, and 46% voted for Clinton, and New Hampshire had 5 Electoral College representatives assigned - 5 votes would be placed for Trump (because he was the majority). This is a 'winner-takes-all' situation.

If New Hampshire chose to vote proportionally based on those results, 54% of their 5 votes would go to Trump (54% of 5 is 2.7, which would be rounded to 3 votes), and 46% of their 5 votes would go to Clinton (2.3, which would be rounded to 2 votes).

Unlike abolishing the Electoral College, this would be fully Constitutional, while giving a voice to the voters for the minority within a State.

HughFreakingDillon · September 2017

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

either way, I still think "winner take all" is dumb as fuck. no matter who it benefits, it's stupid.

Sorry, what's dumb? Majority wins you mean?

no, I mean in each given state, say candidate 1 gets 51% of the vote, and candidate 2 gets 49%. Candidate 1 gets every single electoral college vote from that state. it should get split by the percentages that they won by. you shouldn't get all 29 EC votes in Florida if only barely half of that population voted for you. Benjs put it was better in a previous post.

Oh yeah I agree 100%. That's how most modern nations operate, isn't it? American desperately needs to change its government system... obviously it won't, because for some reason too many Americans think everything they do is the best option.

not on that scale. in canada you win seats in much smaller regions, not entire provinces.

I am not sure what you're saying then. You think there shouldn't be majority leaders?

no, that's not what I'm saying. if only the search function on someone's posts didn't include all of the quotes of every one else's posts,I'd be able to find what Benjs had explained a while back about it should work. I agreed with him, but I can't articulate it myself.

Fair enough.

In a nutshell, typically Electoral College representatives vote entirely based on the State-level winner. This means if 54% of New Hampshire voted for Trump, and 46% voted for Clinton, and New Hampshire had 5 Electoral College representatives assigned - 5 votes would be placed for Trump (because he was the majority). This is a 'winner-takes-all' situation.

If New Hampshire chose to vote proportionally based on those results, 54% of their 5 votes would go to Trump (54% of 5 is 2.7, which would be rounded to 3 votes), and 46% of their 5 votes would go to Clinton (2.3, which would be rounded to 2 votes).

Unlike abolishing the Electoral College, this would be fully Constitutional, while giving a voice to the voters for the minority within a State.

Thanks Benjs.

PJ_Soul · September 2017

Oh, yes, the electoral college is fucking ridiculous as it is. I figure either reworking it as you suggest or abolishing it in favour of a more fair system would be fine. Why do you mention the constitutionality of that Benjs? Is it unconstitutional to abolish the electoral college?

benjs · September 2017

PJ_Soul said:

Oh, yes, the electoral college is fucking ridiculous as it is. I figure either reworking it as you suggest or abolishing it in favour of a more fair system would be fine. Why do you mention the constitutionality of that Benjs? Is it unconstitutional to abolish the electoral college?

PJ_Soul, I mention that because the Electoral College is explicitly mandated in the Constitution, whereas the 'winner takes all' method of voting is not. Hence, I have to assume it'd be far easier to reform the process within the Electoral College, than to do away with it.

brianlux · September 2017

PJ_Soul said:

Oh, yes, the electoral college is fucking ridiculous as it is. I figure either reworking it as you suggest or abolishing it in favour of a more fair system would be fine. Why do you mention the constitutionality of that Benjs? Is it unconstitutional to abolish the electoral college?

I agree- it has to go.

What do you think of this as an alternative: The argument FOR the electoral college is that without the electoral college, the densely, more populated, generally more democrat/"liberal" (what ever that mean these days) east and west coast states would have more pull than the vast areas of the country that are less populated, generally more republican/"conservative" (whatever that means these days) states in between the coasts. So to solve that, what about reducing the power of the federal government and increasing the power of state governments?

To my way of thinking, this would be an intermediate step to keep things from flying into chaos while we do the even more logical thing which would be to divide the country into bioregions-- that is, get rid of the artificial state lines that have nothing, really, to do with anything real and have bioregional sections of the country. These already have names like Sonoran Desert, Great Basin, Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens, Columbia Plateau, Sandhills, Texas Blackland Prairies. These would make great states names and would make so much more sense!

And this would encourage people to see that their home region is actually related to ecologically areas that do best when they are populated by diverse, balanced plant and animal communities rather than having "states" that are simply artificial lines drawn on a map. This would lead people to make healthier decisions about the laws governing those lands.

JimmyV · September 2017

If the Electoral College can be improved I'm all for it. The Constitution is a piece of paper written by man. It can and should be updated as necessary.

I don't think abolishing the EC altogether is necessary or even a good idea, frankly. It may not be a perfect system but it does force Presidential candidates to run national campaigns. That's important. Running up the score in California shouldn't decide the Presidency, and it is short-sighted to think it should.

Party affiliations and voting tendencies are always changing. In the 1980's, California voted Republican. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton won in Arkansas, Louisiana and Montana. It would be stunning to see any of that happen today, and 20-30 years from now there will be more states that have flipped just as surprisingly. The EC ensures that no matter what shifts occur, the winning candidate must compete all over.

IMO, voter supression is a much bigger threat to American democracy than is the Electoral College.

CM189191 · September 2017

Why don't more people consider

Instant Run-Off Voting !!!

If you want to make 3rd parties relevant in a binary system, this is the way to go

JC29856 · September 2017

CM189191 said:

Why don't more people consider

Instant Run-Off Voting !!!

If you want to make 3rd parties relevant in a binary system, this is the way to go

I imagine this wouldn't go over too well with those that control the processes, namely the dnc and rnc.

Halifax2TheMax · September 2017

300,000 copies sold in the first week. Not too bad. I can't wait for the criticism.

Gern Blansten · September 2017

JimmyV said:

If the Electoral College can be improved I'm all for it. The Constitution is a piece of paper written by man. It can and should be updated as necessary.

I don't think abolishing the EC altogether is necessary or even a good idea, frankly. It may not be a perfect system but it does force Presidential candidates to run national campaigns. That's important. Running up the score in California shouldn't decide the Presidency, and it is short-sighted to think it should.

Party affiliations and voting tendencies are always changing. In the 1980's, California voted Republican. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton won in Arkansas, Louisiana and Montana. It would be stunning to see any of that happen today, and 20-30 years from now there will be more states that have flipped just as surprisingly. The EC ensures that no matter what shifts occur, the winning candidate must compete all over.

IMO, voter supression is a much bigger threat to American democracy than is the Electoral College.

but it isn't necessary anymore....it was necessary when there wasn't instant news.

JimmyV · September 2017

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

If the Electoral College can be improved I'm all for it. The Constitution is a piece of paper written by man. It can and should be updated as necessary.

I don't think abolishing the EC altogether is necessary or even a good idea, frankly. It may not be a perfect system but it does force Presidential candidates to run national campaigns. That's important. Running up the score in California shouldn't decide the Presidency, and it is short-sighted to think it should.

Party affiliations and voting tendencies are always changing. In the 1980's, California voted Republican. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton won in Arkansas, Louisiana and Montana. It would be stunning to see any of that happen today, and 20-30 years from now there will be more states that have flipped just as surprisingly. The EC ensures that no matter what shifts occur, the winning candidate must compete all over.

IMO, voter supression is a much bigger threat to American democracy than is the Electoral College.

but it isn't necessary anymore....it was necessary when there wasn't instant news.

Not sure what you mean here. Instant news doesn't change us from being a large geographic country with diverse political and economic priorities. The EC protects against candidates simply running up the score on the coasts or in the deep south and declaring victory.

Gern Blansten · September 2017

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

If the Electoral College can be improved I'm all for it. The Constitution is a piece of paper written by man. It can and should be updated as necessary.

I don't think abolishing the EC altogether is necessary or even a good idea, frankly. It may not be a perfect system but it does force Presidential candidates to run national campaigns. That's important. Running up the score in California shouldn't decide the Presidency, and it is short-sighted to think it should.

Party affiliations and voting tendencies are always changing. In the 1980's, California voted Republican. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton won in Arkansas, Louisiana and Montana. It would be stunning to see any of that happen today, and 20-30 years from now there will be more states that have flipped just as surprisingly. The EC ensures that no matter what shifts occur, the winning candidate must compete all over.

IMO, voter supression is a much bigger threat to American democracy than is the Electoral College.

but it isn't necessary anymore....it was necessary when there wasn't instant news.

Not sure what you mean here. Instant news doesn't change us from being a large geographic country with diverse political and economic priorities. The EC protects against candidates simply running up the score on the coasts or in the deep south and declaring victory.

Sure it does...it puts the candidate right in front of you regardless of where they are. They campaign that way.

If Clinton just campaigned in CA, NY, etc. tRump would have been all over that. My guess is that going to popular vote would actually force the candidates to visit each state MORE frequently.

Jason P · September 2017

Carlos Danger gets 21 months in the clink

Kat · October 2017

This was great, really enjoyed it. Thank you, Hillary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thank-you-notes-hillary-clinton_us_59d5c75ee4b0cde45872e445?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And yes, thank heavens we didn't end up with an emotional and unstable president because that would have been a nightmare.

JC29856 · October 2017

Kat said:

This was great, really enjoyed it. Thank you, Hillary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thank-you-notes-hillary-clinton_us_59d5c75ee4b0cde45872e445?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And yes, thank heavens we didn't end up with an emotional and unstable president because that would have been a nightmare.

If this keeps up over the next 2 election cycles expect many thank you(s) from republicans.

PJfanwillneverleave1 · October 2017

JC29856 said:

Kat said:

This was great, really enjoyed it. Thank you, Hillary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thank-you-notes-hillary-clinton_us_59d5c75ee4b0cde45872e445?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

And yes, thank heavens we didn't end up with an emotional and unstable president because that would have been a nightmare.

If this keeps up over the next 2 election cycles expect many thank you(s) from republicans.

They might as well say thank you now. I immediately thought of this after watching it. 27-30 especially.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-nxR4kgJcs

josevolution · October 2017

Id still vote for her today & twice on Sunday intead of the Orange bafoon , the man is a disgrace !

Jason P · October 2017

Miley crying and writing a thank you note to Hillary on Fallon's show ... a thank you note? Thanks for having no personality and somehow losing to an orange repugnant clown?

Let us remind Miley of how election night went for Hillary ...

Jason P · October 2017

Hillary hid away instead of focusing and spending time in six key states because she thought she had it in the bag. Worst campaign ever.

Maybe the next dem candidate will think about having some cheese curds and a PBR with the so called deplorables instead of hanging out with Clooney in Hollywood.

No Thank You, Hillary.

Hillary Clinton: What happened

Comments

Categories