I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
Houn on
+10
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
And it's easy to blame the Jewsthe global elites the media for Clinton's catastrophic failure in the midwest blue states in Pennsylvania
Very trumpy, actually
OK, Then if it wasn't a combination of unfair media coverage, comey's october suprise, wikileaks, racism, and voter suppression what was it?
The combination of that and the Clinton's campaign cavalier disregard for Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin? If you can't make people vote for you in Wisconsin after six years of Scott Walker then you have to admit Clinton is also to blame for not reaching out to more people.
so there were rumblings of uprisings if hillary won the election
what do you think will happen if the electoral college hands it to her two months after the fact?
Idealist view? People get angry, some shots are fired, the rest of the world sighs relief, and we get to abolish the EC for being "corrupt".
I'm sorry could you please justify that claim?
That the R congress would be so angry that they'd ratify its expulsion. And all of the Trump supporters would be screaming themselves red to get it gone.
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
You're close but what will actually happen is the Democratic Party will drift rightward to stay competitive. Midwestern whites are about to be the Belle of the Ball
Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.
“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”
Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.
“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and “tell people there” why she should be leading the party.
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
You're close but what will actually happen is the Democratic Party will drift rightward to stay competitive. Midwestern whites are about to be the Belle of the Ball
If they have to functionally join the GOP to get elected, how does that change my prediction?
Among the groups that consider it already a center-right party, it isn't a change at all I guess.
In the real world, backing down on trade and whispering BLM instead of yelling it doesn't make them a functional equivalent to the GOP even if it is a shitburger I don't want to eat
If the electoral college hands over the presidency to Hillary after Trump won fair and square, then it clearly means laws don't matter anymore so just grab an AR-15 and kill as many liberals in positions of power as you can and maybe the country can still be saved from such blatant corruption.
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
I 100 percent would want Hilary to concede or have then electors give it to him.
More so than now actually since I wouldn't worry about violence.
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
I 100 percent would want Hilary to concede or have then electors give it to him.
More so than now actually since I wouldn't worry about violence.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
Jesus Christ man read my last sentence
Even then it's still a democracy
One party stranglehold? Sure, until the people are tired of the Republican jig and vote for the other guy! The Democrats had a "stranglehold" over the Deep South until they didn't, and had a "stranglehold" over the Midwest until yesterday.
A one party stranglehold is Bob Dylan arrested at Staples Center, tortured, having his hands broken and ordered to play his guitar, and then murdered. Respect people who have lived (or at least has family that lived) through that.
Also, voter ID is a tool of the devil for a LARGE part the rightwing voting bloc.
That you do not take into account the possibility that Trump might lose in the 2020 election is folly.
I would again suggest you take some time off and seek some council - professional council, not strangers on the internet. I actually am worried about you.
Hey, if I'm wrong... groovy! We all win!
But if I'm right... well, none of us actually want to live in that world. Again. I wouldn't be imagining if there weren't some historical precedent.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
You're close but what will actually happen is the Democratic Party will drift rightward to stay competitive. Midwestern whites are about to be the Belle of the Ball
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
But the situation isn't reversed and that is not some random accident. The American system of government is designed to protect white interests, especially rural white interests, and this is a particularly galling example
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
I'd like to believe that I'd feel the same about demolishing the EC in that theoretical, but we'll never know for sure, will we?
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
I 100 percent would want Hilary to concede or have then electors give it to him.
More so than now actually since I wouldn't worry about violence.
You're a more principled man than I, then.
Oh lord, I hope not.
I just really think that majority rule works the best.
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
But the situation isn't reversed and that is not some random accident. The American system of government is designed to protect white interests, especially rural white interests, and this is a particularly galling example
"We just need a true conservative!" is just as foolish when you replace "conservative" with "liberal."
The problem is that many Democrats equate 'centrist' with 'corporatist.' Applying that lens to the problem, we sure as hell do need a more liberal candidate.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
I feel this may be a bit dark, even for me. Trump didn't win by that much, and he won't be able to enact voter suppression in enough states or roll back demographic change to prevent any other democratic presidents. While the numbers of white voters weren't as low as we thought,
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
National voter ID law is actually contrary to what they want, because that would create a set of guidelines people could actually follow and then say "My ID is in accordance with your regulations. You must allow me to vote". While getting people their ID's would be a challenge, meeting a real set of known guidelines would be something charity groups could achieve in red states, and just acts of the state government could achieve in blue ones.
No, what we'll see is a doubling down of allowing 'the states to decide without guideline'. Which is very effective, but not the end of the road since the key 4 states trump swung to him don't have solid enough republican authoritarian regimes to enact completely disenfranchising regulations.
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
But the situation isn't reversed and that is not some random accident. The American system of government is designed to protect white interests, especially rural white interests, and this is a particularly galling example
It was a problem, one of the problems. It was enabled by who we choose to run. And yeah, the media didn't help. But we dropped the ball, threw interceptions, and didn't have a good offensive line. We can't just yell at the refs because they made bad calls, we have to fix our damn team too.
OK but what were the actual ball dropping, interceptions and weak offensive line? Because from where i am sitting we trounced em in every aspect. Except the refs called our interceptions dropped balls. And our touchdowns incomplete passes... despite us sitting in the endzone with the ball in our hands long after the whistle.
What is the thing that we didn't do? That we should have done? That we did but should not have?
"Democrats didn't offer anything for the rust belt" "well actually we did and here is us speaking about those plants" "but they didn't say it in a debate" "well not a general debate no, but a primary debate yes. And we can't talk about domestic policy in a debate if the media does not ask about it in the domestic policy debate"
So it's hard to list everything we did wrong without having a full breakdown of what happened, but here's a start.
1) All (most?) of our assumptions were wrong. We thought WI, MI, and PA were safe. We thought we had a better-than-average shot at FL and NC. That wasn't true, and we need to figure out why. (We also lost 1 EV in ME)
2) Was voter turnout down overall, or was voter turnout only down in WI, MI, PA, FL, and NC? What caused it? Why?
My take right now (and I've said this a dozen times already in this thread) was that HRC was the wrong candidate not because of her policy, but because of her presentation. The electorate wanted a firebrand, someone they could rally to. They wanted another Obama, another charismatic orator. They wanted someone to point out the flaws, but promise hope and change. They wanted somebody that wasn't part of the problems they saw, they wanted somebody who wasn't already part of the Washington establishment.
They wanted anger, fire, and soundbites. Slogans that promise action.
We did none of those things. We fielded a steady candidate that promised more of the same, and people weren't interested in that. They wanted something new and exciting.
I think we need to embrace that new and exciting bit. Maybe we need to sell a president like a blockbuster film. Maybe they don't need to be the best politician, but somebody more akin to... something like an inspirational speaker. Somebody you want to lead the charge, somebody who looks like they can physically promise action.
A lot of these are assumptions, a lot of these are guesses drawn from what I've seen of Obama and Trump versus Clinton. I'm not saying the media coverage she got was warranted, but it came from somewhere. I don't think we can fight the RNC and the media and win.
No, dude. That is shortsighted. You cannot lay the blame for this entirely at the feet of the media, they only represent part of the whole picture. We went with a candidate we knew had these problems, but we thought being a policy wonk with a popular president and a good enough economy would make up for it. It didn't. She didn't resonate with enough voters in the parts of the country that she needed to win. If your optics are gonna be about being a part of the problem, a symbol of corruption, a Washington insider, then you could not win 2016. If the zeitgeist continues, you cannot win 2018 or 2020 either.
And what are we going to do to fix "the media" in the case of it being "entirely the media's fault"? We've got no legislative leverage over them, and they profited handily from a horse race. If that's what gets you coverage, if that's what gets your voters to show up in the places you need them, then we need to pushing the firebrand using revolutionary language.
On top of that, we made the (reasonable) assumption that being a racist, misogynist, xenophobic, unqualified, childish, corrupt, and proudly-ignorant liar surrounded by conspiracy theorists would be a disqualifying recipe. It wasn't. Here's the thing, though - and I don't want to take away from your larger message of how the Democratic party needs to improve in a practical way, because I agree and think it will help - the part I mentioned? That's not on us, and it's not on the Clinton campaign.
Agree. The question is why wasn't all that disqualifying? Is it because Republicans will elect an inanimate carbon rod, or is it because all that shit only further stirred up the RNC base? He used bombastic language, he was a firebrand, he promised change and told the electorate that it wasn't their fault, that it was the terrorists, that it was the immigrants, that it was the establishment. "I am not one of them! I will make america great again!" "Only I can fix." That spoke to Republican voters; being a "racist, misogynist, xenophobic, unqualified, childish, corrupt, and proudly-ignorant liar surrounded by conspiracy theorists" didn't matter at all to them.
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
But the situation isn't reversed and that is not some random accident. The American system of government is designed to protect white interests, especially rural white interests, and this is a particularly galling example
You're missing the point.
One of us is
Eh, I'm not perfect.
Cog on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
If the electoral college hands over the presidency to Hillary after Trump won fair and square, then it clearly means laws don't matter anymore so just grab an AR-15 and kill as many liberals in positions of power as you can and maybe the country can still be saved from such blatant corruption.
The flaw in this logic is that, by law, electors can vote however they damn well please.
"We just need a true conservative!" is just as foolish when you replace "conservative" with "liberal."
The problem is that many Democrats equate 'centrist' with 'corporatist.' Applying that lens to the problem, we sure as hell do need a more liberal candidate.
Donald promised his voters he would punish their enemies.
So did Bernie Sanders.
Clearly, the take away here is that we need a candidate that will promise to literally destroy Wall Street and jail every member of the GOP!
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
Jesus Christ man read my last sentence
Even then it's still a democracy
One party stranglehold? Sure, until the people are tired of the Republican jig and vote for the other guy! The Democrats had a "stranglehold" over the Deep South until they didn't, and had a "stranglehold" over the Midwest until yesterday.
A one party stranglehold is Bob Dylan arrested at Staples Center, tortured, having his hands broken and ordered to play his guitar, and then murdered. Respect people who have lived (or at least has family that lived) through that.
Also, voter ID is a tool of the devil for a LARGE part the rightwing voting bloc.
That you do not take into account the possibility that Trump might lose in the 2020 election is folly.
I would again suggest you take some time off and seek some council - professional council, not strangers on the internet. I actually am worried about you.
Hey, if I'm wrong... groovy! We all win!
But if I'm right... well, none of us actually want to live in that world. Again. I wouldn't be imagining if there weren't some historical precedent.
Yes you would be imagining it because you're losing your shit
When Hitler was elected he passed an act after two months that essentially closed the Legislative. Germany had lost a World War and had faced hyperinflation. In 1932 unemployment was 32%.
When Salvador Allende was deposed he (I'm trying to be as neutral as I can) presided over economic chaos and a much more divided nation than present USA
When Mussolini rose to power the Italian oligarchy had led the people to the disaster of Caporetto over nothing.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
You're close but what will actually happen is the Democratic Party will drift rightward to stay competitive. Midwestern whites are about to be the Belle of the Ball
I mean, we already kinda had a petition. It was the election. There were rules. Clinton lost.
No. She didn't. She won the popular vote. One of the the reasons we even have an Electoral College was designed to prevent dangerously unqualified candidates from becoming president.
Like, the whole reason we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy is so that representatives can put the brakes on when an uninformed mob makes a terrible, terrible decision.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
Jesus Christ man read my last sentence
Even then it's still a democracy
One party stranglehold? Sure, until the people are tired of the Republican jig and vote for the other guy! The Democrats had a "stranglehold" over the Deep South until they didn't, and had a "stranglehold" over the Midwest until yesterday.
A one party stranglehold is Bob Dylan arrested at Staples Center, tortured, having his hands broken and ordered to play his guitar, and then murdered. Respect people who have lived (or at least has family that lived) through that.
Also, voter ID is a tool of the devil for a LARGE part the rightwing voting bloc.
That you do not take into account the possibility that Trump might lose in the 2020 election is folly.
I would again suggest you take some time off and seek some council - professional council, not strangers on the internet. I actually am worried about you.
Hey, if I'm wrong... groovy! We all win!
But if I'm right... well, none of us actually want to live in that world. Again. I wouldn't be imagining if there weren't some historical precedent.
Yes you would be imagining it because you're losing your shit
When Hitler was elected he passed an act after two months that essentially closed the Legislative. Germany had lost a World War and had faced hyperinflation. In 1932 unemployment was 32%.
When Salvador Allende was deposed he (I'm trying to be as neutral as I can) presided over economic chaos and a much more divided nation than present USA
When Mussolini rose to power the Italian oligarchy had led the people to the disaster of Caporetto over nothing.
Guys torturing yourself with these faithless EV fantasy votes isn't helping you cope in the long run. Yes, this election is different. Yes it very much seems like Trump has some level of ties to Russia. Yes he's a piece of shit monster for a variety of reasons.
However unless some serious fucking evidence is dropped before the EC Vote, none of these fantasies are going to happen and there is zero reason to believe that evidence is forthcoming.
It isn't healthy for your brain meats
I'd argue that none of this discussion is really productive, but it's therapeutic, so let everyone have it.
- No, the electors will not go faithless.
- No, we will not get rid of the EC.
- No, we will not make gains in the midterms.
- No, there will never another D president again.
Fascism won, and democracy is dead (at the federal level). The last time this occurred, the entire world went to war. Who's going to be able to free us from our authoritarian overlords?
No one.
Either democracy is dead or it isn't. And it is not dead at the federal level. Clinton hasn't been murdered, Obama hasn't been tortured, the Washington Post buildings have not been bombed, and people who have displeased Trump have not been gunned down by paramilitary forces at his beck and call.
This is a terrible candidate, who will probably be an awful president; he's not Pinochet or Hitler (it's indeed disconcerting to people who have experience of real authoritarianism to see folks claiming we're under yoke; when the Staples Center in L.A. becomes a giant prison where Trump stores left-leaning sympathizers, then we'll be under a dictatorship).
It is my strong belief that the GOP Senate will nuke the filibuster. I also believe that they will push through some form of National Voter ID Law that creates incredibly undue burden on traditionally democratic voting blocs. I also believe that they will fill the courts with judges that will support these disenfranchisement attempts. The culmination of these simple acts ensures a one-party stranglehold on the federal government for years to come, and allows them to start making inroads on traditionally blue state and local races.
What makes you believe they will not follow this plan, or some plan like it?
You're close but what will actually happen is the Democratic Party will drift rightward to stay competitive. Midwestern whites are about to be the Belle of the Ball
"We just need a true conservative!" is just as foolish when you replace "conservative" with "liberal."
The problem is that many Democrats equate 'centrist' with 'corporatist.' Applying that lens to the problem, we sure as hell do need a more liberal candidate.
Donald promised his voters he would punish their enemies.
So did Bernie Sanders.
Clearly, the take away here is that we need a candidate that will promise to literally destroy Wall Street and jail every member of the GOP!
If the electoral college hands over the presidency to Hillary after Trump won fair and square, then it clearly means laws don't matter anymore so just grab an AR-15 and kill as many liberals in positions of power as you can and maybe the country can still be saved from such blatant corruption.
The flaw in this logic is that, by law, electors can vote however they damn well please.
"We just need a true conservative!" is just as foolish when you replace "conservative" with "liberal."
The problem is that many Democrats equate 'centrist' with 'corporatist.' Applying that lens to the problem, we sure as hell do need a more liberal candidate.
Donald promised his voters he would punish their enemies.
So did Bernie Sanders.
Clearly, the take away here is that we need a candidate that will promise to literally destroy Wall Street and jail every member of the GOP!
Quick: who said the sentence "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred"? Donald Trump?
FDR
It's pretty clear, from the election results, that Obama's most costly mistake was not pursuing (worse: not even trying to pursue) legal criminal action against bankers. You don't need to nuke Wall Street, you don't even need to really want anyone jailed, but you have to take action against people responsible not for a little fuckup, but for the greatest economical disaster since the Great Depression. And then Clinton is perceived (perhaps rightly) as being smooch-smooch with Goldman Sachs?
so there were rumblings of uprisings if hillary won the election
what do you think will happen if the electoral college hands it to her two months after the fact?
Seriously, we can't do that thing. Trump was talking up the system being rigged if she'd won fair and square, and people wan't a small group of individuals to unilaterally hand her the presidency that he was democratically elected to?
Fucking get real people. We can't do this thing.
This is one important reason why the electoral college exists
Just because it has not been used before does not mean it cannot be used now. We could totally do this thing now.
I'd rather have a civil war than extinction via global warming because a madman disabled everything we were doing to fix it. Not that I actually think civil war would happen. Or that we will do this.
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
I can easily picture it. Say, a Sanders vs Trump trace where Bernie just barely clings onto the rust belt but gets big turnout against him in deep red states. This was a close race both in EC and popular vote totals
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
If the electoral college hands over the presidency to Hillary after Trump won fair and square, then it clearly means laws don't matter anymore so just grab an AR-15 and kill as many liberals in positions of power as you can and maybe the country can still be saved from such blatant corruption.
The flaw in this logic is that, by law, electors can vote however they damn well please.
Sometimes I wish a motherfucker would
Sometimes a motherfucker does.
1 – 2000 election: Washington, D.C. Elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes as a protest of Washington D.C.'s lack of voting congressional representation.[10]
+3
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.
Posts
I don't think this is mathematically possible.
I'm pretty sure there's no theoretical where someone wins the popular vote but loses the EC without a massive number of votes in the country's urban centers. A GOP nominee cannot achieve that with the current national demographics.
*edit* Losing the EC but winning the popular vote is going to remain a strictly Democratic phenomenon so long as the cities are overwhelmingly blue.
The combination of that and the Clinton's campaign cavalier disregard for Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin? If you can't make people vote for you in Wisconsin after six years of Scott Walker then you have to admit Clinton is also to blame for not reaching out to more people.
That the R congress would be so angry that they'd ratify its expulsion. And all of the Trump supporters would be screaming themselves red to get it gone.
Like I said - idealistic.
It was meant as a hypothetical thought exercise. If the situation was reversed, nobody in here would be calling for faithless electors handing the election to Trump.
Liberals being smug and not conciliatory enough, didn't you hear?
THE ELECTION WAS COMPETITIVE
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/
It's not like New York or California went for Trump. If one out of 100 Trump voters went for Hillary, she would have won.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
Among the groups that consider it already a center-right party, it isn't a change at all I guess.
In the real world, backing down on trade and whispering BLM instead of yelling it doesn't make them a functional equivalent to the GOP even if it is a shitburger I don't want to eat
I 100 percent would want Hilary to concede or have then electors give it to him.
More so than now actually since I wouldn't worry about violence.
This thread grows more absurd by the hour.
You're a more principled man than I, then.
Hey, if I'm wrong... groovy! We all win!
But if I'm right... well, none of us actually want to live in that world. Again. I wouldn't be imagining if there weren't some historical precedent.
This election was played under 2016 rules. 2020 rules are going to be a lot worse.
It's also 3rd term party apathy, which is neither new nor not complicated, just disappointing.
But the situation isn't reversed and that is not some random accident. The American system of government is designed to protect white interests, especially rural white interests, and this is a particularly galling example
I'd like to believe that I'd feel the same about demolishing the EC in that theoretical, but we'll never know for sure, will we?
Oh lord, I hope not.
I just really think that majority rule works the best.
You're missing the point.
The problem is that many Democrats equate 'centrist' with 'corporatist.' Applying that lens to the problem, we sure as hell do need a more liberal candidate.
I feel this may be a bit dark, even for me. Trump didn't win by that much, and he won't be able to enact voter suppression in enough states or roll back demographic change to prevent any other democratic presidents. While the numbers of white voters weren't as low as we thought,
National voter ID law is actually contrary to what they want, because that would create a set of guidelines people could actually follow and then say "My ID is in accordance with your regulations. You must allow me to vote". While getting people their ID's would be a challenge, meeting a real set of known guidelines would be something charity groups could achieve in red states, and just acts of the state government could achieve in blue ones.
No, what we'll see is a doubling down of allowing 'the states to decide without guideline'. Which is very effective, but not the end of the road since the key 4 states trump swung to him don't have solid enough republican authoritarian regimes to enact completely disenfranchising regulations.
One of us is
1) All (most?) of our assumptions were wrong. We thought WI, MI, and PA were safe. We thought we had a better-than-average shot at FL and NC. That wasn't true, and we need to figure out why. (We also lost 1 EV in ME)
2) Was voter turnout down overall, or was voter turnout only down in WI, MI, PA, FL, and NC? What caused it? Why?
My take right now (and I've said this a dozen times already in this thread) was that HRC was the wrong candidate not because of her policy, but because of her presentation. The electorate wanted a firebrand, someone they could rally to. They wanted another Obama, another charismatic orator. They wanted someone to point out the flaws, but promise hope and change. They wanted somebody that wasn't part of the problems they saw, they wanted somebody who wasn't already part of the Washington establishment.
They wanted anger, fire, and soundbites. Slogans that promise action.
We did none of those things. We fielded a steady candidate that promised more of the same, and people weren't interested in that. They wanted something new and exciting.
I think we need to embrace that new and exciting bit. Maybe we need to sell a president like a blockbuster film. Maybe they don't need to be the best politician, but somebody more akin to... something like an inspirational speaker. Somebody you want to lead the charge, somebody who looks like they can physically promise action.
A lot of these are assumptions, a lot of these are guesses drawn from what I've seen of Obama and Trump versus Clinton. I'm not saying the media coverage she got was warranted, but it came from somewhere. I don't think we can fight the RNC and the media and win.
Agree. The question is why wasn't all that disqualifying? Is it because Republicans will elect an inanimate carbon rod, or is it because all that shit only further stirred up the RNC base? He used bombastic language, he was a firebrand, he promised change and told the electorate that it wasn't their fault, that it was the terrorists, that it was the immigrants, that it was the establishment. "I am not one of them! I will make america great again!" "Only I can fix." That spoke to Republican voters; being a "racist, misogynist, xenophobic, unqualified, childish, corrupt, and proudly-ignorant liar surrounded by conspiracy theorists" didn't matter at all to them.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Eh, I'm not perfect.
The flaw in this logic is that, by law, electors can vote however they damn well please.
Donald promised his voters he would punish their enemies.
So did Bernie Sanders.
Clearly, the take away here is that we need a candidate that will promise to literally destroy Wall Street and jail every member of the GOP!
that's different
it's not actually different
but that's electors upholding their duty in the face of a rigged system, you see
Yes you would be imagining it because you're losing your shit
When Hitler was elected he passed an act after two months that essentially closed the Legislative. Germany had lost a World War and had faced hyperinflation. In 1932 unemployment was 32%.
When Salvador Allende was deposed he (I'm trying to be as neutral as I can) presided over economic chaos and a much more divided nation than present USA
When Mussolini rose to power the Italian oligarchy had led the people to the disaster of Caporetto over nothing.
1950's rules were worse than that, and still the Civil Rights movement was born.
If you're giving up on the 2020 elections on 2016, you're throwing the towel early
No. She didn't. She won the popular vote. One of the the reasons we even have an Electoral College was designed to prevent dangerously unqualified candidates from becoming president.
Like, the whole reason we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy is so that representatives can put the brakes on when an uninformed mob makes a terrible, terrible decision.
I'm not giving up. I'm formulating a plan to fight for voters that we are going need because the laws are going to favor them.
Karl Franz 2020?
Sometimes I wish a motherfucker would
Quick: who said the sentence "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred"? Donald Trump?
It's pretty clear, from the election results, that Obama's most costly mistake was not pursuing (worse: not even trying to pursue) legal criminal action against bankers. You don't need to nuke Wall Street, you don't even need to really want anyone jailed, but you have to take action against people responsible not for a little fuckup, but for the greatest economical disaster since the Great Depression. And then Clinton is perceived (perhaps rightly) as being smooch-smooch with Goldman Sachs?
This is one important reason why the electoral college exists
Just because it has not been used before does not mean it cannot be used now. We could totally do this thing now.
I'd rather have a civil war than extinction via global warming because a madman disabled everything we were doing to fix it. Not that I actually think civil war would happen. Or that we will do this.
I can easily picture it. Say, a Sanders vs Trump trace where Bernie just barely clings onto the rust belt but gets big turnout against him in deep red states. This was a close race both in EC and popular vote totals
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Sometimes a motherfucker does.
1 – 2000 election: Washington, D.C. Elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast no electoral votes as a protest of Washington D.C.'s lack of voting congressional representation.[10]
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.