Taro T Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Would it be clearer to state that 54% (a majority) of all votes cast for president were for somebody other than Trump? That might be clear, but 1st, Tiberiod has never stated anything factual clearly, and 2nd, it would also be clear that a majority (~52%) of all votes cast for President were for somebody other than Madame Secretary. The mental midget claimed the D's flag bearer won a majority of votes cast. She did not.
row_33 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Would it be clearer to state that 54% (a majority) of all votes cast for president were for somebody other than Trump? who got to 270+ electoral college votes is all that matters Hillary should have visited Wisconsin, maybe Putin did a jedi mindcloud thing on her and the DNC to keep her away
K-9 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 That might be clear, but 1st, Tiberiod has never stated anything factual clearly, and 2nd, it would also be clear that a majority (~52%) of all votes cast for President were for somebody other than Madame Secretary. The mental midget claimed the D's flag bearer won a majority of votes cast. She did not. I'm not gonna get between a pissing match among anybody here and Hillary Clinton is history. What Trump and others in high government places seem to forget is that 54% of all votes cast were cast for somebody else and a good politician would recognize the importance of that statistic. You can't act like you have a mandate when you have the farthest thing from that and his total lack of even attempting to reach out to that 54% and who that represents is reprehensible, if not stupid.
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Since when is 48.2% a majority? When it is compared to 46% and you throw the other 5.8% out. I'm not gonna get between a pissing match among anybody here and Hillary Clinton is history. What Trump and others in high government places seem to forget is that 54% of all votes cast were cast for somebody else and a good politician would recognize the importance of that statistic. You can't act like you have a mandate when you have the farthest thing from that and his total lack of even attempting to reach out to that 54% and who that represents is reprehensible, if not stupid. This. It will be his undue because he doesn't know how to deal. Well he thinks he knows how to deal.
K-9 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 who got to 270+ electoral college votes is all that matters Hillary should have visited Wisconsin, maybe Putin did a jedi mindcloud thing on her and the DNC to keep her away Clinton's ground game was ill conceived and poorly executed on top of that. 70,000 votes spread over PA, MI, and WI were the difference; 70,000 former democrat votes that Clinton and Co. somehow took for granted. But people need to get over Clinton; she's history. End of story. As for those 270 electoral votes gee, thanks for the civics lesson.
Taro T Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 I was wrong, I am so sorry. OK. I'm not gonna get between a pissing match among anybody here and Hillary Clinton is history. What Trump and others in high government places seem to forget is that 54% of all votes cast were cast for somebody else and a good politician would recognize the importance of that statistic. You can't act like you have a mandate when you have the farthest thing from that and his total lack of even attempting to reach out to that 54% and who that represents is reprehensible, if not stupid. No doubt politicians should remember that they represent ALL their constituents. The thing is, they tend to believe their plans/ solutions are correct & that since they are doing the right thing that they are acting on behalf of all their constiuents. Pretty sure that belief goes back as far as politicians getting elected goes. And remeber since the '88 election, only 1 person has gotten a majority of votes cast for President & neither time did that President crack 53%. Reagan is the last President that had a "mandate" IMHO (~45% more votes than the next guy & 97%+ of the EC). The past 5 were/are all leading a very divided nation.
row_33 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 I think I heard "THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE ROADMAP FOR TRUMP TO GET 270 ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES" about 1,500 times in the last two days and right up to about 1am that election night. So it kinda sinks in by time #1,000 for me.... The fun part was Pennsylvania held at 3% for 6 hours after closing trying to find a way to not have Trump winning the state easily. When the Dems gave their permission they FINALLY gave the truth on the state and she was all over but the crying. My choice for media bias was when Cuomo was righteously bounced by Pataki, even at 95% of the vote and Pataki ahead 53-45, they still put Cuomo as the probable winner.
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Clinton's ground game was ill conceived and poorly executed on top of that. 70,000 votes spread over PA, MI, and WI were the difference; 70,000 former democrat votes that Clinton and Co. somehow took for granted. But people need to get over Clinton; she's history. End of story. As for those 270 electoral votes gee, thanks for the civics lesson. Who's to say those 70k werent hacked via software. Yeah... Crazy I know... But it's out there. Like the Pats*, they are as clean as the driven snow. Right?
row_33 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 There is talk about internet ads trying to persuade minds that are up to change. Interesting theory, not sure how you can prove it actually works except to take election results and say that proves it.... I thought it was more that Hill's inner city voters didn't like her and wouldn't stand there for more than 2 minutes to vote, even less if it was raining.
K-9 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 OK. No doubt politicians should remember that they represent ALL their constituents. The thing is, they tend to believe their plans/ solutions are correct & that since they are doing the right thing that they are acting on behalf of all their constiuents. Pretty sure that belief goes back as far as politicians getting elected goes. And remeber since the '88 election, only 1 person has gotten a majority of votes cast for President & neither time did that President crack 53%. Reagan is the last President that had a "mandate" IMHO (~45% more votes than the next guy & 97%+ of the EC). The past 5 were/are all leading a very divided nation. The conflict between the bold text sentences speaks to the crux of the problem. It is delusional to think that your agenda applies to all of your constituents when you ignore that the majority of the electorate didn't vote for that agenda and that you are leading a fractured nation. Unfortunately, Trump is hopelessly out of his depth in that regard.
row_33 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Campaigns are run by a set of rules for who wins. There was no point for the GOP to campaign in NY or CA, and many voters probably stayed home thinking there was no point bothering to spend time in line. It was possibly more extreme this time around than others, to not visit a state that is up for grabs is poor planning, or arrogance.
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 There is talk about internet ads trying to persuade minds that are up to change. Interesting theory, not sure how you can prove it actually works except to take election results and say that proves it.... I thought it was more that Hill's inner city voters didn't like her and wouldn't stand there for more than 2 minutes to vote, even less if it was raining. I almost voted for Trump. I am blue collar and in Shillary's Blue firewall. Except the tire fire jumped over Illinois on it's way from Iowa to Pennsylvania. Because the rigging in Chicago out did the Russians?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Would it be clearer to state that 54% (a majority) of all votes cast for president were for somebody other than Trump? What would be clearer would be to state that the popular vote in a presidential election is MEANINGLESS.
Taro T Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 The conflict between the bold text sentences speaks to the crux of the problem. It is delusional to think that your agenda applies to all of your constituents when you ignore that the majority of the electorate didn't vote for that agenda and that you are leading a fractured nation. Unfortunately, Trump is hopelessly out of his depth in that regard. He is. & at a minimum the previous 2 were as well.
row_33 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 I almost voted for Trump. I am blue collar and in Shillary's Blue firewall. Except the tire fire jumped over Illinois on it's way from Iowa to Pennsylvania. Because the rigging in Chicago out did the Russians? In Canada we have 2 large parties (Lib and Cons) and a union/socialist thing (NDP) the Conservatives have never taken more than 5% of the votes in my riding in any election since I moved here in 1999. but I show up anyway and hold my nose and vote.
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Its alright. The afterbirth of this election (Trump's presidency) has been fun to watch. It's got to suck, and suck real bad, that your gal lost to a placenta with orange hair.
Doc Brown Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 What would be clearer would be to state that the popular vote in a presidential election is MEANINGLESS. Yeah. It is. My main beef against the Electoral College is a person's vote in Iowa means more than my vote in New York. However, each presidential candidate knows the playing field and it's up to them to run a campaign that gives them the best chance of winning the electoral college. Trump did a much better job of that and Hillary continued to show she has terrible judgment.
row_33 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 I hope she runs again and gets the living bag knocked out of her, losing even more states.
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 I hope she runs again and gets the living bag knocked out of her, losing even more states. Chomsky was right.
Recommended Posts