Trump vs Hillary 2016

Quote: rxwine

Poop in a bag. That's about what his mandate is worth.

46th most electoral votes out of 58 elections.

47th most popular votes out of the last 49 elections.

That's a heck of a mandate.

Quote: Dalex64

Seriously, the way you are trying to dismiss the California votes is ridiculous.

The point is, if it went to winner
take all as all the Left wants now,
it would be impossible to ever
have a Repub president again.
The Left nominated what was
the most flawed candidate in
over 100 years, and she still won
the popular vote. Imagine a
decent candidate, which by comparison
is almost anybody. A Repub would
never stand a chance. The EC was
invented for precisely the circumstances
we're in now.

Again, why do you think Obama and Reid
and Pelosi and Clinton want open borders.
To pick up millions of new Dem voters.

Quote: Dalex64

That's a heck of a mandate.

It's all a matter of opinion. I could post
5 sources that say he does and 5 that
say he doesn't.

Quote: AZDuffman

What is being pointed out is how few places having such huge support for Hillary drives her support. Showing how out of step CA is with the rest of the USA.

About 10% of her votes were from California. That means 90% of her support came from everywhere else.

That is out of step?

Quote: Evenbob

A Repub would
never stand a chance. The EC was
invented for precisely the circumstances
we're in now.

A funny part of this is how liberals often favor "cumulative voting." This is when you are to pick say 5 candidates of a field of say 13 for a city council. But to make sure they get the number of minorities they want they allow people to vote for only one person 5 times. In the early 1990s a Clinton appointee got axed for having this position, but a generation later it is happening in places.

Quote: Evenbob

The point is, if it went to winner
take all as all the Left wants now,
it would be impossible to ever
have a Repub president again.
The Left nominated what was
the most flawed candidate in
over 100 years, and she still won
the popular vote. Imagine a
decent candidate, which by comparison
is almost anybody. A Repub would
never stand a chance. The EC was
invented for precisely the circumstances
we're in now.

Again, why do you think Obama and Reid
and Pelosi and Clinton want open borders.
To pick up millions of new Dem voters.

Saying that if you remove California's votes, trump would have won the popular vote, does not make your point at all, nor does it do anything to support or refute the effectiveness or purpose of the electoral college.

I read the Federalist papers. I think it was #38 which discussed the reasoning behind the electoral college. It was to prevent a large group of people from electing a candidate with a plurality who had limited support everywhere else in the country. It wasn't about what state they were from, just a large group of people.

No more Republican presidents? Boo hoo! How terrible if someone was elected that more of the people actually wanted.

Yes, it is exactly why people are worried about losing the white majority. At that point, the new majority could start running the country the way that they wanted, in a way that was best for, wait for it, the majority of the people in this country.

Before that happens, though, there is a bigger problem - about half of the people who can vote, do not vote. With that kind of turn-out, how can you really know how most people would like to see the country run?

Quote: Dalex64

No more Republican presidents? Boo hoo!

That's exactly the attitude that immigrants
fled Europe from. Winner take all elections
were rife with fixing and cheating, making
it possible for one party or family to remain
in power for decades. It will never be that
way here. In fact, more states are looking
at winner take all inside the state for
presidential elections because it often
re-elects hacks like Harry Reid over and
over and over. They want to replace winner
take all with something more fair.

Quote: Dalex64

Before that happens, though, there is a bigger problem - about half of the people who can vote, do not vote. With that kind of turn-out, how can you really know how most people would like to see the country run?

Who cares if turnout is low? Most people don't have a clue what is going on or how government even works. Better they don't vote. Let them worry more who won the big game or what actress is cheating on her husband.

Quote: Evenbob

That's exactly the attitude that immigrants
fled Europe from. Winner take all elections
were rife with fixing and cheating, making
it possible for one party or family to remain
in power for decades. It will never be that
way here. In fact, more states are looking
at winner take all inside the state for
presidential elections because it often
re-elects hacks like Harry Reid over and
over and over. They want to replace winner
take all with something more fair.

And you would be happy if no Democrat were ever elected again, if a minority population group was able to tell everyone else what to do and how to live, and you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

Quote: Dalex64

And you would be happy if no Democrat were ever elected again, if a minority population group was able to tell everyone else what to do and how to live, and you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

I want whoever is president to look out
for us the people, and not have an agenda
driven by loony interest groups, like the
warmers, or the anti gun lobby. Who tries
to expand jobs, instead of kill them like
Obama did by regulating business to death.