Can Hillary Still Win?

Page 4 of 28<1234567>Last »
November 25th, 2016 at 2:20:45 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 111
Posts: 12189
More Trump excitement, sales on Tgiving
and Black Friday have surged 13% over
last year. The media warned us for months
if Trump won people would be emptying
bank accounts and putting it under the
mattress for the coming recession. Are they
ever right about anything?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3969792/Black-Friday-sales-underway-stores-country.html
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
November 25th, 2016 at 4:37:54 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8890
Quote: Evenbob
Trump won PA by 70K. WI by 27K, and MI by 10K. These are not small numbers.


If Michigan and Wisconsin gave her the win, maybe it would be worth recounting. But she would still fall 12 ECV short. She would need to win Pennsylvania.

0.23% Michigan
0.93% Wisconsin
1.13% Pennsylvania
1.20% Florida
November 25th, 2016 at 4:48:03 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 111
Posts: 12189
Quote: Pacomartin
If Michigan and Wisconsin gave her the win,


WI did a recount a few years ago in
an off year election and there was
a 300 vote change. People forget
that recounts find votes for both
candidates that weren't counted,
so it's usually a wash. Most agree
this is a scam by the Green party
to raise money for the next election,
no recounts will be done.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
November 25th, 2016 at 4:48:50 PM permalink
stinkingliberal
Member since: Nov 9, 2016
Threads: 17
Posts: 731
There are a number of ways Hillary could win--however, they're all long shots. It appears that Jill Stein is going to provide the chance, though.

Al Gore probably would have won the Presidency had he persisted with the Supreme Court appeals. He decided to accept the results (as they appeared to be) for the good of the country. Hillary said much the same thing on Election Night--that for the good of the country, Trump's presidency should be accepted by the country.

You can contrast that with Trump's screeching that he wouldn't accept the results of the "rigged" election unless he won. If Hillary had won in the Electoral College (in addition to actually winning the election itself), Trump would be screaming for recounts in EVERY state and Tweeting the world about how zombie Mexicans or imaginary Muslims had stolen the election from him. Gore and Hillary have grace and decency. Trump doesn't even understand the concept.

Aside from the ugliness and horror of a Trump presidency, this whole mess shows what a stupid disaster the Electoral College is. Republicans want to retain it because it works in their favor. To them, with their utter lack of decency or morals, that matters more than that it's gotten the candidate who LOST elected twice in the last twenty years. If it favored Democrats, you can be sure that scum Republicans would be screaming for its abolition. You might see some revolt on the part of electors because of the growing dissatisfaction with the current dumb system. But that in itself wouldn't affect the election outcome--Trump not getting 270 would just send it to the House, a cesspool of Trump toadies.

It WOULD be hilarious, though, to see a mass defection, with 100 or so electors voting for Donald Duck or Mike Pence (same thing) rather than go down in infamy as having directly contributed to Trump's ascendancy.
November 25th, 2016 at 4:53:56 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 111
Posts: 12189
Quote: stinkingliberal
There are a number of ways Hillary could win--however, they're all long shots. It appears that Jill Stein is going to provide the chance, though.
.


I thought you were done Stinking this
place up. Yeah, no, there's zero chance
that even if there are recounts they
will make a whit of difference. The whole
thing is an idiotic farce, Trump won be
24K votes in WI, they might find he really
won by 23K, big deal. But keep your hopes
up so we can pounce on you again when
the results are in.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
November 26th, 2016 at 5:58:57 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 103
Posts: 7145
Quote: stinkingliberal


You can contrast that with Trump's screeching that he wouldn't accept the results of the "rigged" election unless he won.


When did he say this? Could you please post a link?


Quote:
Aside from the ugliness and horror of a Trump presidency, this whole mess shows what a stupid disaster the Electoral College is. Republicans want to retain it because it works in their favor.


This is so amusing. For two years we have been listening to how Hillary had a built-in EC advantage and how Trump had some narrow path to victory because of all the "locks" the Democrats had. Now we are hearing the opposite.

This election shows how important the EC really is. Without it just a few machine-politic cities can engage in voter fraud and steal an election. Without it a whole class of people would be overlooked and ignored. The Founding Fathers were just plain awesome!
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
November 26th, 2016 at 9:57:34 AM permalink
stinkingliberal
Member since: Nov 9, 2016
Threads: 17
Posts: 731
It's very telling that the Republicans don't actually believe in democracy. They think that people whom they don't like should have a lesser voice, or no voice at all. So they engage in voter suppression, gerrymandering, massive voter fraud (it's really rich that they accuse Democrats of that--I guess it's the little-kid tactic of deflecting attention from your own bad deeds by accusing someone else), and set up a rigged system to ensure that Republican votes count for more than Democratic ones.

The candidate who gets the most votes should win the election (any election). That's simple, basic, and fair. If you support some other interpretation, you don't believe in democracy, you're not really an American, and you're a partisan idiot and douchebag to boot.
November 26th, 2016 at 10:11:03 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 103
Posts: 7145
Quote: stinkingliberal
It's very telling that the Republicans don't actually believe in democracy. They think that people whom they don't like should have a lesser voice, or no voice at all. So they engage in voter suppression, gerrymandering, massive voter fraud (it's really rich that they accuse Democrats of that--I guess it's the little-kid tactic of deflecting attention from your own bad deeds by accusing someone else), and set up a rigged system to ensure that Republican votes count for more than Democratic ones.


How does gerrymandering affect the POTUS election? What voter suppression are you talking about?

Quote:
The candidate who gets the most votes should win the election (any election). That's simple, basic, and fair. If you support some other interpretation, you don't believe in democracy, you're not really an American, and you're a partisan idiot and douchebag to boot.


The candidate with the most votes will win the election.

Trump 306
Clinton 232
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
November 26th, 2016 at 10:31:37 AM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: AZDuffman
How does gerrymandering affect the POTUS election? What voter suppression are you talking about?



The candidate with the most votes will win the election.

Trump 306
Clinton 232


Oh come now, that's intellectually dishonest. You and I both know that the candidate with the most ballots cast doesn't win the election in this case (or others). There's reasons why of course. You also know full well that the EC does not have to be winner takes all in each state, and the founding fathers did NOT legislate that.

The EC is a system born out of the difficulty and distance involved in the 1770's of doing a nationwide election on a full count. Send reps from each state and decide from there. It's an indirect democracy. Many countries have a system that does this, and it does result in a definitive result (most of the time), which is useful in the case of the leader (like the president). It's not so good for a multi-seat assembly. But we aren't debating the districting system or the senator system. The former is kinda of strange with the weird boundaries and oddities that exist.

The EC does have a problem where the voting power in one state is three times that in another state. 500,000 people vote per EC seat in California versus 142,000 in Wyoming. That means a vote gained in Wyoming is almost three times more powerful than in California (due to the EC being set by 2 + representatives.. small population states get a proportionally bigger say in the president than large population states).

That's odd, and nothing to do with stopping 'big populations hijacking the vote'. Direct democracy is about majority voting. I think we've seen in this election that you CAN leverage the rural and sub-urban vote effectively and find a path.

StinkingLiberal is wrong in any case in any three (or more) party system... simple majority is not actually always fair (see the Arrow Paradox), because it depends on what the definition of fair is. Is it to pick the most popular first choice? The least unliked? The one with broadest general appeal? Ranking and head-to-head counts will all bring out a different result in closer runs. That said, an either/or system still makes a lot of sense to me for the US President.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
November 26th, 2016 at 10:58:18 AM permalink
stinkingliberal
Member since: Nov 9, 2016
Threads: 17
Posts: 731
Quote: TheCesspit
Oh come now, that's intellectually dishonest. You and I both know that the candidate with the most ballots cast doesn't win the election in this case (or others). There's reasons why of course. You also know full well that the EC does not have to be winner takes all in each state, and the founding fathers did NOT legislate that.
That said, an either/or system still makes a lot of sense to me for the US President.


Well, Trumpers have to be intellectually dishonest to be Trumpers (in addition to employing doublethink and cognitive dissonance), and Republicans have to be intellectually dishonest to twist themselves into some kind of silly argument to support the continuing existence of the EC. The Trumpers here and elsewhere are capering and gibbering because the EC enabled their man to win. In their polluted minds, that consideration trumps all others, such as fairness or the values of democracy.

I was only talking about a head to head contest, and I'm aware of the problems inherent in a three or more-candidate election. I can't imagine any rational argument, though, for saying that even when one candidate gets more votes, the other one should win anyway because he got the right KIND of votes. What that means, and what the EC does, is that some votes count more than others, as you pointed out. That is fundamentally wrong in what is supposedly a pluralistic democracy. There's no getting around that basic consideration. When a beer-swilling cowboy in Wyoming's vote counts for three times the vote of a secretary in California, the system has a fundamental flaw.

Of course, the Trumpers here think that that is what's wonderful about the system. Aside from the fact that the system got their goon elected this time (and GWB earlier), the EC discounts the votes of the lesser breeds who live in the big cities. And taking away the voting power of the inferior types gives Republicans--and Trumpers--orgasms.
Page 4 of 28<1234567>Last »