• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What the election results mean

Reed95

Reed95

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2016
Messages
149
Reaction score
47
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Looking back to the surprising November 8th election results, there have been all kinds of statements, reviews, and declarations. They range from “ democrats detached from the reality of so many blue-collar working people suffering in pain”, to “fake news helped shaping the election results”, “new rules of politics”, … to “ backlash towards changes from past decades”.

But the truth is, on November 8, the majority of Americans chose Hillary Clinton ( 48.2% : 46.3% ) for the next POTUS. Trump won the election by winning the electoral votes ( 306 : 232 ).

A subset of American people, who happen to be in the “battle-ground” states, decided the election outcome for the entire country with their over- proportional power. That was what happened.

Here is a comparison. In 2000, Bush became President by winning the electoral votes 271 - 266. But Al Gore won the popular votes also just barely, 48.4% - 47.9%.

This time Hillary Clinton won American people’s support with a clear margin. Yet, Trump was imposed on the majority of Americans.

Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
 
Reed95 said:
Looking back to the surprising November 8th election results, there have been all kinds of statements, reviews, and declarations. They range from “ democrats detached from the reality of so many blue-collar working people suffering in pain”, to “fake news helped shaping the election results”, “new rules of politics”, … to “ backlash towards changes from past decades”.

But the truth is, on November 8, the majority of Americans chose Hillary Clinton ( 48.2% : 46.3% ) for the next POTUS. Trump won the election by winning the electoral votes ( 306 : 232 ).

A subset of American people, who happen to be in the “battle-ground” states, decided the election outcome for the entire country with their over- proportional power. That was what happened.

Here is a comparison. In 2000, Bush became President by winning the electoral votes 271 - 266. But Al Gore won the popular votes also just barely, 48.4% - 47.9%.

This time Hillary Clinton won American people’s support with a clear margin. Yet, Trump was imposed on the majority of Americans.

Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
Click to expand...

Congress has had over 200 years to address the electoral college. Now something's wrong? "If something's wrong, I suggest Congress fix it for next time.
 
Hillary did not appeal to enough populations in the U.S.... She had the cities down, but she left everyone else hanging...

The electoral college is a compromise of a democracy and a republic of states, it is meant to keep mob rule in check while at the same time giving everyone a voice. There is a reason we are named the United States of America, and not just America... The electoral college is there to make sure the concerns of the big states don't make the concerns of the smaller states completely obsolete NOR the concerns of the people living in the rural areas obsolete.

The people that the democrats alienated are the very people the electoral college tries to protect. It is working as intended.
 
Say what you want to about the election, but absolutely nobody can accurately claim that the will of the people was done. Hillary's lead is now over two million votes.
 
MaggieD said:
Congress has had over 200 years to address the electoral college. Now something's wrong? "If something's wrong, I suggest Congress fix it for next time.
Click to expand...

In the two party system, one party always comes out on top, and the party that wins generally does not want to fix the system.
 
Reed95 said:
Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …
Click to expand...

I agree, something is wrong. What's wrong is the kook left being unable to come to terms they lost. Now, as MaggieD pointed out, we've survived 200+ years with the EC, it's there for a reason and that reason in part is, to give smaller states a voice and preventing larger states from running the show.

DJT will be sworn in, leftists will have to either deal with it like adults, or run for their crying rooms, safe spaces, or perhaps stock up on play doh. But, he will be president for the next four years. And, by all accounts, he will make a wonderful leader of all Americans, not just Wall St. and foreign donors like Globalist Granny would have been.

I'm looking forward to the next four years.
 
Reed95 said:
Looking back to the surprising November 8th election results, there have been all kinds of statements, reviews, and declarations. They range from “ democrats detached from the reality of so many blue-collar working people suffering in pain”, to “fake news helped shaping the election results”, “new rules of politics”, … to “ backlash towards changes from past decades”.

But the truth is, on November 8, the majority of Americans chose Hillary Clinton ( 48.2% : 46.3% ) for the next POTUS. Trump won the election by winning the electoral votes ( 306 : 232 ).

A subset of American people, who happen to be in the “battle-ground” states, decided the election outcome for the entire country with their over- proportional power. That was what happened.

Here is a comparison. In 2000, Bush became President by winning the electoral votes 271 - 266. But Al Gore won the popular votes also just barely, 48.4% - 47.9%.

This time Hillary Clinton won American people’s support with a clear margin. Yet, Trump was imposed on the majority of Americans.

Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
Click to expand...

Now that is a peculiar take on elections and democracy. Trump understood it was the EC that wins the prize and didn't frit energy on the wrong thing.
 
MaggieD said:
Congress has had over 200 years to address the electoral college. Now something's wrong? "If something's wrong, I suggest Congress fix it for next time.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of being adult or not. Some people just don't grow up.
 
Phys251 said:
Say what you want to about the election, but absolutely nobody can accurately claim that the will of the people was done. Hillary's lead is now over two million votes.
Click to expand...

I was on this train of thought as well but not anymore. After listening to Trump's Digital Director Brad Parscale on NPR this morning it's clear that Trump's team went after the electoral vote from the get go and did a good job of it. If popular vote decided the election I'm sure Trump's team would have campaigned much different. Would they have won it as well? I don't know but it would have been interesting.
 
Reed95 said:
Looking back to the surprising November 8th election results, there have been all kinds of statements, reviews, and declarations. They range from “ democrats detached from the reality of so many blue-collar working people suffering in pain”, to “fake news helped shaping the election results”, “new rules of politics”, … to “ backlash towards changes from past decades”.

But the truth is, on November 8, the majority of Americans chose Hillary Clinton ( 48.2% : 46.3% ) for the next POTUS. Trump won the election by winning the electoral votes ( 306 : 232 ).

A subset of American people, who happen to be in the “battle-ground” states, decided the election outcome for the entire country with their over- proportional power. That was what happened.

Here is a comparison. In 2000, Bush became President by winning the electoral votes 271 - 266. But Al Gore won the popular votes also just barely, 48.4% - 47.9%.

This time Hillary Clinton won American people’s support with a clear margin. Yet, Trump was imposed on the majority of Americans.

Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
Click to expand...

Nothings wrong, we've been electing Presidents this way for 200 years

And this was no anomaly either. The GOP has been cleaning the Democrats clocks for the last 6 years
 
Reed95 said:
Looking back to the surprising November 8th election results, there have been all kinds of statements, reviews, and declarations. They range from “ democrats detached from the reality of so many blue-collar working people suffering in pain”, to “fake news helped shaping the election results”, “new rules of politics”, … to “ backlash towards changes from past decades”.

But the truth is, on November 8, the majority of Americans chose Hillary Clinton ( 48.2% : 46.3% ) for the next POTUS. Trump won the election by winning the electoral votes ( 306 : 232 ).

A subset of American people, who happen to be in the “battle-ground” states, decided the election outcome for the entire country with their over- proportional power. That was what happened.

Here is a comparison. In 2000, Bush became President by winning the electoral votes 271 - 266. But Al Gore won the popular votes also just barely, 48.4% - 47.9%.

This time Hillary Clinton won American people’s support with a clear margin. Yet, Trump was imposed on the majority of Americans.

Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
Click to expand...

sounds like sore loser nonsense. "new rules"? LOL, its the Hillary fan boys and fluffers who think the popular vote actually means something.
 
Phys251 said:
Say what you want to about the election, but absolutely nobody can accurately claim that the will of the people was done. Hillary's lead is now over two million votes.
Click to expand...

yawn. lots of sheeple crammed into a few huge population centers voting as bots means very little given the GOP won the majority of states, congressional districts etc
 
Phys251 said:
Say what you want to about the election, but absolutely nobody can accurately claim that the will of the people was done. Hillary's lead is now over two million votes.
Click to expand...

The will of the people wanted neither. she got less than 30% of people who could vote. Obama had like 3 million more votes than she did... 4 years ago... that is the will of 3 million people that chose to abstain and leave it up to the electoral college.
 
Absentglare said:
In the two party system, one party always comes out on top, and the party that wins generally does not want to fix the system.
Click to expand...

In this case the losing party thought the EC was just fine days before the election...going as far as berating the eventual winning party.
 
Absentglare said:
In the two party system, one party always comes out on top, and the party that wins generally does not want to fix the system.
Click to expand...

And it's the same party over and over and over again. Not. Perhaps the left ought to have fixed it when they had a majority in Congress and their guy in the White House, right? We are not a democracy. We are a republic. Our electoral college is part of that definition difference. The will of five or six heavily populated states should not rule. We weren't built that way.

BUT want it to be thus? Where was the will to FIX IT?
 
azgreg said:
I was on this train of thought as well but not anymore. After listening to Trump's Digital Director Brad Parscale on NPR this morning it's clear that Trump's team went after the electoral vote from the get go and did a good job of it. If popular vote decided the election I'm sure Trump's team would have campaigned much different. Would they have won it as well? I don't know but it would have been interesting.
Click to expand...

Of course there is the question of how the election would have turned out without the EC. Nobody can say for sure.

But what we can say for sure is that Trump absolutely does not have an electoral mandate. In fact, only once since 1988 has a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote.

And you wonder why we keep hearing cries that this election was rigged?
 
Phys251 said:
Of course there is the question of how the election would have turned out without the EC. Nobody can say for sure.

But what we can say for sure is that Trump absolutely does not have an electoral mandate. In fact, only once since 1988 has a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote.

And you wonder why we keep hearing cries that this election was rigged?
Click to expand...

Your side insisted that was nonsense and that whatever the results, we should be accepting.

Whataboutit?
 
azgreg said:
I was on this train of thought as well but not anymore. After listening to Trump's Digital Director Brad Parscale on NPR this morning it's clear that Trump's team went after the electoral vote from the get go and did a good job of it. If popular vote decided the election I'm sure Trump's team would have campaigned much different. Would they have won it as well? I don't know but it would have been interesting.
Click to expand...
Not only would they of campaigned differently but voter turn out would of been different too. The winner take all electorial sustem isnt new. We all know how it works and if your a republican living in the north east.odds are you might as well not even waste.your time going to the polls and same can be said about a Democrat voter in Texas.

These threads for the most part are sour grapes because i sure didnt hear any democrats complaining about it before the election when they thought Trump only had 1 or 2 paths to victory in this system.

I will say i would like to see the states adapt how maine casts its votes. They award 1 point to each congressional district won and award 2 points to whoever wins the statewide majority. I think that system would encourage higher voter turnouts.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Reed95 said:
Looking back to the surprising November 8th election results, there have been all kinds of statements, reviews, and declarations. They range from “ democrats detached from the reality of so many blue-collar working people suffering in pain”, to “fake news helped shaping the election results”, “new rules of politics”, … to “ backlash towards changes from past decades”.

But the truth is, on November 8, the majority of Americans chose Hillary Clinton ( 48.2% : 46.3% ) for the next POTUS. Trump won the election by winning the electoral votes ( 306 : 232 ).

A subset of American people, who happen to be in the “battle-ground” states, decided the election outcome for the entire country with their over- proportional power. That was what happened.

Here is a comparison. In 2000, Bush became President by winning the electoral votes 271 - 266. But Al Gore won the popular votes also just barely, 48.4% - 47.9%.

This time Hillary Clinton won American people’s support with a clear margin. Yet, Trump was imposed on the majority of Americans.

Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Texans got more yards rushing and the most pass completions last week, but the Packers still won. I thought that was a huge injustice.

We have the electoral college so that large populous states will have a harder time imposing their will on smaller states. It worked remarkably well this time. The USA was never designed to be a pure democracy.
 
MaggieD said:
And it's the same party over and over and over again. Not. Perhaps the left ought to have fixed it when they had a majority in Congress and their guy in the White House, right? We are not a democracy. We are a republic. Our electoral college is part of that definition difference. The will of five or six heavily populated states should not rule. We weren't built that way.

BUT want it to be thus? Where was the will to FIX IT?
Click to expand...

Again, why would the left fix a quasi-rigged system that worked in their favor?

I feel like you didn't get my point. One party always wins the election, and that one party is not going to spend its limited political to fix the quasi-rigged system that helped empower them. It goes against their own self-interest.
 
WCH said:
In this case the losing party thought the EC was just fine days before the election...going as far as berating the eventual winning party.
Click to expand...

I don't think that characterization is accurate. I have always thought it strange that we have this EC abstraction layer between the voters and the president.
 
Reed95 said:
Looking back to the surprising November 8th election results, there have been all kinds of statements, reviews, and declarations. They range from “ democrats detached from the reality of so many blue-collar working people suffering in pain”, to “fake news helped shaping the election results”, “new rules of politics”, … to “ backlash towards changes from past decades”.

But the truth is, on November 8, the majority of Americans chose Hillary Clinton ( 48.2% : 46.3% ) for the next POTUS. Trump won the election by winning the electoral votes ( 306 : 232 ).

A subset of American people, who happen to be in the “battle-ground” states, decided the election outcome for the entire country with their over- proportional power. That was what happened.

Here is a comparison. In 2000, Bush became President by winning the electoral votes 271 - 266. But Al Gore won the popular votes also just barely, 48.4% - 47.9%.

This time Hillary Clinton won American people’s support with a clear margin. Yet, Trump was imposed on the majority of Americans.

Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
Click to expand...

What the election results mean is that Trump won, and we need to do much better in 2020.
 
Reed95 said:
Something is wrong here. Something is very wrong …

Also, about those new rules, I don’t think America will tolerate Trump’s ‘new rules’ much longer.
Click to expand...
California has a disproportional influence over the popular vote total? Is that what you're getting at?
 
MaggieD said:
Congress has had over 200 years to address the electoral college. Now something's wrong? "If something's wrong, I suggest Congress fix it for next time.
Click to expand...

DamnYankee said:
I agree, something is wrong. What's wrong is the kook left being unable to come to terms they lost. Now, as MaggieD pointed out, we've survived 200+ years with the EC, it's there for a reason and that reason in part is, to give smaller states a voice and preventing larger states from running the show.

DJT will be sworn in, leftists will have to either deal with it like adults, or run for their crying rooms, safe spaces, or perhaps stock up on play doh. But, he will be president for the next four years. And, by all accounts, he will make a wonderful leader of all Americans, not just Wall St. and foreign donors like Globalist Granny would have been.

I'm looking forward to the next four years.
Click to expand...

LowDown said:
Yeah, the Texans got more yards rushing and the most pass completions last week, but the Packers still won. I thought that was a huge injustice.

We have the electoral college so that large populous states will have a harder time imposing their will on smaller states. It worked remarkably well this time. The USA was never designed to be a pure democracy.
Click to expand...

Being too eager to defend Trump’s ‘winning’, you forgot to get your math and logic straight.

1. “We’ve had the EC system for over 200 years … “. That on its own is a laughable ground for argument.
2. “ so that large populous states will have a harder time imposing their will on smaller states “? Protecting small states like Florida, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina, Michigan? You do know they are all among the top 10 states by population, don’t you?
3. The math behind the divergence of popular votes and electoral votes is that the “battle-ground” states, like Florida, North Carolina, Michigan …, win or lose the election with a razor thin margin. In Michigan, for example, Clinton lost 47.3% - 47.6%. But with that 0.3% margin, they gave Trump all the 16 electoral votes. When you add all those “battle-ground” states up, you got this odd effect of people vs. electoral college.
4. So, what is the EC protecting? It is protecting the “battle-ground” states. Or, to be precise, it is protecting the people in those razor thin margins. They not only over-proportionally decide the election results for their states, but also for the entire country. It has nothing to do with “small” or “big”.

So, if you want to argue, argue for the real thing, with real argument. Just be careful what you wish for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom