• 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!

TV Talking Heads Confidently Predict a ‘Landslide’ Victory for Hillary

This election was about change and the media never acknowledged that because Hillary would have changed 0.

This election was about "who would suck less?" period. Trump got less votes than any president going back to the 2000 election. He got less than Romney did in 2012. Less than McCain in 08. Not very much more than Kerry in 04. 08 was a change election where the president got 8 million more votes than anyone ever has in the history of the country.

Trump won, he gets to set the agenda and talk the talk, but this wasn't some huge ground swell of hope and change. Even here in louisiana there are some people that are so excited Trump was elected but even more that are sitting around going "well what was I supposed to do? Vote for Hillary? I didn't have a choice!"
 
I don't think the popular vote matters all that much when nearly half the people of voting age don't vote. What the popular vote says is that 23.86% of voting age Americans thought Hillary would be a better president. By that same metric the vote says that 23.77% of voting age Americans thought Trump would be a better president. Forgive me if I don't put much value on the difference in the popular vote.

The demographic information derived from our voting system can serve to point out who isn't taking our form of government serious.

Either one votes, regardless of age, race, etc, or they don't. There is a consequence from not participating. If people don't vote, then they removed themselves from the right to bitch, in my humble opinion. Or lose the right to whine because they think the elected officials who is holding a seat isn't representing their interests - might well have not been elected if every eligible voter participated. Who the hell knows?

So, I guess I have to ask you how does the electoral system better serve our voting system than the popular vote, in your opinion?
 
The polls weren't totally wrong. Most polls were focused on responses from sample populations of people - and didn't factor in the electoral college impact. Trump did lose the popular vote.

Even the state polls were mostly wrong in some of the blue states. The most accurate local pollsters were by a Republican pollster and dismissed because they were "Republican" pollsters. The two most accurate national polls were the ones that pollsters castigated because they were so different than the traditional pollsters. Trump only lost the popular vote by .2%. That is a statistical tie.
 
Because it had nothing to do with what I said.

YOU said the polls weren't totally wrong because of the "popular vote." I said that even if Hillary pulls out a larger popular vote count, it won't be anything like the margin predicted by the polls, and so far, it's within the margin of error.

Everything you said after that has little to do with it.

What margin of error related to what poll(s) have you decided are correct? The margin of error element is worthless in today's polling methods.

I'm pointing out that our systems of polling today obviously don't make the cut in predicting accurate outcomes that are within margin of errors, and for probably a lot of reasons. Pollers methods have, and are changing, because there's too much evidence that something's wrong in Denmark. The population sampling process used to formulate outcomes isn't working out with any reasonable accuracy.

And I'm not referencing the outcomes from a perceived number of votes that'll be received in the end. Only the likelihood of one candidate or the other having been predicted to have an advantage over the other within a given demographic. In this case "an advantage" translates into one having the potential to receive more votes than the other.
 
What margin of error related to what poll(s) have you decided are correct? The margin of error element is worthless in today's polling methods.

A tenth of a percent is within the margin of error for almost anything; it's certainly within the margin of error for 120 million votes.

The point is, being within the margin of error, she may not have actually gotten MORE votes. There certainly is NO significance to her having received more "popular vote" if it's so close you can't even be 100% sure she did.

All of you who are touting it seem to think it's more significant than it is.
 
A tenth of a percent is within the margin of error for almost anything; it's certainly within the margin of error for 120 million votes.

The point is, being within the margin of error, she may not have actually gotten MORE votes. There certainly is NO significance to her having received more "popular vote" if it's so close you can't even be 100% sure she did.

All of you who are touting it seem to think it's more significant than it is.

Based on an electoral college system...right?

In a popular vote system, then what we witnessed this election would be a statistical tie that would force another election. A tie breaker, if you will. Are people being too lazy to want that form of election process? That might force people to participate like they should - if we were going to continue to maintain a Republic form of government. That's our role in our system of government. We the people are what makes our check and balance system workable in its form.

What's the need for an electoral college system?
 
Obama is contemplating a way to pardon Hillary before he leaves office.

There's the problem.

Your candidate shouldn't have to be pardoned.

LOL

He could do a blanket pardon but it would have to be worded something like "anything she ever did in her life that was illegal" to cover her. Then he would have to give one to Bill and Chelsea Clinton and the entire management staff of the Clinton Foundation and "Stronger To Get Her" Campaign.
 
Based on an electoral college system...right?

No. Right now. November 10th, 2016 -- some theoretical "lead" in the "popular vote" means absolutely nothing when you can't even be sure that lead even exists.

In a popular vote system, then what we witnessed this election would be a statistical tie that would force another election. A tie breaker, if you will. Are people being too lazy to want that form of election process? That might force people to participate like they should - if we were going to continue to maintain a Republic form of government. That's our role in our system of government. We the people are what makes our check and balance system workable in its form.

What's the need for an electoral college system?

Yeah, well, you're pointing out a nightmare scenario which the country was saved from in 2000 BECAUSE of the Electoral College. The so-called "popular vote" was close enough that it, too, would have triggered a recount, and as bad as the recount was confined entirely to FL, a national recount scenario would have been the stuff of post-apocalyptic movies.

The EC was a very good thing in 2000.
 
This election was about "who would suck less?" period. Trump got less votes than any president going back to the 2000 election. He got less than Romney did in 2012. Less than McCain in 08. Not very much more than Kerry in 04. 08 was a change election where the president got 8 million more votes than anyone ever has in the history of the country.

Trump won, he gets to set the agenda and talk the talk, but this wasn't some huge ground swell of hope and change. Even here in louisiana there are some people that are so excited Trump was elected but even more that are sitting around going "well what was I supposed to do? Vote for Hillary? I didn't have a choice!"

You say that and then jump to number of votes? That makes no sense, And this election was about, before Trump was the nominee, the same old with Hillary or Republican economics and a tough foreign policy. People showed they are disgusted with the establishment and wanted a change. They saw America turning into another country that ignores its citizens like the European countries do.

Whether Trump succeeds or not, he was elected because he said he will listen to the people, not the dickheads that tell us who we are and what we think.
 
LOL

It might help if your example were actually relative to the election.

If the tournament were based on cumulative points, the other teams would have nothing to scream about.

If your bowling team scored more points than the other team, but lost more matches, should the team with more points be victorious?

Yep, you're right. Our election process isn't designed to utilize an aggregate vote count as the deciding factor.

In an aggregate system, 200,000 votes out of 120,000 has the potential to change an outcome. How? Under an aggregate vote system, an election outcome considered to be a statistical tie would force a tiebreaker election. Is that just too inconvenient for we the people to decide by aggregate vote that one or another nominee has been picked by we the people, not a demographic system, which establishes to opportunity for political powers to manipulate at the micro level that impacts the macro level - significantly?

The polling methods used obviously can't accurately make predictions under this system. It's one thing to predict aggregate votes within a demographics, but it's entirely different when those votes translate into "an equivalency depiction" of an aggregate number that will be used as the deciding factor in making seat selections.

My point is that predicting outcomes becomes significantly less accurate - when attempting to formulate in the variable of the numbers of matches won or lost in order to publish an accurate prediction. And all we have to do is look at the history of the accuracy of polling methods used at all levels and demographics, which tells us that all that they amount to not much more than mind ****ing, used to influence given populations. And for varying reasons. It's a powerful way to mind **** people. People take these polls as serious as if their doctor tells them that they have cancer.
 
Really I wish the talking heads would just keep their pie holes shut!

We all would be a lot better off! :2razz:
 
You say that and then jump to number of votes? That makes no sense

There was no new excitement and groundswell of support for this huge "change" campaign you are making up. He got less votes than the guy that got crushed in 08. Let that really and truly sink in. Sure, some of his supporters are excited about change, but many many many of them are simply excited not to have Hillary in the whitehouse. If there was a huge movement for change you would expect him at the very least to get more votes than mr. establishment John McCain got 8 years ago while losing. I mean damn, if Hillary had won this election while losing the popular vote, and not only that, but getting less popular vote than any democrat going back to 2000, I'd laugh in their face if they tried telling me that this means there is a big movement and excitement about her policies or how shes going to continue the change that Obama started or other nonsense.
 
There was no new excitement and groundswell of support for this huge "change" campaign you are making up. He got less votes than the guy that got crushed in 08. Let that really and truly sink in. Sure, some of his supporters are excited about change, but many many many of them are simply excited not to have Hillary in the whitehouse. If there was a huge movement for change you would expect him at the very least to get more votes than mr. establishment John McCain got 8 years ago while losing. I mean damn, if Hillary had won this election while losing the popular vote, and not only that, but getting less popular vote than any democrat going back to 2000, I'd laugh in their face if they tried telling me that this means there is a big movement and excitement about her policies or how shes going to continue the change that Obama started or other nonsense.

More nonsense, what do you think elected Trump? Of course you Hillaryphiles helped it along by telling everyone how they feel and where they belong. Your liberal progressive rhetoric and shaming techniques are now a thing of the past. Time for you to get your head in the game and realize nobody tells an American citizen who he or she is, or how to think.
 

Even though you definitively lost that bet?

I've gotta be honest, I never actually expected you to honor it. But hey, I had to try. People have surprised me in the past.
 
More nonsense, what do you think elected Trump?

Not an excited mass of people. Because he barely got more votes than the guy that lost in 2004. You can keep spewing bull**** reasons and I'll keep telling you the truth. You are at best half right. Maybe half of the people that voted for Trump did so because they represented change they believed in and hoped for and wanted. The others did it because they thought there's no way he could be worse than Hillary and maybe possibly he won't be that bad.

As for the rest of what you said, regarding liberal rhetoric, Rush Limbaugh called and wants his rant back.
 
Not an excited mass of people. Because he barely got more votes than the guy that lost in 2004. You can keep spewing bull**** reasons and I'll keep telling you the truth. You are at best half right. Maybe half of the people that voted for Trump did so because they represented change they believed in and hoped for and wanted. The others did it because they thought there's no way he could be worse than Hillary and maybe possibly he won't be that bad.

As for the rest of what you said, regarding liberal rhetoric, Rush Limbaugh called and wants his rant back.

So you admit it is just rhetoric, and wonder why it has failed? It was not a rant just the fact that policies that try to make people think a certain way only works on sheep.

People need to obey the law and other people should not worry about how they feel while obeying those laws. Conservatives actually want equality more than progressives do.
 
The demographic information derived from our voting system can serve to point out who isn't taking our form of government serious.

Either one votes, regardless of age, race, etc, or they don't. There is a consequence from not participating. If people don't vote, then they removed themselves from the right to bitch, in my humble opinion. Or lose the right to whine because they think the elected officials who is holding a seat isn't representing their interests - might well have not been elected if every eligible voter participated. Who the hell knows?

So, I guess I have to ask you how does the electoral system better serve our voting system than the popular vote, in your opinion?

That's great and all that you have such a high horse from which to judge people, but just because someone decides not to choose to eat either **** or crap for breakfast doesn't mean they don't have a right to complain that everyone's breath stinks. I also wouldn't fault them for complaining about being hungry if those are the only two options presented to them. In the current system there is no meaningful difference between not voting and voting third party.
 
The polls weren't totally wrong. Most polls were focused on responses from sample populations of people - and didn't factor in the electoral college impact. Trump did lose the popular vote.

Everyone knows that it's the electoral college that counts. National polls are only useful as an approximation of what the electoral college vote will be.

Besides which, the final tally isn't in. Trump may well end up winning the popular vote, too.
 
Everyone knows that it's the electoral college that counts. National polls are only useful as an approximation of what the electoral college vote will be.

Besides which, the final tally isn't in. Trump may well end up winning the popular vote, too.

I understand the EC.process.

Should Trump wind up getting the popular vote simply validates that his winning wasn't because of anger by his supporters , but a misplaced sense of entitlement. One that's been going on too ****in long.
 
I understand the EC.process.

Should Trump wind up getting the popular vote simply validates that his winning wasn't because of anger by his supporters , but a misplaced sense of entitlement. One that's been going on too ****in long.

is this sort of a convoluted way of saying you're upset Hillary lost?

The sense of entitlement was Hillary's main downfall. As one non-political person I know noted-the best thing about Trump winning was watching Hillary assume she was going to win only to have it ripped away from her
 
is this sort of a convoluted way of saying you're upset Hillary lost?

The sense of entitlement was Hillary's main downfall. As one non-political person I know noted-the best thing about Trump winning was watching Hillary assume she was going to win only to have it ripped away from her

Perhaps you misunderstand my comment. We had a choice between a person who has been a corrupt, deceptive liar throughout a 30 year span in public institutions and a narcissistic, bigoted, xenophobic corporate mogul where he's been in control of a totally non-democratic environment - a private institution - who has been equally corrupt and an obvious liar who wants to run our country like his business.

The irony is that the very people who are responsible for his winning are the very people who are the most disenfranchised and who the GOP have labeled as the leaches that have been sucking up vast amounts of our tax dollars.

Why?

The people that Trump called the forgotten and ignored people by the government...and that he is going to change that - are so ignorant that they believe him and that he will be their savior....are in for a huge awaking.

Wait for the demographics of voters to be published.
 
Back
Top Bottom