Catch Me Now I'm Falling
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
I've said the same as the conclusion. There needs to be a credible opposition. One based on identity politics and feelings won't get it done. The Dems need a rapid shift or we can welcome a Republican super majority.
Agree. Color me cynical, but I haven't lost faith in McConnell, Ryan, and their ilk to f'k up a good thing.
We have Donald Trump for President. Take your personal feelings about him out of the mix and think about how dysfunctional the Republican Party is for that to happen.
Since the 2008 election the GOP has a net gain of 63 seats in the House, a gain of 11 seats in the Senate and a gain of 11 in Governors. These do not include the massive swing in the state legislatures and other local races to the GOP.
Yep, looks a Democrat super majority.
All this with a dysfunctional GOP...thanks, JB.
Yep, looks a Democrat super majority.
All this with a dysfunctional GOP...thanks, JB.
The thing to remember with Trump too is that he didn't win a majority of the popular vote, he didn't even win a plurality of the popular vote. Yes, he won the electoral college but his election was far from any type of landslide or a mandate.
With that said, I think both parties have their strengths and weaknesses right now in terms of electoral strength. I don't see either establishing some super majority anytime soon.
Again, I'm not a fan of Trump. I could care less about the popular vote, it's a nice Trivial Pursuit question but that's about it. "Mandates" are a label that politicians use when they are having a temper tantrum or to confuse stupid people.
If people would stop putting so much emphasis on political parties, we'd all be better off.
Well, if one is going to claim that a party is establishing some type of super majority, then the popular vote does matter as does margins of victory, etc.
We haven't seen a landslide presidential election since 1988. Congress has also bounced back and forth over the past three decades. We are no where close to the political dominance we saw from the Republican Party after the Civil War or the Democratic Party's dominance following the 1932 election.
If anything, your viewpoint regarding political parties is growing stronger instead of any type of super majority for one of the political parties.
A super majority is something that matters in the House and Senate.
If you wanted to use it in Presidential applications, the supper majority would be half the Electoral College plus one. Which Trump has plus some.
Technically, Hillary Clinton doesn't have any votes. You vote for the delegates you send to the Collage, not the actual candidate.
If you wanted to use it in Presidential applications, the supper majority would be half the Electoral College plus one. Which Trump has plus some.
Technically, Hillary Clinton doesn't have any votes. You vote for the delegates you send to the Collage, not the actual candidate.
A super majority (in terms of the presidency) would be a strong majority in the popular vote and an electoral college total of 400+.
Clinton won the popular vote. I know this pains some people to admit but nevertheless, it is the case. Trump won the electoral college and until we abolish the electoral college (one can only hope), that is how one obtains the White House.
Still, if we were observing some super majority developing for the Republicans, Trump would not have lost the popular vote by 2%.
There's not a single thing correct in this post. Not one item.
The definition of a political majority the the most votes. A political super majority is half the total number of votes plus one.
In the House and Senate a super majority is colloquially defined as enough votes to induce cloture, over-ride a veto, impeachment items, constitutional measures, etc. There's no such animal in the presidential arena.
The popular vote is a media creation not part of how the government operates. It doesn't have a stake in the game. You vote for electoral delegates, not presidential candidates.
I agree with this.
I disagree agree with this. When looking at political trends, the popular vote does matter. If a party is establishing political dominance, they aren't going to be losing the popular vote in a presidential election.
Yes, we elect Presidents with the flawed electoral college. However, we are not discussing how we elect Presidents. We are discussing the observation of political trends.
Popular Vote = participation trophy.
Your choice if you want to pretend you won something. But don't get mad at anyone else because they are only interested in the actual results.
Your choice if you want to pretend you won something. But don't get mad at anyone else because they are only interested in the actual results.
the dems keep alluding to popular vote as if it means anything
it's as if they keep saying how great this fart smells and folks eventually start commenting yea that sulfuric demon gas sure clears the sinuses. what a wonderful melting of the nasal cavity
it's as if they keep saying how great this fart smells and folks eventually start commenting yea that sulfuric demon gas sure clears the sinuses. what a wonderful melting of the nasal cavity
Again, I am simply discussing political trends. One can't ignore the popular vote in a discussion about political trends.
Trumps a Democrat in Republican clothing. Not even sure off hand what political party he belonged to when he posted that. Not sure it's the winner response you think it is.
Are you aware that California and New York have a combined 4 Senator's? 4%
Are you aware of who turns out "more" during off Presidential election year cycles?
Are you aware that voter turnout in swing states in 2016 was generally higher?
"turnout was higher in competitive states — most of which Trump won. In the 14 swing states — those where either the winning party in the presidential race switched from 2012 or where the margin was within 5 percentage points — an average of 65.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. In the other 36 states and Washington, D.C., turnout averaged just 56.3 perc"
You're awarding labels with no support from any meaningful statistics.
Sure you can. The only trends matter are on a state level, not the aggregation of a popular vote. That's how our government actually works.
You win certain swing states, you win the presidential election.
You win federal elections for each state's Senate and House seats, you control that chamber.
Popular vote doesn't mean squat.
There's been turnover in Republican leadership.
Is a leadership of Nancy Pelosi D- San Francisco and Chuck Schumer D-New York evidence that the Democratic Party is in touch with much outside of the bluest of blue?
You want the pendulum to swing back? Offer a balanced platform. Don't double down on the fringe.
so what?
oh wait you mean trump says outlandish bombastic cacaphony yep you are right
so what
call him potus
Hillary garnered more votes than Trump, that can't be denied. I don't know the answer, maybe you do: of the total number of people eligible to vote in this country what percentage actually voted? Isn't it usually less than half?
So taking out the 3 million illegal voters out of that puts in roughly in the 52-53% and change territory.
I'm not good at math but that's like 500 million people that did not vote for Hillary.
From 538. Segmented into competitive vs non competitive states:
"turnout was higher in competitive states — most of which Trump won. In the 14 swing states — those where either the winning party in the presidential race switched from 2012 or where the margin was within 5 percentage points — an average of 65.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. In the other 36 states and Washington, D.C., turnout averaged just 56.3 perc"
"turnout was higher in competitive states — most of which Trump won. In the 14 swing states — those where either the winning party in the presidential race switched from 2012 or where the margin was within 5 percentage points — an average of 65.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. In the other 36 states and Washington, D.C., turnout averaged just 56.3 perc"
So Hillary got 50.1% of 54.6% of all possible voters, correct? Care to analyze any significance that implies? Does it in any way diminish the argument that H won the popular vote?
Remember in 2014 after the Senate changed to the GOP and the House increased it's GOP seats, Obama claimed that he had a mandate on behalf of "those who didn't vote". Trump can easily say the same only he likely has the support of more of those who didn't vote than Obama ever dreamed of having.
Mandate is a term politicians use when they know their policy blows and can't stand on it's own merits.
There's literally zero argument that Hillary won the popular vote.
Care to run your statistics on swing states where her percentage will be <50% of the 60%+ votes cast by eligible voters?
I'm not the one you're arguing with.
I was just trying to be helpful regarding voter turn out.
So you're saying that like virtually everything else about Hillary Clinton even the argument that she won the popular vote is a big fat lie? Why does that not surprise me?
