CarnalK
November 15, 2016, 6:07pm
41
elucidator:
None of this would be a problem if we had decent and respectful politics. Like GeeDubya did in 2000, ruefully acknowledging that he failed the popular vote, and the Republicans committed themselves to centrism and respectful attention to the Dems.
But they didn’t, did they? “Mandate!”, they said. “The people have spoken!” they said.
Do you have a cite for that? I have a hard time believing the Republicans were beating the “mandate” drum in 2000.
My mistake, it was 2004. Good catch. The word was not used in 2000.
CarnalK
November 15, 2016, 6:38pm
43
But in 2004 Bush did win the popular vote.
Yes, dear, I know, I was here. I was wrong, and said so. You need more?
The EC is working just fine, and as intended. This question only ever comes up when the losers are looking for excuses and some"one" or some"thing" to blame for their candidate’s failure.
CarnalK
November 15, 2016, 7:35pm
46
elucidator:
Yes, dear, I know, I was here. I was wrong, and said so. You need more?
Well, sweetheart, I was just pointing out that your post didn’t work even if you substituted “2004” for “2000”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html
…“You have the same mandate whether it’s a close result or it isn’t. You’re the president of the United States, you have to act like the president of the United States,” Giuliani said on ABC’s “This Week.”…
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/rudy-giuliani-trump-mandate-231290
[Business Insider, 11/9/16]
Had enough?
(Sorry about the “dear” thing, force of habit…)
CarnalK
November 15, 2016, 8:00pm
48
Yeah, that’s enough since I didn’t realize I was apparently arguing Trump’s people didnt say he’s got a mandate. They clearly did say that so what the heck was I talking about?
The whole “mandate” thing is obviously silly posturing anyway. There’s nothing in the rulebooks about how much you win by decides how much of a president you’re allowed to be.
You’re right, just more bullshit. Long as nobody believes it, no harm done. Ah, the rub. Anyway, no hurt no foul.
Ballots still being counted…
From TIME
Clinton currently has 61,964,263 votes compared with Trump’s 60,961,967
As Americans’ votes continue to be counted, Hillary Clinton‘s lead over Donald Trump in the popular vote has grown to more than 1 million people.
According to the non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton currently has 61,964,263 votes compared with Trump’s 60,961,967…
In other news, from The Week , a House Republican may find himself out of work:
A week after the election, Democrats appear on the verge of a key House upset
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) was considered the rarest of birds: an endangered House incumbent. He won his previous eight races by comfortable margins in a reliably Republican Southern California district, until Donald Trump and changing demographics put his ninth term in jeopardy. On election night, Issa appeared to narrowly beat Democratic challenger Doug Applegate, a retired Marine colonel and Iraq War veteran, but on Monday, a new batch of ballots shrank his lead to just 2,871 votes, with another tally of mail-in and provisional ballots to be released Tuesday night.
There are hundreds of thousands of ballots left to count, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports, though it’s not clear how many are from Issa’s 49th congressional district.
It does leave one speechless.
Add to that how many more votes in the House Democrats have, but don’t get seats due to gerrymandering and the fact that the Senate is naturally beneficial toward over representing smaller states, and the fact that the Republicans managed to steal a Supreme Court seat. Three branches of government belong to the second place party.
Fiveyearlurker:
Add to that how many more votes in the House Democrats have, but don’t get seats due to gerrymandering and the fact that the Senate is naturally beneficial toward over representing smaller states, and the fact that the Republicans managed to steal a Supreme Court seat. Three branches of government belong to the second place party.
Hahahaha. Well, I guess that settles everything. Someone on the internet proclaims a Hillary victory, and claims that both houses of Congress are now controlled by Democrats. This is a much simpler method than having to actually open polling places, and then count all of those cast ballots.
doorhinge:
Hahahaha. Well, I guess that settles everything. Someone on the internet proclaims a Hillary victory, and claims that both houses of Congress are now controlled by Democrats. This is a much simpler method than having to actually open polling places, and then count all of those cast ballots.
This result IS based on counting cast ballots. And it wasn’t proclaimed by “someone on the internet.” It was Time magazine.
Republicans were the ones against open polling places. They shut down 403 in Texas alone.
Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans. I’m not following your reasoning. And I don’t see the humor.
for historical record -
Fiveyearlurker:
Add to that how many more votes in the House Democrats have, but don’t get seats due to gerrymandering and the fact that the Senate is naturally beneficial toward over representing smaller states, and the fact that the Republicans managed to steal a Supreme Court seat. Three branches of government belong to the second place party.
for historical record -
doorhinge:
Hahahaha. Well, I guess that settles everything. Someone on the internet proclaims a Hillary victory, and claims that both houses of Congress are now controlled by Democrats. This is a much simpler method than having to actually open polling places, and then count all of those cast ballots.
ThelmaLou:
This result IS based on counting cast ballots. And it wasn’t proclaimed by “someone on the internet.” It was Time magazine.
Republicans were the ones against open polling places. They shut down 403 in Texas alone.
Both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans. I’m not following your reasoning. And I don’t see the humor.
Were you aware that I was responding to a post by Fiveyearlurker ?
I availed myself of the opportunity to comment. Was that unwelcome?
I don’t see where you did that.
Really? Seriously? In post #54 I quoted you. I then responded to your post. ThelmaLou , who’s response seems a bit confused, asked for clarification, which I was happy to provide.
doorhinge:
Really? Seriously? In post #54 I quoted you. I then responded to your post. ThelmaLou , who’s response seems a bit confused, asked for clarification, which I was happy to provide.
Nobody is confused. You responded to what you’re pretending I wrote.
