Gerrymandering and voter suppression based on race are not cheats?
When did Dems agree to this? How have they benefitted from them?
Correct! These days it’s an internationwide vote, and some voters are more equal than others. And the inters are more equal still.
The russians interfered in the election. Hillary didn’t know that any more than we did at the time. So you don’t have any idea how Hillary team saw and decided stuff in the moment. You know about hindsight, but even then, your particular hindsight needs to also ignore the corruption of the whole election by anti democratic foreigners.
tronp winning had zero to do with playing the game right. after all he was colluding in public with those anti-democrats.
Name one state that Trump won and Clinton lost for these reasons?
And do you disagree that Clinton ran a poor election that did not take into account the Electoral College or at best did not campaign in certain states through complacency - states she later lost?
Name one state my ass. The only thing we know is that the russians have got our electoral system in their power. How the hell are we talking about hrc? What on earth point is there to be made?
To pontificate about the failures of someone who we were no wiser than? Only righties pushing the overton window care about this shit.
The election was tainted. I know this is hard to take. But it’s true. This means no more hrc bashing. You got to grow up. There is no time for it.
All of the rants about hrc are in service of propping up a tainted election which has humilated the US in the eyes of the world.
The actual story is that we got taken for suckers, and that the suckers keep going for the hrc story.
That’s right, it ain’t. Thus are vote-losers installed. The will of the people? Ha.
You live in Colorado? Your vote is worth less than a Wyoming voter’s. It’s easy to calculate - divide a state’s population by it electoral votes. For Colorado it’s ~585k people per EV. In Wyoming it’s ~195k each, the nation’s most valuable per capita. 585/195= 3 so you in Colorado are heavily discounted. The most worthless votes? California at almost 700k.
Our presidential electoral system was built with black slaves, who outnumbered whites in Southern states, counted as fractional people in order to persuade slaveowners, who naturally wanted to retain their power, to join the Union. The consequence: The astounding advantage the Electoral College gives to Republicans - In close elections, Republicans are favored to win even when they lose the popular vote.
The game is rigged. Even assuming we trust the vote counts. As Stalin allegedly said, “It’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.” How transparent are vote tabulation procedures nationwide? How else is the game rigged?
It is endlessly tiresome when people respond to “this system isn’t right” by saying “but this is the system”. It serves no purpose but to gloat. It would be refreshing if you’d just admit "I’m glad my vote counts 3 times what yours does, and I don’t particularly care that it’s unequal.
And speaking directly to the OP, the gloating really is the point. There is a species of crypto-conservatives who pose as reasonable centrists and enjoy spending their time in a fantasy where Democrats approach them on bended knee to beg for the opportunity to admit they were wrong on guns/Obama/“the SJW stuff”/whatever.
This fantasy is especially potent when Democrats are out of power. As the OP correctly observed, when the shoe is on the other foot, these guys aren’t lecturing Republicans on how to earn their vote, because their “centrism” is just an attention-seeking performance.
In the last election, Democrats had no problem with the electoral college, because they thought it favored them. Remember the ‘blue wall’? It was a collection of states thought to be heavily favored for Clinton, and therefore she had the electoral college sewn up. Commentary on election night was that even if Trump somehow won the popular vote, Clinton would be protected by her ‘blue wall’ and would win the Electoral college.
It was only when Trump broke through her ‘blue wall’ and won in the EC that Democrats suddenly discovered that the electoral college was an outdated instrument of racism or something.
I’ve been in favor of a national popular vote for as long as I can remember. So have most Democrats that I know. This appears to be a straw man.
In the real world the fact that trnep won is a very good argument for the reform of the ec.
I don’t know what you mean by "they never had a problem. There has always been a systemic problem with it, and it lately has become a danger to the republic.
There is no cognitive dissonance in saying “this system is wrong, but since we have to play this game, here’s our strategy.” And the strategy was working pretty well until Comey dropped the turd in the punchbowl regarding a bullshit investigation in which Clinton was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing. But you already know that.
This didn’t happen, because as conservatives are keen on gloating, nobody needs “protection” from the popular vote, because the popular vote doesn’t matter. But you already know that.
This is a joke or selective memory or both, but opposition to the EC has gone back a long way. Here is a 2004 article from the New York Times that mentions it, though it goes back further.
In every Presidential election since 1992, more Americans have voted against Republican candidates than for them. Their policies are unpopular and their candidates are unpopular. Of course Republicans love the inequality of the EC, without it, they either have to court the majority or get shut out of power forever. But you already know that.
The following are my hypotheses to try to fit the data and I’m not claiming them as facts.
I look at years like 2008 and 2012 as baseline years. When we get results like 2010 or 2016, my initial reaction is to blame overly idealistic liberals. Basically I think a large enough portion of Democratic voters have a “perfect is an enemy of the good” type of attitude. Ralph Nader voters in Florida in 2000. Jill Stein voters in WI, MI, and PA in 2016. All the people who showed up in 2008 but stayed home in 2010 that effectively hamstrung Obama for the last six years of his presidency (and the same for Clinton in 1994). Those voters need to get over themselves and realize they can’t always get everything they want. If the choice is between a hamburger and a shit sandwich they shouldn’t stay home just because steak isn’t an option.
You are correct about Wisconsin. Clinton didn’t go there, and, unlike almost everywhere else, Trump substantially outspent her on advertising.
Michigan was a state where Clinton outspent on ads. I can’t find visit numbers for there.
But Trump and Clinton campaigned in Pennsylvania eighteen times each, with Clinton outspending Trump the usual 2-1 on advertising.
Sources:
https://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/how-clinton-trump-camps-spent-595-million-TV-radio/306496
I quit the GOP, in early 2016, in disgust over my party being taken over by populists and (often the same) Tea Party types. But if I was a Trump supporter, the story I would keep hammering is that DJT lost despite being outspent 2-1. Instead, you imply that if voters in the three critical states had equally heard what both candidates had to say, they would have gone for the Democrat. This doesn’t show much confidence in your messaging.
My worry, as a (newish) Democrat is that, this time, the GOP will be the big spenders.
I’ve another response to “a US presidential election is not a nationwide popularity contest”. No, it’s not. Except for some ballot measures requiring supermajorities, every other election held in the US IS a popularity contest. Whatever or whomever gains 50%+1 of votes, wins. It’s called democracy. Republicans unhappy with democracy may be happier in China, a REALLY YUGE! republic.
As I cited in post #26, the GOP now enjoys a built-in electoral advantage. “In the modern period, Republicans should be expected to win 65% of Presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.” Which means Dems, but not Gops, need supermajorities of popular votes to prevail. That’s a rigged game.
Three (R) deuces beat four (D) aces - to win, (D) needs FIVE aces! Isn’t dealing and playing poker like that hazardous to one’s health?
How can (D) player do right? Attain superpowers, I guess. And Russian backing.
Democrats never stopped having a problem with the electoral college after 2000. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was voted on (or killed in committee) in the majority of states during Bush’s second term. I clearly remember it being vetoed by The Governator.
The “blue wall” was merely an assumption that Hillary would win decisively, including winning the popular vote. I don’t remember anyone claiming that if the election got really close, Hillary would be likely to retain the EC and lose the popular vote. It was always the case that if there was a split between the two, it would be more likely for Trump to win the EC and Hillary to win the popular vote, than the reverse.
The closest we got to the Democrat winning the EC and losing the popular vote was in 2004. If Kerry had won Ohio, which was very close, he would have been elected and still lost the popular vote. But that path was not open to Hillary in 2016. In 2004, Bush won 44% of the Latino vote, swept the interior Southwest, and ran a huge margin in Texas. In 2016, Trump was clearly not courting the Latino vote or the Southwest. Hillary thus gained a lot of ‘useless’ votes in California and Texas, which everyone predicted. That’s an awful lot of votes that Trump would have to gain elsewhere in order to win the popular vote, period. Where does Trump make up those votes? Maybe with a massive victory in the Upper Midwest, but then where does Hillary gain more electoral votes from? It just doesn’t map out in any realistic way.
I agree, and I hope we’ll all be on the lookout for people (and the bots people program) trying to sell the ‘vote only for someone who inspires you’ and ‘vote only for someone who will represent all your views’ and of course ‘vote only for the perfect candidate because if you vote for someone lesser, you are sullying your soul’ messages.
Both the Kremlin and the GOP will be paying people to sell these ideas. And lots of useful idiots will broadcast and amplify those ideas for free, too.
All are intended to depress voting by Democrats.
Ah, yes, Trump’s electoral success is due to pandering to the “Sociopath Vote” which, according to the DSM-5, has a prevalence of .2% to 3.3% :rolleyes:
You can’t reductio this out of existence. The Rs as a party are exhibiting psychopathology. I think they are getting it from fox, with whom they conduct a circular information producing system, and a spiral of bad and perverse effects.
nm