# Reaction to this path to Clinton Presidency **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 12, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314 "2017-12-12T19:16:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/41 "2017-12-13T17:54:11Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > And even many of her supporters would think it would create a dangerous precedent millions of others who voted for Hillary because they liked her and also believe the election should go to the popular vote winner would be happy. Nobody voted for her because they liked her. They voted for her because [ul][li]She was the Democrat [_]She was a woman [_]It was her turn [\*]She wasn’t Trump.[/ul]There’s lots of opposition to Trump, as Trump. There is virtually no support for Hillary as Hillary.[/li] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/42 "2017-12-13T17:58:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Nobody voted for her because they liked her. They voted for her because [ul][li]She was the Democrat [_]She was a woman [_]It was her turn [\*]She wasn’t Trump.[/ul]There’s lots of opposition to Trump, as Trump. There is virtually no support for Hillary as Hillary.[/li] I did. Do you have a cite for this? ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/43 "2017-12-13T18:10:17Z")
Yes, millions of people do really love Hillary Clinton, but they are a small minority of the electorate. Likewise, the majority of people don’t like the Electoral College, but that doesn’t mean that retroactively “changing” the rules that the last election was run under is a popular position. So, I think if this were to happen, the vast majority of voters would be strongly opposed to it. The uniformly negative responses from across the political spectrum on this board seem to support that position. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/44 "2017-12-13T18:12:52Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > Yes my scenario is not very plausible, but it’s not impossible. Yes it’s more likely that Pelosi wouldn’t do this, but theoretically she could, and for the reason I give. And it could be argued that a Democratically-controlled Congress wouldn’t go along, but you can’t say definitively they wouldn’t. And even many of her supporters would think it would create a dangerous precedent millions of others who voted for Hillary because they liked her and also believe the election should go to the popular vote winner would be happy. I see no evidence that this group of people does not exist, even if they would be just a minority of the population. Is it really that hard to move past this wouldn’t happen to if it did? If it did? Clinton resigns or is impeached in the face of massive protests, impeachment becomes normalized as a political tool, and the US takes yet another staggering blow to its civic institutions. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/45 "2017-12-13T18:28:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **sciurophobic** : > > [Poll: More Americans believe popular vote should decide the president - CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-more-americans-believe-popular-vote-should-decide-the-president/) > > A majority of Americans would disagree with you. That doesn’t mean what you think it means. I, for one, think that we _shouldn’t_ have the Electoral College, and would welcome a legal change to the process (whether via amendment or compact). But I also recognize the fact that we do have the Electoral College, and so, given the votes as they stood, the election of Trump was the factually correct result. I don’t like that result, but my resentment is much more directed at the millions of people who voted for him than at the system, since after all, the result of the Electoral College does almost always track with the popular vote, and if Clinton had won the popular vote by the margin that she should have, given a sane electorate, she would also have won a landslide in the College. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/46 "2017-12-13T18:55:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I did. > > Do you have a cite for this? The only cite I have is that someone said this - > [@](#): > > I would be happy with just about anyDem. and negative evidence that there is no groundswell of pressure to get Clinton into the White House - by pushing her to run again, or something like that. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/47 "2017-12-13T19:35:21Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > The question is, with what details to this scenario would there be the least amount of Republican outrage? I’m assuming zero outrage is completely improbable, but under the right circumstances zero acceptance is not. I think that you don’t flip the Oval Office without intending maximum outrage. Or there’d need to an overnight sea change in the political outlook of most Americans, such that many Rs in congress changed affiliation to Ds. I’m also agreeing with most of the other opinions presented here–nobody really wants a Hillary presidency. She was the choice of the Democratic insiders. I’d prefer Pelosi or a dozen other people (of both sexes) to Hillary. I voted for her because, of the two people who had a chance at the presidency, Hillary would have made the better president. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/48 "2017-12-13T19:42:41Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That doesn’t mean what you think it means. I, for one, think that we _shouldn’t_ have the Electoral College, and would welcome a legal change to the process (whether via amendment or compact). But I also recognize the fact that we do have the Electoral College, and so, given the votes as they stood, the election of Trump was the factually correct result. > > I don’t like that result, but my resentment is much more directed at the millions of people who voted for him than at the system, since after all, the result of the Electoral College does almost always track with the popular vote, and if Clinton had won the popular vote by the margin that she should have, given a sane electorate, she would also have won a landslide in the College. And many would agree with you, but that is irrelevant to this side argument. **HurricaneDikta** made the claim that “Nobody gives a shit about the popular vote” and I countered with a poll that showed 54% of Americans favor electing the President by popular vote so his claim is clearly false. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/49 "2017-12-13T19:52:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The only cite I have is that someone said this -and negative evidence that there is no groundswell of pressure to get Clinton into the White House - by pushing her to run again, or something like that. Sure. Clinton was my preferred candidate but Bernie would have been nice or even O’Malley, boring as he was. Or Biden. Pretty much any Dem as long as it wasnt Trump- or just about any other GOP candidate. (Kasich was a maybe). And Clinton screwed the pooch on the elections Sure, she lost due to Fake news spread by Rove and the Kremlin (and Bernie-Bros), not to mention bogus Trump promisses, but her mistakes were a large part of it. I am sorry she lost but Hillary by no means would be my first choice in 2020. I really liked Al Gore, but I am not sure I’d want to see him run again. Clinot was by far the front runner even before Trump was the nominee. ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/50 "2017-12-13T19:58:28Z")
> [@GreysonCarlisle](#): > > I’m also agreeing with most of the other opinions presented here–nobody really wants a Hillary presidency. So nobody who had a pro-Hillary t-shirt, bumper sticker or sign really meant it? They were all just anti-Trump, and only supported her because of a lack of options? That’s ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/51 "2017-12-13T20:05:24Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > So nobody who had a pro-Hillary t-shirt, bumper sticker or sign really meant it? They were all just anti-Trump, and only supported her because of a lack of options? That’s ridiculous. In my experience, that’s exactly what it was–a lack of options. Some few wanted a woman to win, but it didn’t necessarily have to be Hillary. Half (or more) of the country wanted a Dem to win, but that also didn’t necessarily have to be Hillary. Some wanted anybody but Trump to win, but that, by definition, didn’t have to be Hillary. But nobody I know of was on pins-and-needles at the start of Obama’s second term, saying _Just four more years until Hillary!_ Except Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/52 "2017-12-13T20:26:22Z")
Oh, I’m sure there were quite a few people who “really wanted” a Hillary presidency. Probably in the 10s of millions. Think of all the votes she got in the 2008 primary over Obama. It was a pretty close race. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/53 "2017-12-13T21:14:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, I’m sure there were quite a few people who “really wanted” a Hillary presidency. Probably in the 10s of millions. Think of all the votes she got in the 2008 primary over Obama. It was a pretty close race. 17,822,145 to be precise. She actually got a few more popular votes than Obama. ---
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/54 "2017-12-13T21:27:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Nobody voted for her because they liked her. They voted for her because [ul][li]She was the Democrat [_]She was a woman [_]It was her turn [\*]She wasn’t Trump.[/ul]There’s lots of opposition to Trump, as Trump. There is virtually no support for Hillary as Hillary.[/li] What you’re saying is true of just about every single candidate. It’s the natural result of the First Past The Post voting system, which encourages you to lie about what you really want. Nobody votes for the candidate they want the most. They vote for the candidate they think has the best chance to beat the candidates they hate. This is why we need [Range Voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting) instead. Each voter rates each candidate on a scale of 0-9 and whoever gets the highest average rating wins (unless the candidate doesn’t have a quorum). That would encourage people to tell the truth about what they want. It would also eliminate the need for primaries. I think the least likely part about the OP is impeaching both Trump and Pence simultaneously. And it would have to be simultaneous, or else the Republicans could just appoint a new VP after the first removal from office. The line of succession only says who becomes president. It doesn’t say that the Speaker becomes VP. ---
**Author:** ![Arizona\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7cd45c/32.png) [@Arizona\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arizona_Mike)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/55 "2018-01-02T05:30:06Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > Imagine it’s 2019 and the Democrats control Congress. They impeach both Trump and Pence, making Pelosi President. She then nominates H. Clinton as VP, and Congress approves. Pelosi immediately resigns, making Clinton President. > > The question is, with what details to this scenario would there be the least amount of Republican outrage? I’m assuming zero outrage is completely improbable, but under the right circumstances zero acceptance is not. I have no idea what high crimes and misdemeanors would be advanced as a rationale for impeaching Vice President Pence, other than he would stand in the way of an attempt to reclaim the White House that one party thinks is properly due them. The scenario is very unlikely, but even if it weren’t, would more properly be considered a coup d’etat. A substantial portion of the American electorate would consider it as such, and an unconstitutional, banana republic-like attempt to nullify their vote. It would trigger an actual second American civil war at the local up to national level. That doesn’t mean a higher level of angry tweets, it would mean people actually taking up arms to rectify it. For that reason, even the most avowed opponents of the President shouldn’t consider it, if they still want a republic to remain after the fires finally die down. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/56 "2018-01-02T06:24:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Impeach, yes\*, but how do they remove them from office? The Democrats are not going to get 2/3 of the Senate. Just to reinforce this, it’s literally _impossible_ without some unprecedented wave of deaths, resignations, or party changes. Even if Democrats won literally every election in November (which they won’t) _and_ John McCain and Thad Cochran were gone and they won those seats (they probably wouldn’t win both), that’s only 59. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/57 "2018-01-02T16:17:48Z")
> [@sbunny8](#): > > What you’re saying is true of just about every single candidate. It’s the natural result of the First Past The Post voting system, which encourages you to lie about what you really want. Nobody votes for the candidate they want the most. They vote for the candidate they think has the best chance to beat the candidates they hate. This is why we need [Range Voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting) instead. Each voter rates each candidate on a scale of 0-9 and whoever gets the highest average rating wins (unless the candidate doesn’t have a quorum). That would encourage people to tell the truth about what they want. It would also eliminate the need for primaries. With all due respect, if I’m a supporter of Candidate A, why would I give any portion of my vote to any other candidate? I’d simply give A 9 points and leave the rest of the ballot blank. Ditto for the supporters of other candidates as well. I don’t see any improvement over the current primary system, where everyone gets to vote for their first choice and the non-viable candidates get weeded out. What candidate would be successful with the slogan, “I’m everyone’s second choice”? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/58 "2018-01-02T16:22:45Z")
> [@Arizona\_Mike](#): > > I have no idea what high crimes and misdemeanors would be advanced as a rationale for impeaching Vice President Pence, other than he would stand in the way of an attempt to reclaim the White House that one party thinks is properly due them. Mainly, it depends on what Mueller finds. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/59 "2018-01-02T16:41:21Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Just to reinforce this, it’s literally _impossible_ without some unprecedented wave of deaths, resignations, or party changes. So any thought of any Republican putting country above party is no longer even viable. True enough, but sad, too. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314/60 "2018-01-02T16:49:32Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Just to reinforce this, it’s literally _impossible_ without some unprecedented wave of deaths, resignations, or party changes. > > Even if Democrats won literally every election in November (which they won’t) _and_ John McCain and Thad Cochran were gone and they won those seats (they probably wouldn’t win both), that’s only 59. You would be correct to laugh and point at me as a fool, but at least for Trump’s impeachment, there is the chance that some Republicans might vote to remove him. Pence seems in little danger currently, unless he knew a lot more about Flynn than seems obvious right now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaction-to-this-path-to-clinton-presidency/804314.md?page=4)