Shouldn't the popular vote matter more to Presidence-Elect Trump?

[elucidator]

…Too often you’re only interested in dog whistle approximations. As someone else once said, you’re all style and no substance.

Don’t read them.

[HeweyLogan]

@elucidator

Don’t read them.

I try not to but you’re pretty insidious in political threads. Not ever really saying anything. Mocking is easy.

@ThelmaLou

This is a very vague statement. One hardly knows how to reply to it.
“Majority of people polled” --what poll? How many people polled and by whom? When?
“Majority” – Numbers please, and sources. Thank you.
“Didn’t want ACA to pass” – The ACA has been around for a while…so when are you referring to?

All kinds of them. Where were you during the debate to pass it?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

@ThelmaLou

The 20 million-ish people who now have health insurance and couldn’t get it before are probably okay with the ACA. But that’s just a guess on my part.

A guess. That’s nice.

[aag3981]

@HeweyLogan

The majority of people polled didn’t want the ACA to pass. Should the President have listened to that sentiment?

If so he didn’t. And I didn’t see you condemning that.

Although I’m pleased to see you actually take a stand on something. Too often you’re only interested in dog whistle approximations. As someone else once said, you’re all style and no substance.

This is an interesting claim. Why do you thing most people doesn’t want ACA when it passed?

[ThelmaLou]

HeweyLogan, I remember you now!

[HeweyLogan]

@aag3981

This is an interesting claim. Why do you thing most people doesn’t want ACA when it passed?

Because the majority of people who were asked about it at the time didn’t want it?

I find it pretty amazing you don’t remember that part of the debate - ‘You’ll like it. Trust us’.

[elucidator]

@HeweyLogan

I try not to but you’re pretty insidious in political threads. Not ever really saying anything. Mocking is easy…

For a guy who never says anything, sure seem to rattle your cage. Maybe you got some kind of crush goin’ on, just can’t resist?

[running_coach]

@HeweyLogan

Because the majority of people who were asked about it at the time didn’t want it?

I find it pretty amazing you don’t remember that part of the debate - ‘You’ll like it. Trust us’.

Politifact

Mostly True
Gingrich
“(Obamacare) is a bill which has never once had a majority of Americans favor it.”

— Newt Gingrich on Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 in on CNN’s “Crossfire”
Obamacare “has never been favored by a majority of Americans,” Gingrich says

By Julie Kliegman on Thursday, September 26th, 2013 at 5:31 p.m.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, made waves this week with his 21-hour Senate speech against Obamacare. While he’s the only one reading Green Eggs and Ham to his colleagues as a form of protest, he’s far from alone in his criticism of the law.

CNN Crossfire host Newt Gingrich referenced public opinion on the Sept. 24, 2013, show while criticizing President Barack Obama’s health care reform.

“It is a bill which has never once had a majority of Americans favor it,” he said.

Gingrich’s claim comes while Congress evaluates Republican-written legislation that proposes funding the government only if Obamacare is defunded.

We looked at a similar claim in 2011, but it’s time to dive into the polls again.

Since the Affordable Care Act was drafted in 2009, the poll numbers have been more or less consistent across different months and polling organizations: The approval rating has hovered around 40 percent recently, with about 50 percent disapproval and 10 percent no opinion.

Not much has changed since then, according to a recent CNN and ORC report of all their Obamacare polling. That’s consistent with Gallup and other polling agencies. As best as we can tell, a credible poll has never turned up a figure over 50 percent.

Bigger picture

Gingrich was onto something with the poll results, confirmed Larry Jacobs, a University of Minnesota professor who specializes in public opinion and polling.

“It’s one of those things where when you look at the number of polling organizations, the variety of question wordings, I consider that an impressive finding and a robust one,” Jacobs said.

However, there’s a disconnect between the poll results themselves and Gingrich’s implication that most Americans don’t want Obamacare, Jacobs added.

Although the poll results are consistent with each other, they produce lower favorability ratings than polls about health care reform that refer to the “Affordable Care Act” as opposed to “Obamacare,” according to CNBC.

That’s because using the president’s name in a poll is “more likely to invoke a partisan prism for evaluation,” said Michael Traugott, a University of Michigan professor who specializes in public opinion and polling.

In those studies that ask more generally about health care reform, Republicans respond more favorably.

[Clothahump]

@aag3981

I accept that the electoral college selects the president and Trump won it handily, but shouldn’t he be more considerate of the fact that he did not win the popular vote.

In a word, no. The popular vote has never had any meaning whatsoever in Presidential elections. But people persist in trying to assign some kind of meaning to it.

[BlankSlate]

@Clothahump

In a word, no. The popular vote has never had any meaning whatsoever in Presidential elections. But people persist in trying to assign some kind of meaning to it.

Of course it has meaning. America voted for Clinton but were shackled with Trump because of a peculiar, anti-democratic institution that only ever existed to placate a horde of slave-raping degenerates.

There is profound meaning in disenfranchisement and discrimination.

[doorhinge]

@BlankSlate

Of course it has meaning. America voted for Clinton but were shackled with Trump because of a peculiar, anti-democratic institution that only ever existed to placate a horde of slave-raping degenerates.

There is profound meaning in disenfranchisement and discrimination.

America voted for Trump. That’s why he won. Black voters, brown voters, yellow voters, red voters, white voters voted for Trump. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists voted for Trump.

I wonder how many African slave-raping degenerates were raiding nearby villages in Africa to capture the slaves who were then eventually sold to the European plantation owners?

[doorhinge]

@Clothahump

In a word, no. The popular vote has never had any meaning whatsoever in Presidential elections. But people persist in trying to assign some kind of meaning to it.

It doesn’t appear that a general-public popular vote selects the Prime Minister in many parliamentary governments, either.

*Australia - Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the Australian House of Representatives is appointed Prime Minister of Australia by the Governor-General of Australia, who then appoints the Cabinet of Australia on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Canada - Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the House of Commons of Canada is appointed Prime Minister of Canada by the Governor General of Canada, who then appoints the Cabinet of Canada on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Japan - National Diet nominates the Prime Minister who appoints the Cabinet of Japan.

United Kingdom - The Monarch appoints the MP leading the largest party or coalition in the House of Commons as Prime Minister, who forms the Cabinet.*

Parliamentary system

[Bricker]

So Trump’s legal power is not in question. But he’s exceeding his “people power.”

And how, specifically, does one go about measuring people power? Right now, the examples are amazingly similar to “stuff Democrats want.”

[ThelmaLou]

Let’s see if we can move beyond one-dimensional, black and white, literal thinking, okay?

The popular vote doesn’t elect the President, but it does have meaning. For one thing, it is a measure of popular support, and well, popularity.

ETA: Well, the Democrats did win the “people power” element of the vote. Trump does not have a mandate. But that won’t matter to him, as I suspect he doesn’t know what that word means and figures he doesn’t have to.

[penultima_thule]

@ThelmaLou

Trump does not have a mandate.

Oh but yes he does.
You can argue all you like about how commanding that mandate is and how that could be quantified.
But, As with most US elections this was essentially a two horse race and unequivocally Hillary and the Dems don’t have any mandate.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…And how, specifically, does one go about measuring people power? …

Votes. Specifically.

[E-DUB]

A common definition of “mandate” would require not merely a victory, but a decisive one. You can argue about the definition of “decisive” now, but you know it when you see it. Yes, Trump won the Electoral College handily but the Electoral Vote is generally lopsided because that’s part of the way the system works. The popular vote went the other way and not really closely on that score either. However, the “closeness” of the election is measured by how few votes would have had to have flipped, in three states this time, to have had it go the other way.

[ThelmaLou]

@E-DUB

…However, the “closeness” of the election is measured by how few votes would have had to have flipped, in three states this time, to have had it go the other way.

Funny you should mention that.

Donald Trump will be president thanks to 80,000 people in three states

My bold.

…All that matters is that Trump got more electoral college votes, thanks to having won more states. In many cases, those wins were much more narrow than Clinton’s, which also helps power the gap between the electoral vote and the popular one. Trump won 18 states by fewer than 250,000 votes; Clinton, 13.

The most important states, though, were Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump won those states by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively — and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes. Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes; if Clinton had done one point better in each state, she’d have won the electoral vote, too.

**Or put another way: But for 79,646 votes cast in those three states, she’d be the next president of the United States. **The 540-vote margin in Florida that swung the 2000 election is still the modern record-holder for close races, but this is a pretty remarkable result. (Especially since the final gap between Al Gore and George W. Bush was only a little over 500,000 votes nationally.)

More people were in attendance as the Ohio State Buckeyes beat a high school football team in Columbus last weekend. More people live in Gary, Ind., than made the difference in this presidential race. In fact, Clinton’s margins in 51 counties were larger than the deficit in these three critical states. That’s margins, not the number of votes she actually won…

[elucidator]

I don’t suppose there’s any way we could, like, find them? Make a list. Database.

[elucidator]

And for you guys putting the skank eye on the individual vote, we got a guy here who can give you some stern lectures on voter confidence and the sanctity of the vote! He tends to show up at these kinds of things, so you better watch your step! He is spoken of in hushed tones, the Claw of the Counselor!

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Votes. Specifically.

Just so I understand…

How does the presidential “people power,” of a President whose popular vote margin was six million votes differ from a President whose popular vote was 25,000 votes? And how does a President who lost the popular vote compare?

What functions relating to “people power” are available to the first that the others lack? What may the first two do that the last person cannot?

If it’s too much to type you could link me to the relevant regulations or laws that explain this rule.

Thanks!