Republicans did not grow their base, Democrats lost voters

Forums: Trump, Politics, Obama, Clinton
Email this Topic • Print this Page

After the higher turnouts the "outsider" Obama was able to bring to the table these gains were lost when the ultimate insider ran against the ultimate outsider in an election cycle still defined by a repudiation of the establishment (after years of political deadlock and a faltering economy).

It will be very interesting to see how this wave of anti-establishment voting trends now that Trump has been elected president and will be the incumbent.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 11 • Views: 5,313 • Replies: 78

Do we have numbers yet on the demographics of people who sat this one out? Because I think that may be where the Democrats lost out, that they did grow their base, but then the new growth stayed home or voted 3d party.

2 Replies

I think so many people felt confident in a Clinton win that they saw the lines and decided to blow it off.

I think those same people might have voted for some republicans down ballot in hopes of keeping some checks and balances.

We blew it.

1 Reply

@jespah,

The population grew so both sides bases should have grown. There were more voters staying home in both sides than in the previous elections.

0 Replies

Regardless of the Democrats losing voters, they had more votes than the Republicans. It's not right that a system, in this case the electoral college, can be gamed in a way that circumvents the popular vote.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

I don't want LA, Chicago, NYC and Atlanta deciding who runs the country, sorry. It's a bigger country than that.

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I don't want LA, Chicago, NYC and Atlanta deciding who runs the country, sorry. It's a bigger country than that.

So you're not in favor of all votes being equal then?

Not in favor of republican voters in New York state or California not having their voices heard or being represented?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I don't want LA, Chicago, NYC and Atlanta deciding who runs the country, sorry. It's a bigger country than that.

That's a personal opinion, though, that's negated by one in which someone would not want rural areas deciding who runs the country and doesn't resolve the problem of the gaming of the voting system.

1 Reply

@jespah,

jespah wrote:

Do we have numbers yet on the demographics of people who sat this one out? Because I think that may be where the Democrats lost out, that they did grow their base, but then the new growth stayed home or voted 3d party.

If you can't get people out to vote, can they really be called part of your base?

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

I think so many people felt confident in a Clinton win that they saw the lines and decided to blow it off.

I think those same people might have voted for some republicans down ballot in hopes of keeping some checks and balances.

We blew it.

Brexit all over again? I was hoping people would have learned from that.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

strong agreement re me.
I get there are some safeguards re the electoral college, but I'm still one person, one v0te.

I suppose it was called 'mob rule'.

We had a thread on this, no link right now.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

ossobucotemp wrote:

strong agreement re me.
I get there are some safeguards re the electoral college, but I'm still one person, one v0te.

I suppose it was called 'mob rule'.

We had a thread on this, no link right now.

There are no safeguards. The popular vote was bypassed. The electoral college was implemented, to thwart "an interested and overbearing majority," and what not, but it smacks against the idea of "one person one vote."

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

I get this reasoning but this election highlighted one of the downsides of this approach: that due to demographic breakdowns it makes white votes matter on average more than others. It enabled entirely different kinds of "tyranny of the majority" too.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

So you're not in favor of all votes being equal then?

Not in favor of republican voters in New York state or California not having their voices heard or being represented?

In the electoral college, sure. I'd love to see NY's votes get split between upstate and down state. But, not by populace number. That's crazy.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Nonsense. Look at the states that mattered this time, that in a winner take all just wouldn't. In a winner take all who would ever even go to New Hampshire? Also, aren't whites still the majority in the country? Wouldn't that also be an advantage?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Not nonsense. Simple fact. White people get more EC votes per person then non-white people. Votes should be equal, not favoring some over others.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

You'll need to explain what you mean.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

I mean what I say literally. This is just simple arithmetic. Due to how EC votes are unevenly allocated the average white person's share of an EC vote has always been larger than a non-white person. That was not the intent but it has been the effect in every single election and it is a pernicious effect regardless of intent.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I mean what I say literally. This is just simple arithmetic. Due to how EC votes are unevenly allocated the average white person's share of an EC vote has always been larger than a non-white person. That was not the intent but it has been the effect in every single election and it is a pernicious effect regardless of intent.

I must be tired because I still don't get it, but in the long run, so? You want to disenfranchise the farmers n America by deciding they should have no say in the Federal Govt as their votes will be devoured by the same people that devour their goods and products. You keep saying that it is disproportionate representation and i just don't see it the same way as you do.

You've previously said

Quote:

That the majority choice would override the minority choice is unfortunate for the minority but that's how it's supposed to work.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I must be tired because I still don't get it, but in the long run, so?

The areas where votes count more than other areas are areas that have the least minorities, as a result in every election America has had a white person's vote has, on average, more weight than a non-white person.

I think this is a bad thing because I think this is an actual example of tyranny of the majority that the EC is supposed to protect against vs the entirely theoretical such regional tyrannies that is used to defend the unequal voting power given to citizens.

Quote:

You keep saying that it is disproportionate representation and i just don't see it the same way as you do.

It's simple arithmetic, and there are no two ways to see this. White people, on average have always had a greater share of EC votes than non-white people. This is an example of a more relevant tyranny of the majority than the regional ones that are brought up in theory but that in practice don't exist.

Quote:

You've previously said
Quote:
That the majority choice would override the minority choice is unfortunate for the minority but that's how it's supposed to work.

Yep, and in the last elections this is not how it worked several times. I have always been consistent that the EC is undemocratic and should be gotten rid of.

1 Reply

Republicans did not grow their base, Democrats lost voters

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know