Republicans did not grow their base, Democrats lost voters

@Finn dAbuzz,

I agree with this. I have always opposed the EC but it wasn't gamed, which implies something intentional. It's not something Trump can lay claim to a strategy for, it just happened to be how the chips fell and how the current (wrongheaded) rules for the game work.

0 Replies

The graph indicates that the Democratic party has to garner roughly five million more popular votes to win the electoral vote. This indicates that the votes of certain Republican factions have carried greater weight than the Democratic vote in general in these elections.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Repeating the time that the system has been around does not negate the fact that it is flawed.

First of all your contention that the system is flawed is merely opinion. My opinion is that it is not.

Secondly the length of time the system has remained in place and unchanged is material.

Over this period of time there have been more than 50 presidential elections that to one extent or the other were hotly contested by passionate partisans. Undoubtedly, throughout this time there have people who shared your opinion, but certainly not enough to make a serious attempt to change it. I guess hundreds of millions of Americans over hundreds of years were just stooges for the Man. Rolling Eyes

Deny it or not you are attempting to delegitimize the election result by arguing that somehow, someone cheated.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The graph indicates that the Democratic party has to garner roughly five million more popular votes to win the electoral vote. This indicates that the votes of certain Republican factions have carried greater weight than the Democratic vote in general in these elections.

You are proof, a graph in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.

A Democrat delegate doesnt have to vote blue. There is nothing that says they have to vote democratic. In some cases they dont.

All the graph tells me is that, either a lot of Dems jumped ship and climbed in the republican boat or they swam home. Or perhaps drown in all the craziness.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

I read in a couple of articles that stated about 8% of Dems voted GOP; about 9% of GOP voted Dem; the votes for third party candidates were higher than the margin of Hillary's loss to Trump in many states she lost.

More white women voted for Trump over Hillary.

Not the whole story - but a part of it.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

The graph indicates that the Democratic party has to garner roughly five million more popular votes to win the electoral vote. This indicates that the votes of certain Republican factions have carried greater weight than the Democratic vote in general in these elections.

You are proof, a graph in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing.

A Democrat delegate doesnt have to vote blue. There is nothing that says they have to vote democratic. In some cases they dont.

All the graph tells me is that, either a lot of Dems jumped ship and climbed in the republican boat or they swam home. Or perhaps drown in all the craziness.

You are the epitome of a non sequitur.

Regardless of whether a Democratic delegate votes Democrat or not, the process is a part of the Electoral College that has allowed the Republican Party to win the presidency by giving greater weight to the votes of certain Republican factions. This is something that the Electoral College was implemented to avoid. It failed.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Sure, it's an opinion.

The length of time that the Electoral College has been around merely suggests that the US voting public is OK with its faults, one of which is that it allowed for the tyranny of a faction to prevail in this election which, ironically, is something that it was implemented to prevent.

I have not, nor am I saying that someone cheated, but you keep flailing at your straw men. It's all you have.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

You continue to allude to the system being gamed when in fact, it merely worked as it was designed to.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Sure, it's an opinion.

The length of time that the Electoral College has been around merely suggests that the US voting public is OK with its faults, one of which is that it allowed for the tyranny of a faction to prevail in this election which, ironically, is something that it was implemented to prevent.

I have not, nor am I saying that someone cheated, but you keep flailing at your straw men. It's all you have.

It sounds like you have no idea how the EC works. Just echoing the sentiment of the left thinking they got robbed.

You were fine before the election calling Trump a cry baby when he said if he loses its because the system is rigged. But now that team blue lost you have no problem crying about the system yourself.

This election has NOTHING to do with the ECs faults. It has to do with people being fed up with business as usual. While rich bankers stuff their pockets with cash the middle class is struggling. They have spoken and see Trump as the better gamble that they may get a break from the greedy politician like Hillary.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Deny it or not you are attempting to delegitimize the election result by arguing that somehow, someone cheated.

But isent this what your president elect has been claiming in every speech he has given during this election?

0 Replies

And the system is rigged toward the lessor populations of the U S of A because the cities have fewer delegates per person than rural areas. It was done this way on purpose which is why I thing the delegate system should be done away with in favor of popular vote.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

And the system is rigged toward the lessor populations of the U S of A because the cities have fewer delegates per person than rural areas. It was done this way on purpose which is why I thing the delegate system should be done away with in favor of popular vote.

Although I agree with you that the EC has problems but so does a popular vote.

Besides hillary only took the margin of error 230k in favor. Thats not much.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Check again. She has almost a 2 million vote advantage. A substantial amount of votes.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

You continue to allude to the system being gamed when in fact, it merely worked as it was designed to.

So, it wasn't gamed. It wasn't designed to override the popular vote, either.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Sure, it's an opinion.

The length of time that the Electoral College has been around merely suggests that the US voting public is OK with its faults, one of which is that it allowed for the tyranny of a faction to prevail in this election which, ironically, is something that it was implemented to prevent.

I have not, nor am I saying that someone cheated, but you keep flailing at your straw men. It's all you have.

It sounds like you have no idea how the EC works. Just echoing the sentiment of the left thinking they got robbed.

You continue to demonstrate your propensity for non sequiturs.

By the Electoral College, Trump won. By the popular vote, he lost.

Krumple wrote:

You were fine before the election calling Trump a cry baby when he said if he loses its because the system is rigged. But now that team blue lost you have no problem crying about the system yourself.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never called Trump a cry baby when he said if he loses it's because the system is rigged.

Krumple wrote:

This election has NOTHING to do with the ECs faults. It has to do with people being fed up with business as usual. While rich bankers stuff their pockets with cash the middle class is struggling. They have spoken and see Trump as the better gamble that they may get a break from the greedy politician like Hillary.

Ironically, the people you refer to were outvoted in the popular vote.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Krumple wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Sure, it's an opinion.

The length of time that the Electoral College has been around merely suggests that the US voting public is OK with its faults, one of which is that it allowed for the tyranny of a faction to prevail in this election which, ironically, is something that it was implemented to prevent.

I have not, nor am I saying that someone cheated, but you keep flailing at your straw men. It's all you have.

It sounds like you have no idea how the EC works. Just echoing the sentiment of the left thinking they got robbed.

You continue to demonstrate your propensity for non sequiturs.

By the Electoral College, Trump won. By the popular vote, he lost.

Krumple wrote:
You were fine before the election calling Trump a cry baby when he said if he loses its because the system is rigged. But now that team blue lost you have no problem crying about the system yourself.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never called Trump a cry baby when he said if he loses it's because the system is rigged.

Krumple wrote:
This election has NOTHING to do with the ECs faults. It has to do with people being fed up with business as usual. While rich bankers stuff their pockets with cash the middle class is struggling. They have spoken and see Trump as the better gamble that they may get a break from the greedy politician like Hillary.

Ironically, the people you refer to were outvoted in the popular vote.

All this nonsense about popular vote. You DO realize there have been times in the past where the president elect didnt win the popular vote?

Any time someone brings up the popular vote all it says to me is that they are clueless why we use the EC.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Any time someone brings up the popular vote all it says to me is that they are clueless why we use the EC.

Clearly, what this says to you demonstrates that you're clueless as to why people bring up the popular vote.

0 Replies

I hate to spoil everyone's fun, but I want to respond to RG's thesis. Clinton failed to "energize" the Democrats' base. She wasted all that time on a futile effort in Florida, and took for granted so-called blue states which Mr. Obama had taken in the two previous elections. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were lost to Trump. Winning those three states would have put Clinton over the top. She lost because Democratic voters stayed home rather than coming out to vote. I believe that her lackluster performance also sank the chance of the Democrats taking over the Senate.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

I believe Setanta's observation is a good deal more accurate, and based on observable fact, than RG's theory. I would add that there was also another factor at work here. A large number of people have become rather weary of the rampant political correctitude, and all the nonsensical cant that accompanys it, that increasingly pervaded American discourse, and were simply silent about it.

Put another way, 'How could you identify the Trump supporter in a conversation. He/She's the one who iusn't speaking.'

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I get the feeling you are not too liked Set. Smile

Anyway, you are right she should have clearly spent more time in those states and you are also right in that her whole campaign was not very proactive and neither were her supporters.

Found what I was looking for, I can't really remember if I already posted it, but this piece backs up what Set said.

Voter turn out fell

1 Reply

Republicans did not grow their base, Democrats lost voters

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know