Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
why trump won
dhdawg
Member Posts: 13,326
in Tug Tavern
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-election-president-loss
You'd think if it was so easy to understand for a British publication the us media would be catching on. But of course they never did and never will
You'd think if it was so easy to understand for a British publication the us media would be catching on. But of course they never did and never will
Comments
-
Haven't read that yet, but I assume Trump won because Hillary is such a fucking terrible candidate. This time yesterday I was getting to the polling place to vote, and I voted for Trump, but I more voted against Hillary than for Trump. Hell I voted for Rubio in the primary. I'm a dumbshit. Good thing I finally got to be a winner at the end. Anyway, I am still not a fan of Trump (hope he makes me a fan over the 4 years), and while he is kind of buffoonish, Hillary is a fucking criminal enterprise and has been for 30 years. How Democrats could not see what an absolute disaster she was is amazing.
-
The Dems couldn't see because she is just an extreme example of them anyway
-
Is it because he got 270 electoral college votes?
-
I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
-
I also start reading the Guardian and other British sites for some saneness when things start to get weird in the U.S.
Neither party really has any legit or substantial purpose anymore. The establishment wants to help the corrupt banks max out their loans to everyone and create the most bloated healthcare system as possible. (Hi, Thomas Jefferson!) Every country on the planet seems ready to max out their debt, because they see the U.S. has no real intention of paying off its own anymore. It's all just a spiraling cash grab of "...fuck it, I'm taking my share right now...see yah..."
I think the U.S. can keep running up its debt for another 6-8 years, but then there are some real debt ceilings we're going to bash our heads into. Medical care costs are going to have some nasty cost ceilings and cut-offs implemented.
You have a weird form of a $$$$$ disease? -> Sorry, you need to leave the hospital now and take this pill and go watch Logan's Run... -
The only reason so many people voted for Trump is because they thought Hillary would be terrible.
The only reason so many people voted for Hillary is because they thought Trump would be terrible.
Each candidate had their frothing supporters but neither had even close to mainstream appeal. People say it every year but this election was the epitome of the lesser of two evils.
Ironically the dems probably would have won (based on data from when Sanders was in it) if they hadn't rigged their primary against Sanders but you reap what you sow. -
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise. -
Thanks, California!
-
-
That's how amazing Trump supporters are. They were cheering Trump in the lead forgetting that rural areas are conservative and are less populous, therefore counted quicker. And you know, the west coast is populous and fairly liberal.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
Not to mention that Hillary beat Bernie in the popular vote too. -
in a democratic primary.2001400ex said:
That's how amazing Trump supporters are. They were cheering Trump in the lead forgetting that rural areas are conservative and are less populous, therefore counted quicker. And you know, the west coast is populous and fairly liberal.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
Not to mention that Hillary beat Bernie in the popular vote too.
Populists who hate the system and republicans who are fucking sick of stagnant wages aren't voting in dem primaries. Not to mention all the election fuckery that they did to suppress the vote, not only that we know about, but what we don't know about. -
he was polling better vs trump than Clinton by every objective measure. explain that
-
Just stop. From the moment you've plagued this bored, you'e been nothing but a yuge disaster.2001400ex said:
That's how amazing Trump supporters are. They were cheering Trump in the lead forgetting that rural areas are conservative and are less populous, therefore counted quicker. And you know, the west coast is populous and fairly liberal.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
Not to mention that Hillary beat Bernie in the popular vote too. -
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise. -
If it becomes a national election, who cares about state votes?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
The better argument is that the Electoral College distributes power across states rather than clustering power in cities. -
That's how Safeco and Century Link got built on a micro-level in the State of Washington.RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
And #dinorossi -
When Trump talks, people listen. He inspires people. And that's what people want in a leader. That is why he was elected.
-
Puppy has a good write-up too. 95% of you re-re's didnt want to part with Sark. Steel2, Fireman and Pup celebrated till the morning light when the news broke. Still the difference between us 3 and you bonios. A short and sweet write-upFenderbender123 said:When Trump talks, people listen. He inspires people. And that's what people want in a leader. That is why he was elected.
-
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise. -
Because it helps Trump IMO.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise. -
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states. -
You'd have a point if electoral votes weren't distributed in proportion to population.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
That's not at all why the electoral college was made anyway. You're supposed to have voted for the elector from your district within the state then allow him to vote for whoever he wants. Basically a member of congress that only votes for president. At some point states figure out they could draw more power by making their electors vote the same way leaving us with winner take all in all states but NE and ME. -
What is the obsession over states? If anything, getting rid of the EC would empower red voters in blue states and vice versa.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states.
Half the country didn't vote. Knowing a state is automatically red or blue likely plays a big role in that.
How is dominating CA and NY any different from narrowly winning FL and PA??? Not to mention your 95% and 85% figures are pure bullshit considering the biggest % win was WY at 70%. NY and CA were ~60% blue. If a candidate can add 25-35% to that, good for them.
At least in my system, every other vote matters as much as the next. -
Your system is how the states vote. Look at Oregon for example: 80% of the state's population lie in Portland and Eugene. With that being the case, any candidate that carries 65% of the vote in those two cities wins every election in the state...period. Which is why we've had liberal leaders in our state since I can remember. Policies and leaders in our state are dictated by two counties. Which completely isolates everyone east and west of the I5 corridor.ThomasFremont said:
What is the obsession over states? If anything, getting rid of the EC would empower red voters in blue states and vice versa.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states.
Half the country didn't vote. Knowing a state is automatically red or blue likely plays a big role in that.
How is dominating CA and NY any different from narrowly winning FL and PA??? Not to mention your 95% and 85% figures are pure bullshit considering the biggest % win was WY at 70%. NY and CA were ~60% blue. If a candidate can add 25-35% to that, good for them.
At least in my system, every other vote matters as much as the next. -
The president is the president of the country. They are supposed to represent every single person and each person equally. Each person's vote should matter in direct proportion. Right now due to the two extra electors each state is given each vote carries more weight in a low population state. The house and senate are great concepts to balance out representation but the electoral college is a bad extension.
-
Why not just get rid of the Senate if population 'trumps' all?
Those founding fathers were radical mofos but they covered alot of inequities and compromised the big/small state thing pretty well.
It's too bad the concept isn't taught in high school civics courses any more so people aren't such dumbfucks about the whole rationale behind the electoral college.
-
Why should small rural communities have votes that are disproportionately more valuable than voters in densely populated urban areas? They should be equal.greenblood said:
Your system is how the states vote. Look at Oregon for example: 80% of the state's population lie in Portland and Eugene. With that being the case, any candidate that carries 65% of the vote in those two cities wins every election in the state...period. Which is why we've had liberal leaders in our state since I can remember. Policies and leaders in our state are dictated by two counties. Which completely isolates everyone east and west of the I5 corridor.ThomasFremont said:
What is the obsession over states? If anything, getting rid of the EC would empower red voters in blue states and vice versa.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states.
Half the country didn't vote. Knowing a state is automatically red or blue likely plays a big role in that.
How is dominating CA and NY any different from narrowly winning FL and PA??? Not to mention your 95% and 85% figures are pure bullshit considering the biggest % win was WY at 70%. NY and CA were ~60% blue. If a candidate can add 25-35% to that, good for them.
At least in my system, every other vote matters as much as the next. -
They made the electoral college because they didn't trust citizens to pick a leader, not because of state inequities.PurpleThrobber said:Why not just get rid of the Senate if population 'trumps' all?
Those founding fathers were radical mofos but they covered alot of inequities and compromised the big/small state thing pretty well.
It's too bad the concept isn't taught in high school civics courses any more so people aren't such dumbfucks about the whole rationale behind the electoral college.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htmAlexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Hamilton also wrote that this system of intermediaries would produce a greater amount of stability, and that an “ … intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.” -
CHRIST.PurpleThrobber said:Why not just get rid of the Senate if population 'trumps' all?
Those founding fathers were radical mofos but they covered alot of inequities and compromised the big/small state thing pretty well.
It's too bad the concept isn't taught in high school civics courses any more so people aren't such dumbfucks about the whole rationale behind the electoral college.
It's an outdated model that the Founders themselves changed multiple times. It wasn't some grand design. -
A Republican won the #2 position in the state last night.greenblood said:
Your system is how the states vote. Look at Oregon for example: 80% of the state's population lie in Portland and Eugene. With that being the case, any candidate that carries 65% of the vote in those two cities wins every election in the state...period. Which is why we've had liberal leaders in our state since I can remember. Policies and leaders in our state are dictated by two counties. Which completely isolates everyone east and west of the I5 corridor.ThomasFremont said:
What is the obsession over states? If anything, getting rid of the EC would empower red voters in blue states and vice versa.greenblood said:
It's better because you don't have a single sector dictating politics for the whole nation. Let's say Bloomberg run's for President and gets 95% of the vote in New York and 85% in California, but only 20% everywhere else, compare that to someone that at least has broad support even if only in the 40-50% range.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
In your worst case scenario, the candidate would have to at least carry 11 states.
Half the country didn't vote. Knowing a state is automatically red or blue likely plays a big role in that.
How is dominating CA and NY any different from narrowly winning FL and PA??? Not to mention your 95% and 85% figures are pure bullshit considering the biggest % win was WY at 70%. NY and CA were ~60% blue. If a candidate can add 25-35% to that, good for them.
At least in my system, every other vote matters as much as the next.
But still.
