why trump won

dhdawg

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

Swaye

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.

Tequilla

The Dems couldn't see because she is just an extreme example of them anyway

whlinder

Is it because he got 270 electoral college votes?

DerekJohnson

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.

priapism

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...

Mad_Son

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.

TierbsHsotBoobs

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.

She is winning the popular vote.

Agree otherwise.

doogie

Thanks, California!

Gladstone

@BallSacked

2001400ex

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.

She is winning the popular vote.

Agree otherwise.

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.

Not to mention that Hillary beat Bernie in the popular vote too.

dhdawg

2001400ex said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.

She is winning the popular vote.

Agree otherwise.

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.

Not to mention that Hillary beat Bernie in the popular vote too.

in a democratic primary.
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.

dhdawg

he was polling better vs trump than Clinton by every objective measure. explain that

pawz

2001400ex said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.

She is winning the popular vote.

Agree otherwise.

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.

Not to mention that Hillary beat Bernie in the popular vote too.

Just stop. From the moment you've plagued this bored, you'e been nothing but a yuge disaster.

RaccoonHarry

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.

She is winning the popular vote.

Agree otherwise.

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

RaccoonHarry said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.

She is winning the popular vote.

Agree otherwise.

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.

If it becomes a national election, who cares about state votes?

The better argument is that the Electoral College distributes power across states rather than clustering power in cities.

PurpleThrobber

RaccoonHarry said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.

She is winning the popular vote.

Agree otherwise.

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.

That's how Safeco and Century Link got built on a micro-level in the State of Washington.

And #dinorossi

Fenderbender123

When Trump talks, people listen. He inspires people. And that's what people want in a leader. That is why he was elected.

GrundleStiltzkin

Fenderbender123 said:

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-up

ThomasFremont

RaccoonHarry said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.

She is winning the popular vote.

Agree otherwise.

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.

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?

UWhuskytskeet

ThomasFremont said:

RaccoonHarry said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.

She is winning the popular vote.

Agree otherwise.

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.

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?

Because it helps Trump IMO.