2016 Presidential Election (General Election)

Who do plan to support for President in the 2016 Election?

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 38 62.3%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 6 9.8%

  • Gary Johnson

    Votes: 11 18.0%

  • Jill Stein

    Votes: 3 4.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • Total voters
    61
Status
Not open for further replies.
datadyne007 said:
No. The situation where Trump may end up losing the popular vote by 2 points (way more than 2000, ~2m votes!) while winning more electoral votes than any Republican in 3 decades.
Click to expand...

Again, if it was based on the popular vote, the campaigning would have been totally different, and the turnout may have been different too. For one thing, I think total voter turnout would have been higher, particularly in those states where you already *know* which way they are going. She certainly may have won IF that was the case.

At the end of the day, she took specific swing states for granted and he didn't, and it cost her the election. They both knew the rules going in. He just played the game better than she did.

An example is trying to win a playoff series in baseball or basketball. A team needs to win 4 out of 7. It doesn't matter if they win all 4 by 1 run/point each, and lose the other 3 by 20. The rules were win 4 out of 7 games, not score the most points across the series. Same thing with the electoral college. Win 270 points. You could win one state by 1000 votes, and lose another state by a million votes, but each state is worth a given amount of points regardless of how much it was won by.

It's an imperfect system, but they both played under the same set of rules, and he won. Maybe he was "outplayed" overall, but he won what he had to win to take the election under the rules that were in place.
 
It is implicit in the Constitution that Electors can vote their conscience, rather than exclusively for the candidate for whom their state voted. 115 times in US history, including in 2004, a so-called "Faithless Elector" has voted for someone other than their pledged candidate. It is one more facet of indirect democracy that the founders included specifically because they didn't trust the masses 100%. However, no Faithless Elector has ever actually influence the outcome.
 
Most states have laws that bind electors.

FYI the house and senate can also nullify state votes in early-january when the officially 'count' the electoral votes ... but that not gonna happen
 
CSTH said:
Most states have laws that bind electors.

FYI the house and senate can also nullify state votes in early-january when the officially 'count' the electoral votes ... but that not gonna happen
Click to expand...

And some states are actually pledging to say that their electors in future elections will adhere to the popular vote if enough states sign on. So far 10 states + DC have signed on with interest. It will not go into effect until there are enough states to reach 270.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
And some states are actually pledging to say that their electors in future elections will adhere to the popular vote. So far 10 states + DC have signed on with interest. It will not go into effect until there are enough states to reach 270.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Click to expand...

This is a future solution but has to be put in place BEFORE an election commences. I highly doubt enough will have changed by 2020 to push this through. (but again, maybe *someday*)

Politics sucks. You win some and you lose some, and half the population is going to end up unhappy any given year. 8 years ago Dems controlled the Presidency, House, and Senate. Now it has totally flipped. Probability says it will likely flip again at some point. Instead of dwelling on the past, figure out what went wrong and use that to do better in the future.

Here is the wrong way to bring additional people to your cause: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...residency-for-fifth-day/ar-AAkdisU?li=BBnbcA1

I think we all agree that an average conservative person can act like a real shithead. But in my whole life, I can't think of a time when they have been the group rioting, looting their city, causing massive property damage, etc. (I also missed the 70's "busing incidents" and everything along those lines, so we're talking since the 80's) The anarchists, the people who insult/threaten police, the ones who disrespect the flag, the flash mobs attacking people in Philadelphia..... It seems like they're all on the left side of the aisle. Am I missing something? When do groups of conservatives terrorize their own cities? Where were the riots when Obama was elected twice? (not talking about the ones on his watch in Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, etc.... talking about a direct result of his being elected)

Independents notice when one side seems more poorly behaved than the other. You need to clean this shit up. I'll never side with rioters who only serve to bring down their cities. I don't love or blindly trust police, but I RESPECT them and don't make their jobs more difficult. The current set of protests just seem so directionless and pathetic. Why would I feel sympathy towards those who smash storefronts or block people who are just trying to get to work? It all seems very counterproductive. In the short term, it's mainly just validating the people who voted for Trump.

It sure does suck that the party that riots and are really the sorest of sore losers is also the party that stands up for gay rights, women's rights, Question 4.... I sure hated to vote against some of these ideals.

33% of counties that voted Obama twice flipped to Trump. It's not because all the racists/bigots/xenophobes suddenly moved into town. I'm sure I'm not the only person who noticed all the bad behavior of the constituency and wanted to distance myself from it.

I leave you with a simple mantra I often repeat to myself when I feel like I'm going to panic or things are spiraling out of control:
Calm down.
Chill out.
RELAX.

Take a deep breath, and better luck to you all in the mid-terms. I'll try to keep an open mind because that's my role as an independent. I'm sorry if I offended any of you. I just call it like I see it, and if you can't recognize your own failures, you're doomed to repeat them. Don't blame the election on DZH22.
 
DZH22 said:
Am I missing something? When do groups of conservatives terrorize their own cities?
Click to expand...

Ferguson (among others) IS an example of conservatives terrorizing their own cities. The thing is, they wear badges when they do it.

I realize that is deliberately inflammatory, so let me temper it by saying my point is to raise your awareness of how shocking your oversight is by making an equally shocking statement.
 
^Dylann Roof (Charleston Church), Planed Parenthood Shooting, the KKK. I could keep going.
 
fattony said:
Ferguson (among others) IS an example of conservatives terrorizing their own cities. The thing is, they wear badges when they do it.

I realize that is deliberately inflammatory, so let me temper it by saying my point is to raise your awareness of how shocking your oversight is by making an equally shocking statement.
Click to expand...

Ferguson (and other micro-towns in St Louis County) really did loot from their own weakest citizens under color of law.
 
fattony said:
Ferguson (among others) IS an example of conservatives terrorizing their own cities. The thing is, they wear badges when they do it.

I realize that is deliberately inflammatory, so let me temper it by saying my point is to raise your awareness of how shocking your oversight is by making an equally shocking statement.
Click to expand...

I am an independent who voted Obama twice, and has always voted left until this year. Clearly I am not the only independent who flipped their vote. How else would a lunatic like Donald Trump win the election?

Newsflash, Donald Trump won at least partly because of how shocking your oversight is as to the pulse of this country.

You can either accept constructive criticism and try to improve your message next time, or you can continue to lose and point fingers at everyone except yourself. How on Earth could the most despised candidate of all time actually WIN THE ELECTION?!?! HOW?!

Blame yourselves. If you continue to believe shit like the above is the absolute "truth", then you will continue to lose miserably.

Plenty of policemen are terrible people. However, it should be "common sense 101" that if you punch a cop in the face and try to steal his gun, you just might end up dead. As I said, I don't blindly LIKE cops, but I respect them and I do what I am told, as politely as possible, in the few instances that I have been harassed. (and I have been harassed plenty of times, including for taking a walk through Brookline, taking pics from Eastie, and I've been pulled over more times than I can count)

Your extremist hipster views are the fringe, not the norm. Otherwise you would have won. It sure took an epic blowback to shit like the above to put DONALD TRUMP in office. You lost the independents, man. It should be a humbling, learning experience, and yet you push ahead as pigheaded as ever. I wonder how many Trump voters made their decision right after encountering YOU? Look in the mirror. Ridiculous. Why are you still on your soapbox talking down to me? I was on your "team" 4 years ago, and I might be again in the future. But not like this. Keep insulting those who aren't ultra-left at your own peril. We rebelled directly against people like you. Eat a slice of humble pie, accept the criticism of the party I voted for my entire life (until now), and try not to make the same mistakes next time around.
 
tysmith95 said:
^Dylann Roof (Charleston Church), Planed Parenthood Shooting, the KKK. I could keep going.
Click to expand...

These are terrible people, but it's mainly one-off terrible acts. It's similar to Omar Mateen's father being front and center at a Hillary Clinton rally. It's difficult/impossible to stop every terrible "lone-wolf" type person who decides to commit a random act of violence.

None of these are on par with the full scale riots that have been going on for the last couple of years, in cities all over the country. We are talking thousands of people tearing their cities apart. It's not the kind of thing I want to see continue, and I don't sympathize with a cause (even if it's a valid cause) when it means siding with looting, vandalism, attacking police, and all the other bad behavior that shouldn't be condoned in this country.
 
tysmith95 said:
^

Until states provide free ID's for every citizen at birth (and renewed for free on a regular basis) ID's should not be required as a condition to vote.
Click to expand...

I think these 3 requirements would be fine.
#1 Register to vote with Town Hall or the city
#2 Name & address: (Show a valid ID, Passport or Social Security Card for registration)
#3 I think it should be required to show an ID to vote so they can check you off the registration list.

At my precinct we don't have to show ID's. Just say your name and address.

You need to show an ID or valid identification to be able to justify on if your a U.S. Citizen in the first place.
To get cigarettes or alcohol you need a valid ID---So Why not show an ID when you vote.
 
^The ID requirement reduces the number of people with access to cigs and booze

The ID requirement ____ the number of people who are able to exercise their right to vote.

Fill in the blank
 
In theory, asking people to provide ID isn't racist or bad. In many countries around the world, you are required to show some sort of ID before you vote and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

However. if we want to have vote ID laws, there are a few options that we can look at to ensure that every legal citizen can vote.

1. Don't make vote ID laws willy nilly. If your state enacts an ID law, then the same state should ensure that EVERYONE has equal access to the IDs. For people who cannot afford the IDs, they should be provided for free.

2. Or, we could do what they do here in Malaysia and be sure that all adults have national IDs. In Malaysia, everyone has an ID with your basic information on it. I know a lot of Americans aren't keen on the idea because they don't want "the gubment" to have their information, but it's done in many countries without many problems. Basically, you could keep your ID with you wherever you go and if you move and change polling locations, you register with the same ID.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/

I'm starting to think Trump has been a useful idiot this whole time. I'm really confounded by the lack of information on Bannons character no matter how much I scour the internet. All I can tell is he doesn't seem to be a white supremacist, but he sure as hell is leveraging nationalists in a terrifying way.
 
Jouhou said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/

I'm starting to think Trump has been a useful idiot this whole time. I'm really confounded by the lack of information on Bannons character no matter how much I scour the internet. All I can tell is he doesn't seem to be a white supremacist, but he sure as hell is leveraging nationalists in a terrifying way.
Click to expand...

Bannon is a horrible man. Rachel covered Bannon before anyone else did:

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog/status/798221054867079168

TRMS on Bannon:
https://goo.gl/XYOjeM
https://goo.gl/9RT9Jq
https://goo.gl/doUUMw
https://goo.gl/WjaA1R

WaPo piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...8965ca-aa66-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html
 
What local federal projects could be threatened by the new administration? Off the top of my head:

There’s the $1 billion investment in the Green Line Extension that was already at risk, but the T’s recent hiring might have put the FTA’s concerns to rest. Is there any way for that money to go back to Washington (and then Ohio or Florida...) in January?

There’s the Transportation Center redevelopment in Kendall Square which isn’t reliant on federal funding, but the GSA and by extension the White House have total control. Conceivably they could kill that and come up with something more favorable to a Trump-aligned developer.

Phase 2 of the US Army Corps of Engineers Muddy River project isn't funded yet. It probably won't be if the administration prioritizes rural projects before urban ones.
 
C'mon guys give them a chance! You can't judge a person by the entirety of their past words and actions! They may turn out to be completely and utterly different from the type of person they have given every indication of being.
 
Scipio said:
What local federal projects could be threatened by the new administration? Off the top of my head:

There’s the $1 billion investment in the Green Line Extension that was already at risk, but the T’s recent hiring might have put the FTA’s concerns to rest. Is there any way for that money to go back to Washington (and then Ohio or Florida...) in January?

There’s the Transportation Center redevelopment in Kendall Square which isn’t reliant on federal funding, but the GSA and by extension the White House have total control. Conceivably they could kill that and come up with something more favorable to a Trump-aligned developer.

Phase 2 of the US Army Corps of Engineers Muddy River project isn't funded yet. It probably won't be if the administration prioritizes rural projects before urban ones.
Click to expand...

The threat here isn't from Trump, though, it is that his $1T infrastructure ambitions get rolled by congressional republicans.
 
datadyne007 said:
And some states are actually pledging to say that their electors in future elections will adhere to the popular vote if enough states sign on. So far 10 states + DC have signed on with interest. It will not go into effect until there are enough states to reach 270.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Click to expand...

Actually, despite what DZH said, the "extreme hipster" view is not the fringe. Hillary may have lost the electorate but the majority of the US (as proven by the popular vote) aligns with Hillary and this "extreme hipster" view. In addition, broken down by racial demographic, every single race voted for Hillary overwhelmingly, with the exception being whites, which leaned right. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on who you ask) for the rest of us, the whites makes up about 70% of the votes, i.e. the decision of who leads the country is largely decided by whites. And in a time where minorities and marginalize people have been standing up for themselves and making progress in equality, one that would be continued with a Hillary presidency, the majority of whites decided to vote for Trump. Yes there are a number of whites who voted for Trump, not because of the reason I mentioned, but there is a significant portion that did vote because that and it was enough to tip the electorate scale. But again, don't let someone tell you that this "extreme hipster" view is "fringe" because it's not. It just happens that location and region dictated more in the election than the populace.

Yes we should learn from this election, but we should learn from the correct information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top