Trump vs Hillary 2016

Quote: terapined

Hamilton is sold out for the foreseeable future
That tells me their customers are thrilled and happy

If people like it they can enjoy. If I went it would likely be the most expensive nap I'd ever take.

While the media mocked Trump's behind
the scenes campaign as pitiful and ineffective,
Trump actually had the most savvy up to the
minute machine in history. Thanks to his
daughter Ivanka's orthodox Jewish genius
husband Jared Kushner. He secretly ran the
campaign like a business, getting the most
done by spending least amount of money.
And he changed politics forever. This long
story is well worth the read, no matter what
side you're on.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/11/22/exclusive-interview-how-jared-kushner-won-trump-the-white-house/#5d31aa262f50

Quote: rxwine

I don't really believe the analysis of the election is all that useful. I doubt seriously we will have another election winner like Trump in the next 10 elections. (not counting the next which I suspect he will run barring something happening )

Well, it was the second one in 16 years.. Then, too, in 1992 Clinton won without a majority of the popular vote.

US histories tend to gloss over the electoral college, bringing it up only to explain odd elections here and there. From my own reading about it, though, it's clear the EC was a compromise offered to the slave states to join the new country and ratify the Constitution. The rationale of small vs big states doesn't hold water now, if it ever did.

Consider, going by popular vote alone, slave states were at a big disadvantage. A very large fraction of their population were not allowed to vote. But that disenfranchised population was counted (at a 3/5 discount) to apportion representatives to the House, and therefore EC votes.

Given that slavery ended over 150 years ago, and that since the mid-60s almost everyone can vote, why should America cling to a byzantine system designed to favor slavery and sanction disenfranchisement?

I don't say this due to the results of the last election, though that's a factor. In 1992, a great many republicans were pissed off that Clinton won without a majority of the popular vote. It's simply outlived its reason for being, which was nefarious to begin with.

Besides, nowhere else in the US are mechanisms in place the least bit similar tot he EC. Cities don't distinguish between large and small districts, states don't do so between large and small cities (or rural areas even). Congressional districts aren't particular about which neighborhood or region a vote comes from, either. You'd think states, particularly larger ones, would want to protect the smaller share of the vote, yes? None does.

Giving the EC the boot can also be used as a means for encouraging smaller parties. Run-off elections are major PITA. Especially in America, after nearly 2 years of non-stop campaigning, the last thing anyone wants is two more weeks of the same. Not to mention getting time off work to vote, again, or finding time for early voting, again, or getting your absentee ballot in, again. So how about allowing parties to transfer their votes to other parties if they so choose? Mind, only in cases that no candidate gets a majority of the vote.

Right now, states are largely immovable politically. So almost all states either vote Democratic or Republican, regardless of the lack of quality of their candidate (as evidenced by this election). The whole thing is not decided by large states or small states, but by swing states large and small. Who campaigns much in Texas or California?

Hell, if you don't live in a swing state, your vote doesn't matter.

Of course it will be difficult, and of course the initial response will be to ignore it, then to reform it. But it could be done. It should be done.

How about for starters we change the rules so the winner of the popular vote by plurality (ie the most votes but short of a majority) gets 52 additional EC votes (one per state), and the winner by majority gets 104 extra EC votes (two per state)

Quote: Evenbob

While the media mocked Trump's behind
the scenes campaign as pitiful and ineffective,
Trump actually had the most savvy up to the
minute machine in history. Thanks to his
daughter Ivanka's orthodox Jewish genius
husband Jared Kushner. He secretly ran the
campaign like a business, getting the most
done by spending least amount of money.
And he changed politics forever. This long
story is well worth the read, no matter what
side you're on.

What a great son-in-law he has! Looking at it even deeper, Trump played the media start to finish. Here is a guy they said had a huge ego so you would expect him to brag about how his campaign was being run. He sucked them in! While people were posting on the internet "Is Trump Trying to Lose?" he let them think just that.

He knew neither Hillary nor anyone in her campaign would be smart enough to figure it all out and they would be too busy patting themselves on the back about their great system to even try. In the end in 2008 Hillary ran a 1990s campaign and this time a 2008 campaign. Hopefully they cleaned that glass ceiling in the place where they had her election night party to get their deposit back.

Quote: Nareed

Well, it was the second one in 16 years.. Then, too, in 1992 Clinton won without a majority of the popular vote.

US histories tend to gloss over the electoral college, bringing it up only to explain odd elections here and there. From my own reading about it, though, it's clear the EC was a compromise offered to the slave states to join the new country and ratify the Constitution. The rationale of small vs big states doesn't hold water now, if it ever did.

Consider, going by popular vote alone, slave states were at a big disadvantage. A very large fraction of their population were not allowed to vote. But that disenfranchised population was counted (at a 3/5 discount) to apportion representatives to the House, and therefore EC votes.

Given that slavery ended over 150 years ago, and that since the mid-60s almost everyone can vote, why should America cling to a byzantine system designed to favor slavery and sanction disenfranchisement?

I don't say this due to the results of the last election, though that's a factor. In 1992, a great many republicans were pissed off that Clinton won without a majority of the popular vote. It's simply outlived its reason for being, which was nefarious to begin with.

Besides, nowhere else in the US are mechanisms in place the least bit similar tot he EC. Cities don't distinguish between large and small districts, states don't do so between large and small cities (or rural areas even). Congressional districts aren't particular about which neighborhood or region a vote comes from, either. You'd think states, particularly larger ones, would want to protect the smaller share of the vote, yes? None does.

Giving the EC the boot can also be used as a means for encouraging smaller parties. Run-off elections are major PITA. Especially in America, after nearly 2 years of non-stop campaigning, the last thing anyone wants is two more weeks of the same. Not to mention getting time off work to vote, again, or finding time for early voting, again, or getting your absentee ballot in, again. So how about allowing parties to transfer their votes to other parties if they so choose? Mind, only in cases that no candidate gets a majority of the vote.

Right now, states are largely immovable politically. So almost all states either vote Democratic or Republican, regardless of the lack of quality of their candidate (as evidenced by this election). The whole thing is not decided by large states or small states, but by swing states large and small. Who campaigns much in Texas or California?

Hell, if you don't live in a swing state, your vote doesn't matter.

Of course it will be difficult, and of course the initial response will be to ignore it, then to reform it. But it could be done. It should be done.

How about for starters we change the rules so the winner of the popular vote by plurality (ie the most votes but short of a majority) gets 52 additional EC votes (one per state), and the winner by majority gets 104 extra EC votes (two per state)

Where do stand on the Senate then Nareed? On one hand each state is a true democratic vote but each state gets 2 senators regardless of size. I haven't done the research but I expect seldom is the Senate controlled by the party with the most votes.

Quote: AZDuffman

What a great son-in-law he has!

Jared micro pinpointed different parts
of society and targeted them with
specific media. And he made up the
ways of doing it as he went along.
Hillary used the tried and true 1980's
method of spending all the money
you can get on carpet bombing the
media with negative TV ads.

Trump is still controlling MSM. He took
the weekend Hamilton incident to make
tweets that the media jumped on for
2 days straight, totally ignoring Trump
settling the college lawsuit. He can make
them do whatever he wants.

Evenbob Jared micro pinpointed different parts
of society and targeted them with
specific media. And he made up the
ways of doing it as he went along.
Hillary used the tried and true 1980's
method of spending all the money
you can get on carpet bombing the
media with negative TV ads that we
all tuned out.

Trump is still controlling MSM. He took
the weekend Hamilton incident to make
tweets that the media jumped on for
2 days straight, totally ignoring Trump
settling the college lawsuit. He can make
them do whatever he wants.

Quote: Evenbob

Trump is still controlling MSM. He took
the weekend Hamilton incident to make
tweets that the media jumped on for
2 days straight, totally ignoring Trump
settling the college lawsuit. He can make
them do whatever he wants.

The LSM is just a bunch of sheep. Limbaugh has been showing this for decades now. They will all harp on the same theme, never doing their homework to try and stand out. And it is rarely something that matters that they care about.

Meanwhile, Democrats are wondering if they have gone too far with identity politics. Anyone can see they have. Which means they and the LSM will not see it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Meanwhile, Democrats are wondering if they have gone too far with identity politics. Anyone can see they have. Which means they and the LSM will not see it.

I really hope they hold on to Pelosi
and Hoyer for the next 4 years. The
old guard is what killed them this
year, how will it now bail them out.

Quote: Evenbob

Trump is still controlling MSM. He took
the weekend Hamilton incident to make
tweets that the media jumped on for
2 days straight, totally ignoring Trump
settling the college lawsuit. He can make
them do whatever he wants.

He's making payoffs to the aggrieved litigants who are probably sworn to silence with the settlement. There's little to note and probably no one to interview.

He's only potentially controlling the people who voted for him. People talk like he's fooling everyone.