Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Prestor Jon wrote: That's a good point. The map shows the counties that Trump won but not the margin of victory in the county. However, the important thing I take away from that map is the fact that Trump won counties in every state except Massachusetts and Vermont. That map shows just how widespread support for Trump was and just how low support for Hillary was.
Low support for Hillary? More than Trump and most votes any candinate in USA has ever got except for Obama. I wouldn't call that exactly as low support...Especially when she had more support than other candinate.
Federalism. Electoral College. Hillary beating Trump by 3 million votes in California accounts for the almost the entire popular vote margin of victory for Hillary and it didn't matter. Hillary won the 55 Electoral votes for California she gets no bonus points for margin of victory. Trump got viewer votes than Romney or McCain and when you look at the vote total for the other 49 states, aside from CA, it's a tie. If Hillary had been able to motivate supporters to go vote for her in the rest of the country outside of CA she would have won but she couldn't motivate supporters so she lost.
Regarding Jamie Dimon, I found this quote of his interesting.
I've gotten disturbed at some of the Democrats' anti-business behavior, the attacks on work ethic and successful people. I think it's very counterproductive. ... It doesn't mean I don't have their values. I want jobs. I want a more equitable society. I don't mind paying higher taxes. ... I do think we're our brother's keeper but I think that attacking that which creates all things, is not the right way to go about it.
A man who spent his whole life donating to the Democrat party. Just goes further to show why Trump won. This whole election was spent on sensationalizing social issues. In the end, it was all about the economy.
I fear no US Marine Corps or 82nd Airborne, but I'm to old to dig trenches in my back yard
You forgot about the Girl Scouts. They are coming. and they are bringing cookies.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kevin M. Kruse @KevinMKruse Nov 12
Another reason to focus attention on state legislatures: The GOP controls 32 right now. Only 38 needed to ratify constitutional amendments.
Oh , indeed. It's a scary thought that a single political party (doesn't matter which) could be able to freely amend the Constitution to suit their agenda.
Amending the constitution still requires that the interests in all those different states be aligned. What's good for Republicans in South Carolina isn't necessarily good for Republicans in Wisconsin or Florida or Idaho or New Hampshire or Kansas. Any amendment that can crate that kind of consensus isn't going to be very partisan.
I fear no US Marine Corps or 82nd Airborne, but I'm to old to dig trenches in my back yard
You forgot about the Girl Scouts. They are coming. and they are bringing cookies.
We'll just send them off to Brownsea Island and sell 'em a metric gakton of woggles. You think the Scouts are your allies? You merely adopted the Scouts. We invented them, molded them.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Frazzled wrote: To be frank, while some of it has been mixed, his moves so far have been positive.
*Reibus as Chief of Staff is good as he has the rolodex and temperament to work with Congress to pass legislation.
*Giuliani for...something. I'd like to see him as AG. It would be the penultimate position of his legal career.
*T's statements about deporting criminals, but heavily focusing on border security. Excelsior!
*I saw the thing on child leave. I told you he wasn't conservative.
*Rumors he's going after regulations, and lobbying.
*Rumors that Diamond will be Treasury Sec (head of JP Morgan/Chase).
EDIT: I pulled my back yesterday (I was shocked when the family didn't grab my wallet, take out the cash and run away laughing but hey) so will be carefully screening my posts as I am in serious owee mode.
There are no words that can adequately express the great degree to which I most fervently hope that people like Giuliani are kept as far away from federal power as possible. Former prosecutors are terrible choices for AG in the first place and Giuliani would definitely be another that fits that truism.
Frazzled wrote: To be frank, while some of it has been mixed, his moves so far have been positive.
*Reibus as Chief of Staff is good as he has the rolodex and temperament to work with Congress to pass legislation. *Giuliani for...something. I'd like to see him as AG. It would be the penultimate position of his legal career. *T's statements about deporting criminals, but heavily focusing on border security. Excelsior! *I saw the thing on child leave. I told you he wasn't conservative. *Rumors he's going after regulations, and lobbying. *Rumors that Diamond will be Treasury Sec (head of JP Morgan/Chase).
EDIT: I pulled my back yesterday (I was shocked when the family didn't grab my wallet, take out the cash and run away laughing but hey) so will be carefully screening my posts as I am in serious owee mode.
There are no words that can adequately express the great degree to which I most fervently hope that people like Giuliani are kept as far away from federal power as possible. Former prosecutors are terrible choices for AG in the first place and Giuliani would definitely be another that fits that truism.
Former prosecutors typically are chosen for state and federal AG positions.
As a key prosecutor against the MOb and Wall Street crime, he would be ideal to lead an attack on the foothold the cartels have in the US.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 15:24:56
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: To be frank, while some of it has been mixed, his moves so far have been positive.
*Reibus as Chief of Staff is good as he has the rolodex and temperament to work with Congress to pass legislation.
*Giuliani for...something. I'd like to see him as AG. It would be the penultimate position of his legal career.
*T's statements about deporting criminals, but heavily focusing on border security. Excelsior!
*I saw the thing on child leave. I told you he wasn't conservative.
*Rumors he's going after regulations, and lobbying.
*Rumors that Diamond will be Treasury Sec (head of JP Morgan/Chase).
EDIT: I pulled my back yesterday (I was shocked when the family didn't grab my wallet, take out the cash and run away laughing but hey) so will be carefully screening my posts as I am in serious owee mode.
There are no words that can adequately express the great degree to which I most fervently hope that people like Giuliani are kept as far away from federal power as possible. Former prosecutors are terrible choices for AG in the first place and Giuliani would definitely be another that fits that truism.
Former prosecutors typically are chosen for state and federal AG positions.
As a key prosecutor against the MOb and Wall Street crime, he would be ideal to lead an attack on the foothold the cartels have in the US.
Not if you value things like civil liberties and due process.
I fear no US Marine Corps or 82nd Airborne, but I'm to old to dig trenches in my back yard
You forgot about the Girl Scouts. They are coming. and they are bringing cookies.
Cookies will fall foul of our new regulations about food containing too much sugar!
There is no force in the world that can defeat red tape - not even the girl scouts
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 15:29:51
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
djones520 wrote: I don't agree so much on the prosecutor thing, but I do agree that Giuliani just needs to stay away from the job.
Prosecutors tend to have a very adversarial view on laws, taking the position that laws defining our rights as citizens and protecting our civil liberties get in the way of getting convictions on bad guys. The problem with that view is that it goes contrary to the design of the system, we want to intentionally make it difficult for the State to prosecute and convict people because it is extremely difficult for an individual to prevail against the power of the State in court even if that individual is innocent. It is also extremely important to maintain the limitations on the State even if intruding beyond those limits helps the State prosecute particular "bad guys" it weakens the ability of those limitations to prevail to protect the rest of us. Once you allow the State to amass more authority and strip away more liberty it's virtually impossible to get it back.
djones520 wrote: I don't agree so much on the prosecutor thing, but I do agree that Giuliani just needs to stay away from the job.
Yeah, big time. He is not the guy you want in charge of our justice system. He's a power-hungry donkey-cave, who seems to think things like due-process and privacy rights are optional.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
djones520 wrote: I don't agree so much on the prosecutor thing, but I do agree that Giuliani just needs to stay away from the job.
Yeah, big time. He is not the guy you want in charge of our justice system. He's a power-hungry donkey-cave, who seems to think things like due-process and privacy rights are optional.
I'd prefer Krispy Kreme (Christie) over Giuliani...
But, in a ultimate troll job, I expected Christie to take the Sec of Transportation.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So umm........Trump just announced his plan for 6 week paid maternity leave to be required...............
Im suddenly not so scared.
What if, WHAT IF, we where all duped? That trumps insane pandering was just a bid and he knows how to work people?
Mexico Wall? Whaaaaaat?
I said Mexico Mall! Fill it with Tacos, sombreros and gak. I love Mexicans.
Biggest double cross, evah!
Edit: Stereotypes listed for comedic effect as Trump would likely say it. Please don't ban me.
Again.
Don't worry, this isn't Warseer.
This week I got to work 12 hours on Sunday on top of overtime allowed on Saturday, and potential for continuing overtime coming because of sudden renewed confidence in the market. There's even talk about hiring to fill some positions in my plant because orders are picking up. All this just because Trump won, not because of anything that's being enacted. OR, conversely, it cold be because Hillary lost. Not knowing how someone will react is more confidence inducing than knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone will stymie growth. I'm elated. Now to send Pence a letter about focusing on fiscal issues, and to not go ham on uber conservative social issues.
Frazzled wrote: To be frank, while some of it has been mixed, his moves so far have been positive.
*Reibus as Chief of Staff is good as he has the rolodex and temperament to work with Congress to pass legislation.
*Giuliani for...something. I'd like to see him as AG. It would be the penultimate position of his legal career.
*T's statements about deporting criminals, but heavily focusing on border security. Excelsior!
*I saw the thing on child leave. I told you he wasn't conservative.
*Rumors he's going after regulations, and lobbying.
*Rumors that Diamond will be Treasury Sec (head of JP Morgan/Chase).
EDIT: I pulled my back yesterday (I was shocked when the family didn't grab my wallet, take out the cash and run away laughing but hey) so will be carefully screening my posts as I am in serious owee mode.
There are no words that can adequately express the great degree to which I most fervently hope that people like Giuliani are kept as far away from federal power as possible. Former prosecutors are terrible choices for AG in the first place and Giuliani would definitely be another that fits that truism.
Former prosecutors typically are chosen for state and federal AG positions.
As a key prosecutor against the MOb and Wall Street crime, he would be ideal to lead an attack on the foothold the cartels have in the US.
Not if you value things like civil liberties and due process.
I'm confused, who do you think becomes AG in the fed and state positions. Pro-tip former prosecutors.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: To be frank, while some of it has been mixed, his moves so far have been positive.
*Reibus as Chief of Staff is good as he has the rolodex and temperament to work with Congress to pass legislation.
*Giuliani for...something. I'd like to see him as AG. It would be the penultimate position of his legal career.
*T's statements about deporting criminals, but heavily focusing on border security. Excelsior!
*I saw the thing on child leave. I told you he wasn't conservative.
*Rumors he's going after regulations, and lobbying.
*Rumors that Diamond will be Treasury Sec (head of JP Morgan/Chase).
EDIT: I pulled my back yesterday (I was shocked when the family didn't grab my wallet, take out the cash and run away laughing but hey) so will be carefully screening my posts as I am in serious owee mode.
There are no words that can adequately express the great degree to which I most fervently hope that people like Giuliani are kept as far away from federal power as possible. Former prosecutors are terrible choices for AG in the first place and Giuliani would definitely be another that fits that truism.
Former prosecutors typically are chosen for state and federal AG positions.
As a key prosecutor against the MOb and Wall Street crime, he would be ideal to lead an attack on the foothold the cartels have in the US.
Not if you value things like civil liberties and due process.
I'm confused, who do you think becomes AG in the fed and state positions. Pro-tip former prosecutors.
I never said that former prosecutors didn't get the jobs I said I thought they were bad at it.
Case in point, Janet Reno greenlighting this operation:
djones520 wrote: As far as I can tell, our last AG who was not a prosecutor was Gonzales.
That turned out well. (sarcasm of Godzilla proportions)
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Vice President-elect Mike Pence is seeking to keep secret the contents of an email relating to Indiana’s participation, at his behest, in a lawsuit to block President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Pence’s administration brought in an outside law firm to join the litigation, which was spearheaded by Texas Gov. Greg Abbot. The move prompted one Indianapolis lawyer to request documents related to the decision to bring in outside counsel.
Per the article: “Pence produced the documents in the request ‘but those documents included substantial redaction,’ according to court documents. The 57-page response also included an email that Daniel Hodge, Abbott's chief of staff, sent to 30 recipients in various states asking them to join the lawsuit against Obama. The message included an attached white paper, but the governor failed to produce the document, according to court records. After a yearlong trial, the Superior Court held that the issue was not a matter for the courts to decide, citing a Indiana Supreme Court case decided just days before.”
Pence’s efforts, so far upheld by state courts, were highlighted in an Indianapolis Star article Monday.
The effort to shield an email from public scrutiny follows an election in which Hillary Clinton’s campaign was hounded by her use of a private email server while serving at the State Department — a move that was criticized as both a security risk and a blow against transparency.
The decision was appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments in Indianapolis on Nov. 21.
Pence’s office did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.
.. is there perhaps anyone he could ask for advice with regards to e-mails ?
Good times.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Vice President-elect Mike Pence is seeking to keep secret the contents of an email relating to Indiana’s participation, at his behest, in a lawsuit to block President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Pence’s administration brought in an outside law firm to join the litigation, which was spearheaded by Texas Gov. Greg Abbot. The move prompted one Indianapolis lawyer to request documents related to the decision to bring in outside counsel.
Per the article: “Pence produced the documents in the request ‘but those documents included substantial redaction,’ according to court documents. The 57-page response also included an email that Daniel Hodge, Abbott's chief of staff, sent to 30 recipients in various states asking them to join the lawsuit against Obama. The message included an attached white paper, but the governor failed to produce the document, according to court records. After a yearlong trial, the Superior Court held that the issue was not a matter for the courts to decide, citing a Indiana Supreme Court case decided just days before.”
Pence’s efforts, so far upheld by state courts, were highlighted in an Indianapolis Star article Monday.
The effort to shield an email from public scrutiny follows an election in which Hillary Clinton’s campaign was hounded by her use of a private email server while serving at the State Department — a move that was criticized as both a security risk and a blow against transparency.
The decision was appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments in Indianapolis on Nov. 21.
Pence’s office did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.
.. is there perhaps anyone he could ask for advice with regards to e-mails ?
Good times.
BleachBit it... it's the only way to be sure.
However, I do find it strange as to why they wanted those correspondences shielded, since IN has FOIA laws.
Without reading exactly what this case entails, but best guess right now is that he's claiming some sort of "Attorney - Client" privilege.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 17:06:01
Kilkrazy wrote: He needed to win the nomination first, though, and failed that hurdle by about 6 million to 9 million votes.
Well she had the DNC greasing the wheels for her, Trump wouldn´t have that luxury against Bernie
AduroT wrote: I'm sure Trump could have made up just as many lies about Sanders as he did Hillary.
As I said I´m sure he could, but the point I´m making is those lies and exaggerations need to stick. Trump won by being anti-establishment and framing Clinton as a establishment crook (Crooked Hillary for example), that wouldn´t have worked against Bernie.
Looks like the Trump Administration has done their homework.../s
He probably just thinks it's a hostile takeover. I wonder how he's going to react when he finds out that he actually has to make decisions, not just be a figurehead CEO.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Prestor Jon wrote: Federalism. Electoral College. Hillary beating Trump by 3 million votes in California accounts for the almost the entire popular vote margin of victory for Hillary and it didn't matter. Hillary won the 55 Electoral votes for California she gets no bonus points for margin of victory. Trump got viewer votes than Romney or McCain and when you look at the vote total for the other 49 states, aside from CA, it's a tie. If Hillary had been able to motivate supporters to go vote for her in the rest of the country outside of CA she would have won but she couldn't motivate supporters so she lost.
Yes she lost because of the electoral college. That doesn't mean her support was somehow low. SHE'S SECOND MOST VOTED CANDINATE IN USA HISTORY!
That's not low support by any stretch of imagination.
Popular vote? We don't need no stinking popular vote:
No Hillary Did Not Win the Popular Vote There are any number of people and organizations claiming that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. This seems to be in part a justification for the nitwits vandalizing property because their preferred candidate didn’t win. While Clinton did (apparently) win more votes, she is not the winner of the popular vote. How can this be? Simple:
We do not have an election that measures the popular vote. We have an election to see who can get the requisite number of Electoral Votes.
Let’s look at the election as if it was a game:
Everyone who wants to play the game goes in knowing the ground rules: Each state is assigned a point value. The first candidate who assembles a group of states whose total value is or exceeds 270 points wins. The player must get tokens (let’s call them voters). Whoever gets the most voters in a state wins that state and gets that states points.
Because of various reasons that we need not go into now, the game currently only has two players having a chance to win.
<grumble, grumble>
When the game begins, each side has a certain amount of points locked in from the start (“the locked states”.) Team blue has 200 points, Team Red 133.
Therefore, Team Blue needs only 60 more points to win while Team Red needs 137 points. (What? That’s no fair? Too bad). Now we will add in states that, while not a lock for each team, are certainly leading towards a particular color (“tinted states”).
With that, Red has 198 points and Blue has 259 of the 270 points needed. Each team therefore looks at the map and then decides how to best allocate their resources (time, money and personnel) to get to 270. The locked states need no resource allocation. So each team needs to divide the resources they have between the open states and the tinted states. Team Blue needs to make sure none of the tinted states change color and then pick up 15 points. Team Red on the other hand, needs to hold of the pinkish states while picking up 78 points.
The players know this and allocate their resources accordingly. Most resources go into the open states, with a small portion to the tinted as a backstop). And that is how we ended up with this map:
And that is how the game is played.
Keep in mind the deep color states are unalterable- a state that started off Deep Blue cannot be changed to Red. (the hows and whys are not relevant for this version of the game. We will deal with those items in another post.). So spending any resources on it will not change the state and simply deprive your team of money & personnel that could be used elsewhere.
Because the goal of the game is to get to 270, not to see who is the most popular nationwide, campaigns are no concerned with the total number of voters. The Electoral College is not part of the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS). You don’t get extra points for running up the score. So, it doesn’t matter whether you win Florida by one vote or one million votes, the value of winning Florida remains 29. Team Blue wins California regardless of the number of voters it amasses there. So if you are Team Red, you probably have supporters in California. But whether they vote or not, they cannot affect the color of California. They therefore have a dis-incentive to go out and vote because they can’t be the Hope and Change they want to be. Likewise, Team Blue will waste no resources on encouraging voters in Texas, because it will remain Red.
So saying Clinton won the popular vote nationwide is comparing apples to mangoes. The system is not set up to determine the most popular, merely to ascertain who got what number of Electoral Votes. So the numbers being bandied about claiming Clinton “won” the popular vote are misunderstanding what the numbers mean. It is simply the total of people who voted in the election, regardless of whether their individual vote counted.
Now, the closest you could get to seeing who “won the popular vote” would be to look only at the swing and leaning states. Those states are the only places where there would be a need and incentive for voters to come out and express a preference. These are the states where each team could either change the color (or solidify the hue). And this is how it turned out:
The total number of votes:
Clinton: 26,142,767
Trump: 29,114,234
So Trump “wins” the popular vote of the swing and tinted states.
Even if you remove the leaning states that stayed loyal to their teams, you are looking at these states:
(note: I removed both Nebraska and Maine because I was having trouble finding accurate data for the districts that are used in the split electoral votes. Since the sum total of those two states do no equal the difference in the total votes to Clinton and Trump, the effect on the final numbers are negligible at best).
Clinton: 22,070,732
Trump:23,792,961
If you were to use those numbers (because again these are the states where the most resources would be allocated to get people to vote where the votes would really count), you could make an argument that Trump was “the most popular” candidate by 1,722,229 votes.
But I wouldn’t because that is not how the game is played. The only numbers that are important are Electoral Votes. And Trump won that game, 306-232.
Bonus Fun Fact: In the 1960 Presidential Election, the Alabama ballot did not contain the names of either Richard Nixon or John Kennedy. Instead, the citizens of Alabama were asked to elected the State’s Electoral Voters. Alabama was trying to use it Electoral muscle to ensure the President selected would not follow the lead of Eisenhower and seek the dismantling of Jim Crow. For various reasons, the Electoral Voters were not able to follow through on this. But under the mythical idea of “winner of the popular vote”, it is probable that John Kennedy’s election total should not include a decent portion of the Alabama total meaning he was elected without winning the “popular vote”.
TL;DR: Any popular vote argument is meaningless as the contest wasn't designed to maximize the most number of votes in the US.
Prestor Jon wrote: Federalism. Electoral College. Hillary beating Trump by 3 million votes in California accounts for the almost the entire popular vote margin of victory for Hillary and it didn't matter. Hillary won the 55 Electoral votes for California she gets no bonus points for margin of victory. Trump got viewer votes than Romney or McCain and when you look at the vote total for the other 49 states, aside from CA, it's a tie. If Hillary had been able to motivate supporters to go vote for her in the rest of the country outside of CA she would have won but she couldn't motivate supporters so she lost.
Yes she lost because of the electoral college. That doesn't mean her support was somehow low. SHE'S SECOND MOST VOTED CANDINATE IN USA HISTORY!
That's not low support by any stretch of imagination.
Hillary also really lost due to voter apathy. Half of Americans didn't even vote.
Prestor Jon wrote: Federalism. Electoral College. Hillary beating Trump by 3 million votes in California accounts for the almost the entire popular vote margin of victory for Hillary and it didn't matter. Hillary won the 55 Electoral votes for California she gets no bonus points for margin of victory. Trump got viewer votes than Romney or McCain and when you look at the vote total for the other 49 states, aside from CA, it's a tie. If Hillary had been able to motivate supporters to go vote for her in the rest of the country outside of CA she would have won but she couldn't motivate supporters so she lost.
Yes she lost because of the electoral college. That doesn't mean her support was somehow low. SHE'S SECOND MOST VOTED CANDINATE IN USA HISTORY!
That's not low support by any stretch of imagination.
I'll try this one more time, we had low voter turnout this year. When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here. Our population is growing and our number of eligible voters is growing so you can get "a lot" of votes while having a low percentage of voters cast ballots. Clinton's number of voters in the other 49 states aside from California underperformed Obama's numbers and more importantly Trump's. Trump got more votes than Hillary in a majority of states because Hillary had low turnout in a majority of states. You can willfully ignore the fact that low turnout cost Hillary the election but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.