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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
Change happens. It always starts as seemimgly unrealistic.

And it happens with time. A realistic path to change is campaigning to eliminate the electoral college and move to a direct vote for president. Various political factors make this unlikely to succeed right now, but there is significant opposition to the system that could be built on. An unrealistic path to change is a desperate Hail Mary attempt to change the system overnight, which depends on Trump's loyal supporters deciding to elect their sworn enemy instead of the person they worked to elect. You're free to spend your time and effort on your futile effort, but don't think that you're doing anything other than making yourself feel better about Doing Something To Help.

At worst I am being part of that change over time. Unless I am being unrealistic...in which I am not part of that change over time. But that's what realism gets you, the status quo.

I would challenge and say what do you think trump and sanfers represented? They represent the anger many americans feel toward the status quo. Toward the establishment. They represent a desire for a change. Maybe the change over time has been coming for a while. Maybe this is when it happens. I have no idea.

But if you want to talk about futile... Let's talk about all the work that went into a getting a plurality of americans to vote for your candidate, succeeding and then being told it doesn't matter. That the plurality of Americans have wasted their vote. They might have all just stayed home. What i'm doing is futile? No more than what nearly 62 million americans did on election day.

BTW, HRC is now nearly 1 million votes ahead of trump. Talk about futile.

ender502

 ender502 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
Change happens. It always starts as seemimgly unrealistic.

And it happens with time. A realistic path to change is campaigning to eliminate the electoral college and move to a direct vote for president. Various political factors make this unlikely to succeed right now, but there is significant opposition to the system that could be built on. An unrealistic path to change is a desperate Hail Mary attempt to change the system overnight, which depends on Trump's loyal supporters deciding to elect their sworn enemy instead of the person they worked to elect. You're free to spend your time and effort on your futile effort, but don't think that you're doing anything other than making yourself feel better about Doing Something To Help.

At worst I am being part of that change over time. Unless I am being unrealistic...in which I am not part of that change over time. But that's what realism gets you, the status quo.

I would challenge and say what do you think trump and sanfers represented? They represent the anger many americans feel toward the status quo. Toward the establishment. They represent a desire for a change. Maybe the change over time has been coming for a while. Maybe this is when it happens. I have no idea.

But if you want to talk about futile... Let's talk about all the work that went into a getting a plurality of americans to vote for your candidate, succeeding and then being told it doesn't matter. That the plurality of Americans have wasted their vote. They might have all just stayed home. What i'm doing is futile? No more than what nearly 62 million americans did on election day.

BTW, HRC is now nearly 1 million votes ahead of trump. Talk about futile.

ender502

Winning a plurality of the vote wasn't a prerequisite for winning the presidency for the first 57 presidential elections why do you think it suddenly matters for the 58th?

What do you think would happen if this electoral college petition actually succeeded?

First, we would have a constitutional crisis, then assuming somehow Clinton actually got in, we would have civil war part 2 - this time with automatic weapons

 ender502 wrote:
But that's what realism gets you, the status quo.

No, being realistic can get you change. But you have to approach change in a realistic manner if you want to get anything done, getting emotional about a hopeless Hail Mary attempt doesn't contribute anything to a solution. You might as well start buying lottery tickets with all your money, so you can have the funding to run for president in 2020 and fix the system.

Let's talk about all the work that went into a getting a plurality of americans to vote for your candidate, succeeding and then being told it doesn't matter.

I don't see what your point is. People succeeded at a goal that didn't matter. Winning the most votes in the US is not how you get to be president, winning 270+ electoral college votes is. And anybody who believed otherwise was simply ignorant of how the process works. Complaining that they didn't get any reward for their "success" is like spending your whole day digging a hole, filling it in, digging it again, etc, and demanding that someone pay you for all of your hard work.

That the plurality of Americans have wasted their vote. They might have all just stayed home.

By that argument the same is true of every election. The losing side in the presidential election didn't win, so they might as well have stayed home. But it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Going out to vote has a purpose even if you don't succeed, since you can't win without trying. And talking about how they might as well have stayed home ignores the importance of state and local elections*. Even if every vote for Clinton is a failure those people still voted for democrats at the state and local level who won their races, voted for/against various state/local proposed laws, etc. For example, if the numbers hold up in the recount, here in NC we succeeded in getting a liberal supreme court justice (giving the left a majority on the court, with a lot of legal challenges to right-wing awfulness coming up), a democrat for attorney general (likewise important), and a democrat for governor. That's a major first step in undoing the awful things the republican-run NC legislature has done over the past few years. And those things are still accomplished even though Clinton lost NC's electoral votes.

*This is a significant part of why third parties are such a joke: they put everything into a desperate attempt to win 5% of the presidential vote and get their participation trophy, and they neglect the importance of state and local races.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
What do you think would happen if this electoral college petition actually succeeded?

It won't... seriously you guys... don't underestimate that these Electors are political operatives.

First, we would have a constitutional crisis, then assuming somehow Clinton actually got in, we would have civil war part 2 - this time with automatic weapons

 whembly wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
What do you think would happen if this electoral college petition actually succeeded?

It won't... seriously you guys... don't underestimate that these Electors are political operatives.

First, we would have a constitutional crisis, then assuming somehow Clinton actually got in, we would have civil war part 2 - this time with automatic weapons

Yeah, the idea of a Civil war over that is ridiculous.

 whembly wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
What do you think would happen if this electoral college petition actually succeeded?

It won't... seriously you guys... don't underestimate that these Electors are political operatives.

First, we would have a constitutional crisis, then assuming somehow Clinton actually got in, we would have civil war part 2 - this time with automatic weapons

I know it won't happen - I am simply walking down the road that others have proposed. I figure it's more likely that Aliens will invade and an unlikely team of Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith will defeat them than a bunch of republicans voting in Hillary.

If the electoral college went full faithless and actually elected Clinton, there would be massive unrest. Do I think a bunch of midwesterners would put in grey uniforms and march on Washington - probably not, but McVeigh style attacks would certainly increase. There would be blood on the streets. It would confirm every fear of those who thought the election was rigged and this is coming from someone who voted Clinton.


But I will stop speculating on extreme hypotheticals

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
What do you think would happen if this electoral college petition actually succeeded?

First, we would have a constitutional crisis, then assuming somehow Clinton actually got in, we would have civil war part 2 - this time with automatic weapons

I'm constantly hearing revolution talk amongst the never Trumpers and pro-Hillary camp, and I'd personally love for that to happen. The thought of the anti-gun crowd revolting or fighting a civil war is amusement at its finest. What are they gonna fight with, dildos and bongs?



I didn't bet on the election, but I'm thinking about betting on when all this amped up hyperbole is going to die down.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
What do you think would happen if this electoral college petition actually succeeded?

First, we would have a constitutional crisis, then assuming somehow Clinton actually got in, we would have civil war part 2 - this time with automatic weapons

Now that is just fear mongering.

I'm constantly hearing revolution talk amongst the never Trumpers and pro-Hillary camp, and I'd personally love for that to happen. The thought of the anti-gun crowd revolting or fighting a civil war is amusement at its finest. What are they gonna fight with, dildos and bongs?



I didn't bet on the election, but I'm thinking about betting on when all this amped up hyperbole is going to die down.

And thats horrifying.

Yep enough internet for today....


Time to go and watch kitty videos *reads comments* *sighs ever so deeply*


How about not... How about we talk about the electoral college like reasonable people, mostly about how it is unfairly placed and not allowing people in the territories to vote at all? Why are people in space allowed to vote but if I enter guam my vote doesn't count?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Why are people in space allowed to vote but if I enter guam my vote doesn't count?

Because people in space are not establishing a permanent residence, while people who live in Guam are. If you're just visiting Guam (like you might visit space) you vote with an absentee ballot in your home state and your vote is counted like the vote of any other resident of that state.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Why are people in space allowed to vote but if I enter guam my vote doesn't count?

Because people in space are not establishing a permanent residence, while people who live in Guam are. If you're just visiting Guam (like you might visit space) you vote with an absentee ballot in your home state and your vote is counted like the vote of any other resident of that state.

So US Citzens who live in guam are not allowed to vote, because they live in.... US SANTICTIONED Territories that are not only governed by the United States but everyone there is accounted as being a United States Citizen do not have the right to vote because?

So they have all the benefits of being a US citizen but suddenly they can't vote?

Tell me then why can North Dakota Vote? North Dakota has long been since lost the right to be properly called 'a state' not because of its allegiance or what have you, but because it doesn't fufill the requirement of being a state by population. I think it is incredible they haven't thought maybe we should merge the Dakotas because of their low populations? Though that would mean we would have only 49 states. But wait, looks like we have puerto rico, Guam and several other territories waiting to become states...

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm constantly hearing revolution talk amongst the never Trumpers and pro-Hillary camp, and I'd personally love for that to happen. The thought of the anti-gun crowd revolting or fighting a civil war is amusement at its finest. What are they gonna fight with, dildos and bongs?

Who exactly on the left is talking about violent revolution? I see a lot of talk of political revolution, but nothing about a civil war. In fact, the post you quoted was about Trump supporters starting a civil war if the electoral college vote went to Clinton. And the war would be fought by the police and/or military crushing the terrorists, most likely with very few casualties outside of the civilian victims the Trump revolution murdered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
So US Citzens who live in guam are not allowed to vote, because they live in.... US SANTICTIONED Territories that are not only governed by the United States but everyone there is accounted as being a United States Citizen do not have the right to vote because?

Correct. US territories are not states, and do not have the same voting rights as states. You can argue that they should receive statehood and/or voting rights if you want, but that has nothing to do with your flawed "why can people in space vote" comparison.

Everyone - please dial back on the hyperbole.

Thanks.

Correct. US territories are not states, and do not have the same voting rights as states. You can argue that they should receive statehood and/or voting rights if you want, but that has nothing to do with your flawed "why can people in space vote" comparison.

I think it is ridiclious that I can vote in space but If I am from guam I suddenly can't vote.

Infact if your permanent residence was anywhere in the world. You can vote. You know my dad did that, thank goodness we didn't live in guam! Shesh. Its such a dumb law. Not only are there soldiers living there, but civilians. Its kind of fascinating that they still let that happen. Just maybe 1 electoral vote per. Or maybe 3? Maybe for the 44 Million people who live in the Territories? (Which is more than 8 of the states we have in the Continental US)


Except fething territories. My god its dumb, but I think we should make them states mostly so we can increase the electoral college and then possibly have a higher population and more people representing territories and the people of the US.

Thats not hyperbole that is just fact.

Who exactly on the left is talking about violent revolution? I see a lot of talk of political revolution, but nothing about a civil war. In fact, the post you quoted was about Trump supporters starting a civil war if the electoral college vote went to Clinton. And the war would be fought by the police and/or military crushing the terrorists, most likely with very few casualties outside of the civilian victims the Trump revolution murdered.

My question exactly. Though I would find it terrifying to see....... Very terrifying.

 whembly wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
What do you think would happen if this electoral college petition actually succeeded?

It won't... seriously you guys... don't underestimate that these Electors are political operatives.

First, we would have a constitutional crisis, then assuming somehow Clinton actually got in, we would have civil war part 2 - this time with automatic weapons

I'm sorry Whembly but you told us that Clinton had this in the bag.

I don't think we can ever trust your political judgement ever again

Lets be fair to Whembly. The one time he actually agreed in full with all of us not on the right we turned out to be wildly incorrect XD

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think it is ridiclious that I can vote in space but If I am from guam I suddenly can't vote.

Again, this comparison is completely broken. The reason you can vote in space is the same reason that you can vote while you're on vacation in Europe: you are a resident of a US state (Texas, in most cases), you're just out of the country on election day. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether people who are permanent residents of non-state US territories should have voting rights.

My god its dumb, but I think we should make them states mostly so we can increase the electoral college and then possibly have a higher population and more people representing territories and the people of the US.

That's a nice thought, but it ignores the question of whether or not the territories want to be states. It's not as simple as just declaring "congratulations, now you're a state", and proposals for statehood are far from uncontroversial.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
What do you think would happen if this electoral college petition actually succeeded?

It won't... seriously you guys... don't underestimate that these Electors are political operatives.

First, we would have a constitutional crisis, then assuming somehow Clinton actually got in, we would have civil war part 2 - this time with automatic weapons

I'm sorry Whembly but you told us that Clinton had this in the bag.

I don't think we can ever trust your political judgement ever again

Yeah... that's a hell of a black mark on my record...eh?

Can you blame me?

 Breotan wrote:
You're essentially asking for a do-over which isn't going to happen. Your next chance to vote for President comes in four years. Hopefully both parties will field better candidates than they did this time.

My prediction for 2020 - both candidates will have very bad net approval ratings. Maybe not as negative as Trump's, unless Trump is the candidate again, but about as bad as Clinton's.

And there will be lots and lots of horrible things said about both candidates, and people will believe all the horrible things about the other's sides candidate, and be largely unaware of the horrible things said about their own candidate (whether true or not).

This is about partisanship, not the actual candidates.

 LordofHats wrote:
Lets be fair to Whembly. The one time he actually agreed in full with all of us not on the right we turned out to be wildly incorrect XD

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

My god its dumb, but I think we should make them states mostly so we can increase the electoral college and then possibly have a higher population and more people representing territories and the people of the US.

That's a nice thought, but it ignores the question of whether or not the territories want to be states. It's not as simple as just declaring "congratulations, now you're a state", and proposals for statehood are far from uncontroversial.

At least there's a chance that Puerto Rico could become one.

When you see a bunch of liberals buying ar-15's you know the world has gone off the deep end.

Hah! That'd be a great business. Artisinal, small batch, pumpkin lager tasting and assault rifle training. That'd be a hoot! I'd have to figure out how to sell it on etsy. And get yoga in there.

BTW, thanks for the comments and criticisms. Personally, I learn best when interacting with others. You never know what part of the equation you aren't seeing until someone slaps you in the face with it over the internet.

ender502

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think it is ridiclious that I can vote in space but If I am from guam I suddenly can't vote.

Again, this comparison is completely broken. The reason you can vote in space is the same reason that you can vote while you're on vacation in Europe: you are a resident of a US state (Texas, in most cases), you're just out of the country on election day. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether people who are permanent residents of non-state US territories should have voting rights.

My god its dumb, but I think we should make them states mostly so we can increase the electoral college and then possibly have a higher population and more people representing territories and the people of the US.

That's a nice thought, but it ignores the question of whether or not the territories want to be states. It's not as simple as just declaring "congratulations, now you're a state", and proposals for statehood are far from uncontroversial.

american citizens wanting the right to vote? the nerve of them. They can run for president, they just can't vote for themselves or watch their wife vote for them.

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
You're essentially asking for a do-over which isn't going to happen. Your next chance to vote for President comes in four years. Hopefully both parties will field better candidates than they did this time.

My prediction for 2020 - both candidates will have very bad net approval ratings. Maybe not as negative as Trump's, unless Trump is the candidate again, but about as bad as Clinton's.

And there will be lots and lots of horrible things said about both candidates, and people will believe all the horrible things about the other's sides candidate, and be largely unaware of the horrible things said about their own candidate (whether true or not).

This is about partisanship, not the actual candidates.

Jesus I hope not.

At least there's a chance that Puerto Rico could become one.

I hope so. I wouldn't mind the benefits of going to Puerto Rico and for it to be apart of the US, plus we will see a more diverse senate.

Puerto Rico has had many opportunities to either become a state, or sever ties completely with the US and go it alone. As it stands, they actually prefer their status as a semi-country in limbo. They are basically their own country and get to run things, yet still get Social Security, can travel to the US, be employed in the US without a greencard, and they get to suck on the government teet of assistance. The only real downside is they don't get to vote in elections (that usually wouldn't matter with their votes anyway).

sirlynchmob wrote:
american citizens wanting the right to vote? the nerve of them. They can run for president, they just can't vote for themselves or watch their wife vote for them.

You may notice that I took no position on the issue of whether or not residents of US territories should be able to vote, I simply pointed out that the voting from space comparison is not appropriate and statehood is much more complicated than declaring "let them vote".

 Peregrine wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
american citizens wanting the right to vote? the nerve of them. They can run for president, they just can't vote for themselves or watch their wife vote for them.

You may notice that I took no position on the issue of whether or not residents of US territories should be able to vote, I simply pointed out that the voting from space comparison is not appropriate and statehood is much more complicated than declaring "let them vote".

Which I thank you for, I think I am the only one who expressed the want for all US Citizens wanting to vote. Peregrine has only stated the possibilities not his own personal opinion. As he says here.

But Whether or not it could happen...

Well thats up for debate.

What I want is not always within the realm of possiblity.

Like I want a Chocolate every single day of my life. But then Calories....

Or even better:

I want the US President Elections to have bikini contests.

Just because I want to see some people make something happen doesn't mean it should happen.

Puerto Rico doesn't want to be. But Guam as sure as hell wants to be a State.

Though the problem is whether or not the government there wants to or has the need to.

They get many perks. But them being added into the US would add quite a bit of voting power into the US.

Whether or not it is possible I hope it happens. But Considering Donald Trump won the election, who knows what will happen. Maybe Congress forgets they are republicans and passes into law protection for Child Services and Planned Parenthood.

Or even better People have their own opinions on issues. (Not pointed at anyone).

There is no correct answer to the Electoral College, or to the States or to the Territories. As of yet. If there was they would of be enacted a while ago.

Wut?

I know Ted Cruz met with Trump today... which was kinda strange... but this?

Jennifer Jacobs ✔ @JenniferJJacobs
SCOOP: Trump is discussing TED CRUZ for AG
8:26 PM - 15 Nov 2016

Troll status?

Cause you might find it interesting. Federalist #68. I've bolded the part about electors but included the entire text.

To the People of the State of New York:

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally 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. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form 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. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

PUBLIUS.

1 Vide FEDERAL FARMER.

Dastardly double post for some reason. Weird.

 CptJake wrote:
The correlation is a gak ton of folks were upset he won. Except they didn't riot and start harassment campaigns against the electors. Clinton lost the popular vote in enough states that she took the biggest Electoral College loss the Dems have had in ages. She lost over 200 counties Obama won twice, and more he won once. She saw states flip that had been reliably D.

She took a major fething beating.

Yes, Clinton lost the election by the rules of the system. Calling it a major beating, though, that requires a level of imagination that really should be getting put to use on something that isn't crazy. Clinton lost Florida by 1.25 points, and Pennsylvania by 1.08%. Clinton improves her numbers in those states by a tick over 1% and you have a different result.

Calling that a major fething beating is a denial of reality. Trying to define the win based on who won what county is even sillier, I mean the popular vote might not determine an election but at least people understand how it might decide an election, whereas tallying up a bunch of counties with wildly differing populations is just the weirdest bit of nonsense.