Hillary did not win the popular vote

[Elixir]

He can do that and lose one vote at a time. Meanwhile, one word from him will convince his legions of Stoopids that the worker in question actually quit, or is still fully employed, or whatever lie Trump chooses to put out for their consumption. Remember - he won the popular vote! Just ask a Trumpster.

Like I said, not a winning strategy.

Oh, but aren't you forgetting that Trump won the popular vote, and the electoral college by a landslide?
Even the Mighty Trumples can't attack enough people individually to put a dent in his millions of votes margin in just four years!

 

[Horatio Parker]

Like I said, not a winning strategy.

Oh, but aren't you forgetting that Trump won the popular vote, and the electoral college by a landslide?
Even the Mighty Trumples can't attack enough people individually to put a dent in his millions of votes margin in just four years!

Forget it? I'm counting on it.

For Trump to do nothing or very little and then bray about it as if he just achieved world peace. People who are hurting will not be impressed.

 

[Elixir]

Oh, but aren't you forgetting that Trump won the popular vote, and the electoral college by a landslide?
Even the Mighty Trumples can't attack enough people individually to put a dent in his millions of votes margin in just four years!

Forget it? I'm counting on it.

I do hope you're right. I have assumed all along that Trump would a) fuck over all of his base, and b) they wouldn't notice, or c) they'd readily blame whoever Trump points his finger at.

For Trump to do nothing or very little and then bray about it as if he just achieved world peace. People who are hurting will not be impressed.

I am still not convinced. Saw some Trumpsuckers on the TeeVee, heaping praise upon him for "saving all those jobs". None of them seemed to notice that he did so by PAYING the Company, rather than PENALIZING the Company, nor that such an act is precisely what he has been railing against for over a year. It totally escaped them that he lied about the number of jobs "saved", and that most of Carrier's mfg jobs are still going to Mexico...
My impression was (and remains) that he can feed them shit and tell them it's caviar, and they'll believe him. After all, trailer trash ain't s'posed to know what caviar tastes like, and the few who have tried it say it tastes like shit.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Forget it? I'm counting on it.

I do hope you're right. I have assumed all along that Trump would a) fuck over all of his base, and b) they wouldn't notice, or c) they'd readily blame whoever Trump points his finger at.

For Trump to do nothing or very little and then bray about it as if he just achieved world peace. People who are hurting will not be impressed.

I am still not convinced. Saw some Trumpsuckers on the TeeVee, heaping praise upon him for "saving all those jobs". None of them seemed to notice that he did so by PAYING the Company, rather than PENALIZING the Company, nor that such an act is precisely what he has been railing against for over a year. It totally escaped them that he lied about the number of jobs "saved", and that most of Carrier's mfg jobs are still going to Mexico...
My impression was (and remains) that he can feed them shit and tell them it's caviar, and they'll believe him. After all, trailer trash ain't s'posed to know what caviar tastes like, and the few who have tried it say it tastes like shit.

Per CNN the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000, so at least Trump seems to be trying; not like previous administrations.
This article is critical of Trump but also locates the elephant in the room saying the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000 which is 856 jobs a day yet no one did a thing.
If Trump doesn't deliver he won't get elected again.

 

[laughing dog]

I do hope you're right. I have assumed all along that Trump would a) fuck over all of his base, and b) they wouldn't notice, or c) they'd readily blame whoever Trump points his finger at.

For Trump to do nothing or very little and then bray about it as if he just achieved world peace. People who are hurting will not be impressed.

I am still not convinced. Saw some Trumpsuckers on the TeeVee, heaping praise upon him for "saving all those jobs". None of them seemed to notice that he did so by PAYING the Company, rather than PENALIZING the Company, nor that such an act is precisely what he has been railing against for over a year. It totally escaped them that he lied about the number of jobs "saved", and that most of Carrier's mfg jobs are still going to Mexico...
My impression was (and remains) that he can feed them shit and tell them it's caviar, and they'll believe him. After all, trailer trash ain't s'posed to know what caviar tastes like, and the few who have tried it say it tastes like shit.

Per CNN the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000, so at least Trump seems to be trying; not like previous administrations.
This article is critical of Trump but also locates the elephant in the room saying the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000 which is 856 jobs a day yet no one did a thing.
If Trump doesn't deliver he won't get elected again.

Total Nonfarm employment is higher now that at anytime in history
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS), so I don't know what CNN is talking about.

 

[skepticalbip]

I do hope you're right. I have assumed all along that Trump would a) fuck over all of his base, and b) they wouldn't notice, or c) they'd readily blame whoever Trump points his finger at.

For Trump to do nothing or very little and then bray about it as if he just achieved world peace. People who are hurting will not be impressed.

I am still not convinced. Saw some Trumpsuckers on the TeeVee, heaping praise upon him for "saving all those jobs". None of them seemed to notice that he did so by PAYING the Company, rather than PENALIZING the Company, nor that such an act is precisely what he has been railing against for over a year. It totally escaped them that he lied about the number of jobs "saved", and that most of Carrier's mfg jobs are still going to Mexico...
My impression was (and remains) that he can feed them shit and tell them it's caviar, and they'll believe him. After all, trailer trash ain't s'posed to know what caviar tastes like, and the few who have tried it say it tastes like shit.

Per CNN the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000, so at least Trump seems to be trying; not like previous administrations.
This article is critical of Trump but also locates the elephant in the room saying the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000 which is 856 jobs a day yet no one did a thing.
If Trump doesn't deliver he won't get elected again.

Total Nonfarm employment is higher now that at anytime in history
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS), so I don't know what CNN is talking about.

CNN was talking about five million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000. Apparently many of those who held those jobs are now short order cooks, cashiers in grocery stores and quickie marts, starbucks' baristas, stock people at Walmart, etc. or maybe holding two or three of those jobs to make ends meet. I imagine that it is tough going from a thirty to fifty dollars/hr. job to a ten dollar/hr. job.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I do hope you're right. I have assumed all along that Trump would a) fuck over all of his base, and b) they wouldn't notice, or c) they'd readily blame whoever Trump points his finger at.

For Trump to do nothing or very little and then bray about it as if he just achieved world peace. People who are hurting will not be impressed.

I am still not convinced. Saw some Trumpsuckers on the TeeVee, heaping praise upon him for "saving all those jobs". None of them seemed to notice that he did so by PAYING the Company, rather than PENALIZING the Company, nor that such an act is precisely what he has been railing against for over a year. It totally escaped them that he lied about the number of jobs "saved", and that most of Carrier's mfg jobs are still going to Mexico...
My impression was (and remains) that he can feed them shit and tell them it's caviar, and they'll believe him. After all, trailer trash ain't s'posed to know what caviar tastes like, and the few who have tried it say it tastes like shit.

Per CNN the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000, so at least Trump seems to be trying; not like previous administrations.
This article is critical of Trump but also locates the elephant in the room saying the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000 which is 856 jobs a day yet no one did a thing.
If Trump doesn't deliver he won't get elected again.

Total Nonfarm employment is higher now that at anytime in history
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS), so I don't know what CNN is talking about.

The Federal Bureau of Statistics shows a drop in manufacture and a partial recovery.


http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

 

[Horatio Parker]

I am still not convinced. Saw some Trumpsuckers on the TeeVee, heaping praise upon him for "saving all those jobs". None of them seemed to notice that he did so by PAYING the Company, rather than PENALIZING the Company, nor that such an act is precisely what he has been railing against for over a year. It totally escaped them that he lied about the number of jobs "saved", and that most of Carrier's mfg jobs are still going to Mexico...
My impression was (and remains) that he can feed them shit and tell them it's caviar, and they'll believe him. After all, trailer trash ain't s'posed to know what caviar tastes like, and the few who have tried it say it tastes like shit.

That's not the same as them accepting his bullshit about their jobs.

You're not seriously suggesting that if Trump tells one of his Kool Aid drinkers that they have a job when they don't, they'll believe him.

Granted, he's defied many a prediction, but that one is too much for me.

 

[laughing dog]

I do hope you're right. I have assumed all along that Trump would a) fuck over all of his base, and b) they wouldn't notice, or c) they'd readily blame whoever Trump points his finger at.

For Trump to do nothing or very little and then bray about it as if he just achieved world peace. People who are hurting will not be impressed.

I am still not convinced. Saw some Trumpsuckers on the TeeVee, heaping praise upon him for "saving all those jobs". None of them seemed to notice that he did so by PAYING the Company, rather than PENALIZING the Company, nor that such an act is precisely what he has been railing against for over a year. It totally escaped them that he lied about the number of jobs "saved", and that most of Carrier's mfg jobs are still going to Mexico...
My impression was (and remains) that he can feed them shit and tell them it's caviar, and they'll believe him. After all, trailer trash ain't s'posed to know what caviar tastes like, and the few who have tried it say it tastes like shit.

Per CNN the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000, so at least Trump seems to be trying; not like previous administrations.
This article is critical of Trump but also locates the elephant in the room saying the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000 which is 856 jobs a day yet no one did a thing.
If Trump doesn't deliver he won't get elected again.

Total Nonfarm employment is higher now that at anytime in history
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS), so I don't know what CNN is talking about.

The Federal Bureau of Statistics shows a drop in manufacture and a partial recovery.


http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Employment in manufacturing is actually showing a bit of an uptick lately
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it. That means 52% of votes cast for president were against her.

If US had had the same voting system as France or Australia she would be the next president.

Australia is not a Republic (kind of like Sweden is not one either). Their Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, who chooses a governor general as her proxy. And the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people either.

And as far as France, I have already explained it. If we had the same system as France, she would not be the next president, at least not yet, because she did not win the majority. She would have to go through a runoff and then it would depend whom the Gary Johnson voters prefer and who actually turns out for the runoff. Also in such a system smaller parties would get more votes because there would be no need to vote strategically to avoid the spoiler effect.

If we're looking for alternative systems, with the Argentine system she would have won assuming she got a 48%.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it. That means 52% of votes cast for president were against her.

Is there any country in the world that would seat their chief executive if they only got a plurality of the votes? I don't know of one but there may be.

In Argentina, you need either more than 45%, or 40% and 10 percentage points over the second. Else, there is a runoff. But 48% would be enough.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I do hope you're right. I have assumed all along that Trump would a) fuck over all of his base, and b) they wouldn't notice, or c) they'd readily blame whoever Trump points his finger at.

For Trump to do nothing or very little and then bray about it as if he just achieved world peace. People who are hurting will not be impressed.

I am still not convinced. Saw some Trumpsuckers on the TeeVee, heaping praise upon him for "saving all those jobs". None of them seemed to notice that he did so by PAYING the Company, rather than PENALIZING the Company, nor that such an act is precisely what he has been railing against for over a year. It totally escaped them that he lied about the number of jobs "saved", and that most of Carrier's mfg jobs are still going to Mexico...
My impression was (and remains) that he can feed them shit and tell them it's caviar, and they'll believe him. After all, trailer trash ain't s'posed to know what caviar tastes like, and the few who have tried it say it tastes like shit.

Per CNN the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000, so at least Trump seems to be trying; not like previous administrations.
This article is critical of Trump but also locates the elephant in the room saying the US has lost 5 million jobs since 2000 which is 856 jobs a day yet no one did a thing.
If Trump doesn't deliver he won't get elected again.

Total Nonfarm employment is higher now that at anytime in history
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS), so I don't know what CNN is talking about.

The Federal Bureau of Statistics shows a drop in manufacture and a partial recovery.


http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Employment in manufacturing is actually showing a bit of an uptick lately
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP

It does but a large drop with a small recovery but recovers very little from the sharp drop during the Bush years. Technology is always changing but it is still more economical to keep manufacturing in the US during the interim rather than paying people not to work after their jobs disappeared.

All governments are borrowing heavily. Obama-Care is expensive but I believed a review of Castro-Care may produce some good expensive means of attaining affordable and even free medical care to all. Gaddafi provided free healthcare for all citizens so I think the US could still do so.

 

[dismal]

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it. That means 52% of votes cast for president were against her.


Australia is not a Republic (kind of like Sweden is not one either). Their Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, who chooses a governor general as her proxy. And the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people either.

And as far as France, I have already explained it. If we had the same system as France, she would not be the next president, at least not yet, because she did not win the majority. She would have to go through a runoff and then it would depend whom the Gary Johnson voters prefer and who actually turns out for the runoff. Also in such a system smaller parties would get more votes because there would be no need to vote strategically to avoid the spoiler effect.

If we're looking for alternative systems, with the Argentine system she would have won assuming she got a 48%.

I'd like to point out that in a system where California didn't count she wouldn't have won 48% of the popular vote either.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If we're looking for alternative systems, with the Argentine system she would have won assuming she got a 48%.

I'd like to point out that in a system where California didn't count she wouldn't have won 48% of the popular vote either.

Could you explain what your point is, please?

Derek said "Note that every system I know where people directly elect president it is not a "first past the post" plurality vote. If neither candidate wins a majority, there is a runoff between the top two.", and then commented on how the 48% would not have been enough in some other countries. I provided an example of a real system in which 48% (and more votes than her adversary) would have been enough.

I don't know why you reply in that fashion. I'm not saying the Argentine system is good, by the way. Personally, I think it's bad, even though no worse than the Electoral College system it replaced in 1994 (which was for essentially a copy of the US system). But it was an example of an alternative system where her numbers would have been enough.

Of course, if that had been the system, it's unclear what the outcome would have been. For example, some conservatives in California may well not have voted because they thought Clinton would surely win California anyway. Then again, some progressivists in California may well not have voted because they thought Clinton would surely win California anyway.

 

[BH]

As I have explained, she is ahead in the popular vote, but she only got 48%, so she did not win it. That means 52% of votes cast for president were against her.
.

Is there any country in the world that would seat their chief executive if they only got a plurality of the votes? I don't know of one but there may be.

But then the US doesn't elect the President and VP by popular vote. The States elect them sorta like the leadership of the EU is selected by the member states, not by a popular vote.

I think Mexico does it that way.

 

[dismal]

I'd like to point out that in a system where California didn't count she wouldn't have won 48% of the popular vote either.

Could you explain what your point is, please?

Derek said "Note that every system I know where people directly elect president it is not a "first past the post" plurality vote. If neither candidate wins a majority, there is a runoff between the top two.", and then commented on how the 48% would not have been enough in some other countries. I provided an example of a real system in which 48% (and more votes than her adversary) would have been enough.

I don't know why you reply in that fashion. I'm not saying the Argentine system is good, by the way. Personally, I think it's bad, even though no worse than the Electoral College system it replaced in 1994 (which was for essentially a copy of the US system). But it was an example of an alternative system where her numbers would have been enough.

Of course, if that had been the system, it's unclear what the outcome would have been. For example, some conservatives in California may well not have voted because they thought Clinton would surely win California anyway. Then again, some progressivists in California may well not have voted because they thought Clinton would surely win California anyway.

I thought in this thread we were making strident emotional points about what would happen if we had used electoral systems that we don't use. Without any hint the vote might be different if the system were different.

My point is if California didn't count Trump would have won the popular vote. Check the math if you like. You'll see it's true.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I thought in this thread we were making strident emotional points about what would happen if we had used electoral systems that we don't use. Without any hint the vote might be different if the system were different.

I'm not sure who "we" is, but you replied to my post, and I don't do that sort of stuff. I'm not even emotionally involved on this.

 

[ronburgundy]

The only thing of note that the OP highlights is that fewer than 1 in 4 eligible voters voted for Trump. That is worth remembering both in terms of how we should respond to his efforts as president and that trying to appeal to the radical minority of idiots who voted for him is not the sensible strategy for future elections.

 

[dismal]

I thought in this thread we were making strident emotional points about what would happen if we had used electoral systems that we don't use. Without any hint the vote might be different if the system were different.

I'm not sure who "we" is, but you replied to my post, and I don't do that sort of stuff. I'm not even emotionally involved on this.

Ok, I didn't mean to say you were the only one doing it. I was joining the people doing it.

 

[Derec]

1. she won the popular vote sonce she had the most votes. You do not need more than 50% to be the most voted for...

It's misleading in that less than half voted for her. Actually her margin to majority is greater than the margin between her and Trump.

2. I did not say that australia has a president.

Yes, you did.

If US had had the same voting system as France or Australia she would be the next president.

Now you may have confused Austria and Australia, but you did write Australia.

3. I did not say that using French voting system Hilkary would have won this voting. But she clearly would have won the next one between her and Trump.

That is hardly clear. It depends for whom Gary Johnson voters vote for and what the turnout it.