ADVERTISEMENT

Thanks Obama!

If any president elect ever had a mandate, it's Trump. So many folks underestimated him and his message.
 
It was a rejection of Clinton. Democrats should have never elected her their nominee (no, I did not vote for her in the primary). Democrats do well when their is a true progressive running for president.

Oh and people hate her, they really, really hate her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights
It was a rejection of Barry and his liberal policies which have wrecked the economy. Barry said last week that a vote for Trump was a personal insult to him. Welll........
 
Orange is the new black
CN6yHCvVAAAqNIf.png:large
 
  • Like
Reactions: cnsaguy
Update below from Adrian Wyllie FL Libertarian Guber candidate in '12 (who I voted for) (this election I went Trump, Stanton, no 1 yes 2 personally)

For Florida Libertarians, here are the upsides from this election.

- Jared Grifoni won his bid for Marco Island City Council, after running a campaign that should become the template for future Libertarian candidates. Congratulations, my friend.

- Paul Stanton received more votes than any Libertarian U.S. Senate Candidate in Florida history. Kudos, Paul.

- Though Gary Johnson failed to meet our goal of 5% of the vote, he received over 4 million votes nationally, more than tripling the prior record for a Libertarian Presidential candidate.

- Amendment 1 failed, ensuring that the free market -- not the utility monopolies -- will control the future of solar energy in Florida.

- Amendment 2 passed, allowing Floridians to use medicinal cannabis, and setting the stage for full legalization.

So, for Libertarians, there's a lot to be happy about today.
 
How is it a mandate when you got the 2nd most votes?
Obama had a mandate in 2008 with his huge win over McCain and the sweeping victory in Congress; I guess you could argue Trump has the same since he won and the GOP owns both Houses. To be honest, I'm not sure margin of victory really matters for it to be considered a mandate.
 
Obama had a mandate in 2008 with his huge win over McCain and the sweeping victory in Congress; I guess you could argue Trump has the same since he won and the GOP owns both Houses. To be honest, I'm not sure margin of victory really matters for it to be considered a mandate.
It doesn't, take out NYC and the vote totals flip. People here live in a different world than most. I laugh at people when they say Clinton won the popular vote, of course she did, people in NYC think everyone should be like them and live like them.
 
Obama had a mandate in 2008 with his huge win over McCain and the sweeping victory in Congress; I guess you could argue Trump has the same since he won and the GOP owns both Houses. To be honest, I'm not sure margin of victory really matters for it to be considered a mandate.

The electoral college can not be manipulated. It is a way of calculating the popular vote around the country.

The GOP already had control of the House and Senate and lost seats in 2016. Trump got less votes than HRC. The Republican party got less votes than the Democratic party for the 6th time in the last 7 presidential elections. Plus, Trump is the most unpopular person every to win the presidency. I would caution against calling that a mandate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
It doesn't, take out NYC and the vote totals flip. People here live in a different world than most. I laugh at people when they say Clinton won the popular vote, of course she did, people in NYC think everyone should be like them and live like them.

You act like the popular vote doesn't matter. You must have people vote for you in order to win electoral votes. It's the only way it happens.
 
It doesn't, take out NYC and the vote totals flip. People here live in a different world than most. I laugh at people when they say Clinton won the popular vote, of course she did, people in NYC think everyone should be like them and live like them.

I'm not arguing against the Electoral College, but what? That's a silly response. Let's just take out the whole South, they think completely different then us....that's pretty much what you're saying. Let's take out California, they different, bye girl.
 
You act like the popular vote doesn't matter. You must have people vote for you in order to win electoral votes. It's the only way it happens.
if we went strictly on popular vote then California would decide every future election whose Politics have gone so far left compared to the rest of the country
CxFzzA7UsAEptA-.jpg
 
We can't go to a popular vote in this country. Most of us would lose our voice and everything would be dictated from ivory towers in NY, California, Chicago, DC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USFSucks
We can't go to a popular vote in this country. Most of us would lose our voice and everything would be dictated from ivory towers in NY, California, Chicago, DC.
Now it's dictated by Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Montana like states. One vote there means more (up to 4x) than in states like California and New York. That's not fair either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
if we went strictly on popular vote then California would decide every future election whose Politics have gone so far left compared to the rest of the country
CxFzzA7UsAEptA-.jpg


Then that is what the country is. The Electoral College is like a voter exchange. Each person votes and depending on your address will determine the exchange rate for your vote. In CA there are ~164,000 voters per electoral vote. In Wyoming, there are ~83,000 voters per electoral vote. So people in Wyoming count twice as much as the people in CA.
 
Now it's dictated by Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Montana like states. One vote there means more (up to 4x) than in states like California and New York. That's not fair either.

It's dictated by the swing states, not the Wyomings of the country. The swing states are all really good representations of the country as a whole, that's why they're swing states.
 
Then that is what the country is. The Electoral College is like a voter exchange. Each person votes and depending on your address will determine the exchange rate for your vote. In CA there are ~164,000 voters per electoral vote. In Wyoming, there are ~83,000 voters per electoral vote. So people in Wyoming count twice as much as the people in CA.
And Electoral votes change over time as Representation in the House changes in accordance with the latest Census. The system isn't meant to change quickly, but 388 out of 538 Electoral votes could theoretically come from one state. Right now 80% of the electoral votes come from a population based metric, that's fair in my eyes.
 
It's dictated by the swing states, not the Wyomings of the country. The swing states are all really good representations of the country as a whole, that's why they're swing states.
Another reason to make a proportional electoral college, gets more states involved.
 
firm_bizzle thinks mob rule is cool and favors suppression of minority views.
I know you are trolling, I'll take the bait. Not sure where you got that from or that it is outrageous that 2 Americans have equal vote representation.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT