Ready for almost 7 more years?

[kalm]

I'd like to remind you all that I called it in July. Nate Silver can suck it!

[css75]

The only thing the popular vote showed by Hildebeast winning it, was California loves her, scratch Cali and Trump wins the popular vote. Lots of lunatics in Cali.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

The only thing the popular vote showed by Hildebeast winning it, was California loves her, scratch Cali and Trump wins the popular vote. Lots of lunatics in Cali.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

California is in the United States. The vote of a person in California during a Presidential election should not have less value than the vote of a person in Wyoming does. But it does thanks to our electoral college system.

Besides, the point in looking at the popular vote in this context is that the polls on the popular vote were pretty darned accurate. And the popular vote for the 2016 election is what corresponds to national polls on things like Trump job approval now.

[JohnStOnge]

There was high confidence from the news media, primarily CNN and the liberal leaning media, that Clinton would win. That is why there was such a backlash against the polls, the electoral college, and the look to blame Trumps election on the Russians. Breaking news, the election results were how the people voted, just like it has been for many years.

If the election were held today, I still would not vote for either Clinton or Trump.

I have written before that the pundits thought Clinton would win. It's an interesting thing to because I think that going into this election there was more confidence among pundits that Clinton would win than there was going into the 2012 election that Obama would win.

But if you just look at the polling stuff that was the reverse of what the polls indicated. The 538 forecast on the eve of the 2012 election had 90% confidence that Obama would win. Yet there wasn't the same "done deal" type of atmosphere among pundits as there was going into 2016 election day when 538's "polls only" forecast indicated 71% confidence that Clinton would win. 90% confidence is actually sometimes acceptable in statistics. People might make a call on the basis of 90% confidence. No way, no how would anyone ever make a call based on confidence as low as 71%.

Yet my perception is that the pundits thought there was more doubt about Obama vs. Romney than there was about Clinton vs. Trump.

My thought is that maybe they just couldn't believe United States citizens as a group would do something as stupid as voting for Trump.

[css75]

There was high confidence from the news media, primarily CNN and the liberal leaning media, that Clinton would win. That is why there was such a backlash against the polls, the electoral college, and the look to blame Trumps election on the Russians. Breaking news, the election results were how the people voted, just like it has been for many years.

If the election were held today, I still would not vote for either Clinton or Trump.

I have written before that the pundits thought Clinton would win. It's an interesting thing to because I think that going into this election there was more confidence among pundits that Clinton would win than there was going into the 2012 election that Obama would win.

But if you just look at the polling stuff that was the reverse of what the polls indicated. The 538 forecast on the eve of the 2012 election had 90% confidence that Obama would win. Yet there wasn't the same "done deal" type of atmosphere among pundits as there was going into 2016 election day when 538's "polls only" forecast indicated 71% confidence that Clinton would win. 90% confidence is actually sometimes acceptable in statistics. People might make a call on the basis of 90% confidence. No way, no how would anyone ever make a call based on confidence as low as 71%.

Yet my perception is that the pundits thought there was more doubt about Obama vs. Romney than there was about Clinton vs. Trump.

My thought is that maybe they just couldn't believe United States citizens as a group would do something as stupid as voting for Trump.

Yep, and the deplorable will win again in 2020. Do you need a primer on how and why the electoral college is used.?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

I have written before that the pundits thought Clinton would win. It's an interesting thing to because I think that going into this election there was more confidence among pundits that Clinton would win than there was going into the 2012 election that Obama would win.

But if you just look at the polling stuff that was the reverse of what the polls indicated. The 538 forecast on the eve of the 2012 election had 90% confidence that Obama would win. Yet there wasn't the same "done deal" type of atmosphere among pundits as there was going into 2016 election day when 538's "polls only" forecast indicated 71% confidence that Clinton would win. 90% confidence is actually sometimes acceptable in statistics. People might make a call on the basis of 90% confidence. No way, no how would anyone ever make a call based on confidence as low as 71%.

Yet my perception is that the pundits thought there was more doubt about Obama vs. Romney than there was about Clinton vs. Trump.

My thought is that maybe they just couldn't believe United States citizens as a group would do something as stupid as voting for Trump.

Yep, and the deplorable will win again in 2020. Also, do you need a primer on the electoral college and why it exists?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

There was high confidence from the news media, primarily CNN and the liberal leaning media, that Clinton would win. That is why there was such a backlash against the polls, the electoral college, and the look to blame Trumps election on the Russians. Breaking news, the election results were how the people voted, just like it has been for many years.

If the election were held today, I still would not vote for either Clinton or Trump.

I have written before that the pundits thought Clinton would win. It's an interesting thing to because I think that going into this election there was more confidence among pundits that Clinton would win than there was going into the 2012 election that Obama would win.

But if you just look at the polling stuff that was the reverse of what the polls indicated. The 538 forecast on the eve of the 2012 election had 90% confidence that Obama would win. Yet there wasn't the same "done deal" type of atmosphere among pundits as there was going into 2016 election day when 538's "polls only" forecast indicated 71% confidence that Clinton would win. 90% confidence is actually sometimes acceptable in statistics. People might make a call on the basis of 90% confidence. No way, no how would anyone ever make a call based on confidence as low as 71%.

Yet my perception is that the pundits thought there was more doubt about Obama vs. Romney than there was about Clinton vs. Trump.

My thought is that maybe they just couldn't believe United States citizens as a group would do something as stupid as voting for Trump.

Voting for either Trump or Clinton was stupid depending on who you talk to, but that's what the political system put out in front of America. I didn't fall for that and voted for another person.

[Ibanez]

The only thing the popular vote showed by Hildebeast winning it, was California loves her, scratch Cali and Trump wins the popular vote. Lots of lunatics in Cali.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

California is in the United States. The vote of a person in California during a Presidential election should not have less value than the vote of a person in Wyoming does. But it does thanks to our electoral college system.

I agree however heavily populated states have more power than the least populated ones. The electoral college ensures that doesn't happen. The only time people bitch about the EC is when they (democrats in 2000 and 2016) don't win the election. In 52 of the 56 presidential elections (~93%), the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote. Are we really going to bitch about a process that works 93% of the time? It's sour grapes - nothing more.

[Ibanez]

There was high confidence from the news media, primarily CNN and the liberal leaning media, that Clinton would win. That is why there was such a backlash against the polls, the electoral college, and the look to blame Trumps election on the Russians. Breaking news, the election results were how the people voted, just like it has been for many years.

If the election were held today, I still would not vote for either Clinton or Trump.

I have written before that the pundits thought Clinton would win. It's an interesting thing to because I think that going into this election there was more confidence among pundits that Clinton would win than there was going into the 2012 election that Obama would win.

But if you just look at the polling stuff that was the reverse of what the polls indicated. The 538 forecast on the eve of the 2012 election had 90% confidence that Obama would win. Yet there wasn't the same "done deal" type of atmosphere among pundits as there was going into 2016 election day when 538's "polls only" forecast indicated 71% confidence that Clinton would win. 90% confidence is actually sometimes acceptable in statistics. People might make a call on the basis of 90% confidence. No way, no how would anyone ever make a call based on confidence as low as 71%.

Yet my perception is that the pundits thought there was more doubt about Obama vs. Romney than there was about Clinton vs. Trump.

My thought is that maybe they just couldn't believe United States citizens as a group would do something as stupid as voting for Trump.

1) Americans were sick and tired of establishment candidates.
2) Even Democrats didn't want Clinton. The nomination contest was unfairly tilted towards Clinton - even the former head of the DNC admits that
3) Trump was nobody's ideal candidate. He gave a voice to frustration and anger that many people are feeling. He was a middle finger to politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as Republicans for electing him.

4) You're a broken record, we know you hate Trump. We get it. Most people here agree that he's a train-wreck. But he's OUR train-wreck and he's in office. Unless you plan on doing something to oust him - hope for the best.
5) Just as I predicted in 2016 - the other 2 branches of our Gov't will check him. They are doing just that. He's had 1 major achievement. Speaking of - will you be paying more taxes in defiance or will you accept the extra money>

[Ivytalk]

I have written before that the pundits thought Clinton would win. It's an interesting thing to because I think that going into this election there was more confidence among pundits that Clinton would win than there was going into the 2012 election that Obama would win.

But if you just look at the polling stuff that was the reverse of what the polls indicated. The 538 forecast on the eve of the 2012 election had 90% confidence that Obama would win. Yet there wasn't the same "done deal" type of atmosphere among pundits as there was going into 2016 election day when 538's "polls only" forecast indicated 71% confidence that Clinton would win. 90% confidence is actually sometimes acceptable in statistics. People might make a call on the basis of 90% confidence. No way, no how would anyone ever make a call based on confidence as low as 71%.

Yet my perception is that the pundits thought there was more doubt about Obama vs. Romney than there was about Clinton vs. Trump.

My thought is that maybe they just couldn't believe United States citizens as a group would do something as stupid as voting for Trump.

1) Americans were sick and tired of establishment candidates.
2) Even Democrats didn't want Clinton. The nomination contest was unfairly tilted towards Clinton - even the former head of the DNC admits that
3) Trump was nobody's ideal candidate. He gave a voice to frustration and anger that many people are feeling. He was a middle finger to politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as Republicans for electing him.

4) You're a broken record, we know you hate Trump. We get it. Most people here agree that he's a train-wreck. But he's OUR train-wreck and he's in office. Unless you plan on doing something to oust him - hope for the best.
5) Just as I predicted in 2016 - the other 2 branches of our Gov't will check him. They are doing just that. He's had 1 major achievement. Speaking of - will you be paying more taxes in defiance or will you accept the extra money>

[Gil Dobie]

The only thing the popular vote showed by Hildebeast winning it, was California loves her, scratch Cali and Trump wins the popular vote. Lots of lunatics in Cali.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

California is in the United States. The vote of a person in California during a Presidential election should not have less value than the vote of a person in Wyoming does. But it does thanks to our electoral college system.

Without the electoral college, California voters have more value than voters in any other state. Would you like the same laws in rural Louisiana that they have in California?

[Baldy]

My thought is that maybe they just couldn't believe United States citizens as a group would do something as stupid as voting for Trump.

What? Be more stupid (like you) and vote for another Clinton?

[Ibanez]

1) Americans were sick and tired of establishment candidates.
2) Even Democrats didn't want Clinton. The nomination contest was unfairly tilted towards Clinton - even the former head of the DNC admits that
3) Trump was nobody's ideal candidate. He gave a voice to frustration and anger that many people are feeling. He was a middle finger to politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as Republicans for electing him.

4) You're a broken record, we know you hate Trump. We get it. Most people here agree that he's a train-wreck. But he's OUR train-wreck and he's in office. Unless you plan on doing something to oust him - hope for the best.
5) Just as I predicted in 2016 - the other 2 branches of our Gov't will check him. They are doing just that. He's had 1 major achievement. Speaking of - will you be paying more taxes in defiance or will you accept the extra money>

[Ivytalk]

Sometimes our Cajun friend will ignore an obvious troll in favor of something more subtle. Like a big fat catfish going after a Royal Coachman.

[BDKJMU]

I have written before that the pundits thought Clinton would win. It's an interesting thing to because I think that going into this election there was more confidence among pundits that Clinton would win than there was going into the 2012 election that Obama would win.

But if you just look at the polling stuff that was the reverse of what the polls indicated. The 538 forecast on the eve of the 2012 election had 90% confidence that Obama would win. Yet there wasn't the same "done deal" type of atmosphere among pundits as there was going into 2016 election day when 538's "polls only" forecast indicated 71% confidence that Clinton would win. 90% confidence is actually sometimes acceptable in statistics. People might make a call on the basis of 90% confidence. No way, no how would anyone ever make a call based on confidence as low as 71%.

Yet my perception is that the pundits thought there was more doubt about Obama vs. Romney than there was about Clinton vs. Trump.

My thought is that maybe they just couldn't believe United States citizens as a group would do something as stupid as voting for Trump.

1) Americans were sick and tired of establishment candidates.
2) Even Democrats didn't want Clinton. The nomination contest was unfairly tilted towards Clinton - even the former head of the DNC admits that
3) Trump was nobody's ideal candidate. He gave a voice to frustration and anger that many people are feeling. He was a middle finger to politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as Republicans for electing him.

4) You're a broken record, we know you hate Trump. We get it. Most people here agree that he's a train-wreck. But he's OUR train-wreck and he's in office. Unless you plan on doing something to oust him - hope for the best.
5) Just as I predicted in 2016 - the other 2 branches of our Gov't will check him. They are doing just that. He's had 1 major achievement. Speaking of - will you be paying more taxes in defiance or will you accept the extra money>

At least 2:
-Gorsuch
-tax cuts
A 3rd if you include the end of the filibuster for judicial nominations- that in itself might be the biggest of all, but doesn’t get much play in the media.

[JohnStOnge]

Without the electoral college, California voters have more value than voters in any other state. Would you like the same laws in rural Louisiana that they have in California?

That's not true at all. Without the electoral college each person's vote would have exactly the same value as everyone else's.

Say you did vote for Trump in California. Your vote didn't count at all because 100% of California's electoral votes went to Clint. Say you're one of the 2,268,839 people in Michigan who voted for Clinton. Your vote didn't count at all because slightly more people in Michigan...2,279,543...voted for Trump so 100% of Michigan's electoral votes went to Trump.

The President is a national office. The winner should be decided by all of the people having their votes counted equally. Your vote shouldn't essentially be completely nixed as a factor in that national picture because you were in a State where your side lost by 0.2%.

The interests of low population States are protected by the Senate. Each State gets 2 Senator whether it has 579,315 people like Wyoming does or 68 times that population as California does.

[CID1990]

Without the electoral college, California voters have more value than voters in any other state. Would you like the same laws in rural Louisiana that they have in California?

That's not true at all. Without the electoral college each person's vote would have exactly the same value as everyone else's.

Say you did vote for Trump in California. Your vote didn't count at all because 100% of California's electoral votes went to Clint. Say you're one of the 2,268,839 people in Michigan who voted for Clinton. Your vote didn't count at all because slightly more people in Michigan...2,279,543...voted for Trump so 100% of Michigan's electoral votes went to Trump.

The President is a national office. The winner should be decided by all of the people having their votes counted equally. Your vote shouldn't essentially be completely nixed as a factor in that national picture because you were in a State where your side lost by 0.2%.

The interests of low population States are protected by the Senate. Each State gets 2 Senator whether it has 579,315 people like Wyoming does or 68 times that population as California does.

The Electoral College was intentionally designed to give proportional representation to the states, John. We are a republic, not a pure democracy.

[css75]

The name is United STATES, each state as part of the Union has its own election.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

The real irony here is that each state can determine how their electors are employed.

Only two states allow their electors to split - Maine and Nebraska.

If the left and their fellow travelers like St Wronge really wanted to pit their money where their mouths are, they'd advocate at their own state levels to do away with the winner take all method - but they won't do that... because CA is comfortably blue but if they split their electors the Dems would give up a few electors

Everybody wants to bitch and cry when the EC doesn't go their way but give them a choice to go towards actual pure democracy and they'll balk every time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Without the electoral college, California voters have more value than voters in any other state. Would you like the same laws in rural Louisiana that they have in California?

That's not true at all. Without the electoral college each person's vote would have exactly the same value as everyone else's.

Say you did vote for Trump in California. Your vote didn't count at all because 100% of California's electoral votes went to Clint. Say you're one of the 2,268,839 people in Michigan who voted for Clinton. Your vote didn't count at all because slightly more people in Michigan...2,279,543...voted for Trump so 100% of Michigan's electoral votes went to Trump.

The President is a national office. The winner should be decided by all of the people having their votes counted equally. Your vote shouldn't essentially be completely nixed as a factor in that national picture because you were in a State where your side lost by 0.2%.

The interests of low population States are protected by the Senate. Each State gets 2 Senator whether it has 579,315 people like Wyoming does or 68 times that population as California does.

Some Constitutional conservative you are.

[Ibanez]

Without the electoral college, California voters have more value than voters in any other state. Would you like the same laws in rural Louisiana that they have in California?

That's not true at all. Without the electoral college each person's vote would have exactly the same value as everyone else's.

Say you did vote for Trump in California. Your vote didn't count at all because 100% of California's electoral votes went to Clint. Say you're one of the 2,268,839 people in Michigan who voted for Clinton. Your vote didn't count at all because slightly more people in Michigan...2,279,543...voted for Trump so 100% of Michigan's electoral votes went to Trump.

The President is a national office. The winner should be decided by all of the people having their votes counted equally. Your vote shouldn't essentially be completely nixed as a factor in that national picture because you were in a State where your side lost by 0.2%.

The interests of low population States are protected by the Senate. Each State gets 2 Senator whether it has 579,315 people like Wyoming does or 68 times that population as California does.

You still aren't grasping the reason we have the EC. The Clinton campaign has really brainwashed you.

[Winterborn]

That's not true at all. Without the electoral college each person's vote would have exactly the same value as everyone else's.

Say you did vote for Trump in California. Your vote didn't count at all because 100% of California's electoral votes went to Clint. Say you're one of the 2,268,839 people in Michigan who voted for Clinton. Your vote didn't count at all because slightly more people in Michigan...2,279,543...voted for Trump so 100% of Michigan's electoral votes went to Trump.

The President is a national office. The winner should be decided by all of the people having their votes counted equally. Your vote shouldn't essentially be completely nixed as a factor in that national picture because you were in a State where your side lost by 0.2%.

The interests of low population States are protected by the Senate. Each State gets 2 Senator whether it has 579,315 people like Wyoming does or 68 times that population as California does.

The Electoral College was intentionally designed to give proportional representation to the states, John. We are a republic, not a pure democracy.

And I for one am thankful we are. Yea, sure does not always play out how I personally would like it, but overall it is a fair system. The fact that both sides complain about it, is more proof in that it is doing what it was set up to do.

[css75]

The founders were pure geniuses as a group.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HI54UNI]

Without the electoral college, California voters have more value than voters in any other state. Would you like the same laws in rural Louisiana that they have in California?

That's not true at all. Without the electoral college each person's vote would have exactly the same value as everyone else's.

Say you did vote for Trump in California. Your vote didn't count at all because 100% of California's electoral votes went to Clint. Say you're one of the 2,268,839 people in Michigan who voted for Clinton. Your vote didn't count at all because slightly more people in Michigan...2,279,543...voted for Trump so 100% of Michigan's electoral votes went to Trump.

The President is a national office. The winner should be decided by all of the people having their votes counted equally. Your vote shouldn't essentially be completely nixed as a factor in that national picture because you were in a State where your side lost by 0.2%.

The interests of low population States are protected by the Senate. Each State gets 2 Senator whether it has 579,315 people like Wyoming does or 68 times that population as California does.

To paraphrase CID - amend the constitution or STFU.

[HI54UNI]

The real irony here is that each state can determine how their electors are employed.

Only two states allow their electors to split - Maine and Nebraska.

If the left and their fellow travelers like St Wronge really wanted to pit their money where their mouths are, they'd advocate at their own state levels to do away with the winner take all method - but they won't do that... because CA is comfortably blue but if they split their electors the Dems would give up a few electors

Everybody wants to bitch and cry when the EC doesn't go their way but give them a choice to go towards actual pure democracy and they'll balk every time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've always thought it should be done by congressional district with the winner of the majority of the districts in a state getting the remaining 2 electors for the state. If they split by congressional district Trump would have won 230 and Hilldog 205.




Trump won more districts/states so he still would have won the presidency.