Hillary Clinton

[heironymouspasparagus]

And if you actually read beyond the last paragraph of mine you quoted, you would have seen my analysis on the debt and deficit which is clearly explained how it is perceived to the masses.  I don't watch Fox and my hyperbole meter wasn't going off when I re-read my post.  I simply stated how it is most people have the political beliefs they have these days. 

It takes far less research to make a poor decision these days then pre-internet and pre-24 hour news cycle. 

Yeah I read it...and I didn't really mean to put "you" in there - as in you personally!  Sometimes the fingers typing just get a life of their own....  It was really intended for the wider audience of people who religiously and slavishly just parrot the RWRE Faux News cycle.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The level of anger I am seeing from my college aged daughter and her friends is nothing short of stunning, even here in Oklahoma. The level of anger from my friends that live on the coasts is the same.

There is a massive generational and coastal/flyover divide.

The 1960s are brewing again.

Good!!  I am seeing it in my kids, too!   We need a move away from the dispassionate, mind-numbing, stupor we have been in since Reagan!!  Hopefully I will live long enough to see and live in a country that lives up to its own press....

Now if we could just get some change in Okrahoma!!

[Conan71]

The level of anger I am seeing from my college aged daughter and her friends is nothing short of stunning, even here in Oklahoma. The level of anger from my friends that live on the coasts is the same.

There is a massive generational and coastal/flyover divide.

The 1960s are brewing again.

Why the anger?  I'm sure your daughter and her friends were taught things don't always go their way and how to be gracious in loss.  This is as free a system as there is to pick our leaders.  We are not some third world craphole where people start looting and rioting when they are unhappy with the outcome of something.  If they are that angry, perhaps they should start with the system the DNC ran to assure HRC was a foregone conclusion.

Democrats got eight years of control of the White House with a bonuse two years at the start of that term with a Dem HOR and Senate.  That's how we got the ACA.  That, itself was a mobilizing event, which helped elect Trump, IMO.

I'm pretty certain two years of GOP dominance will lead to a shift in the parties in the legislative branch.  In the meantime, the Democrats have two years to pick a dynamic candidate who can beat Trump.

The Democrats fell off their formula of success that ushered in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Young, intelligent, idealistic candidates who were capable of energizing their party.  Hillary has never had that charisma and frankly, she was a re-tread well past her prime.  She came off as the authoritarian grandmother not as someone most people could really relate to.  If she had faced a different candidate than Trump, we'd likely have been looking at something more of a landslide favoring the GOP.

[Bamboo World]

Hell, as of right now the EC is 50 popular votes that are weighted together.

No, it's based on at least 51 popular vote elections, not only 50.  That's what I meant in my previous comment.  

All we're asking is that instead of throwing everyone into different buckets at the end, Judy combine them.

I don't know what that means.  I have no idea what you typed into your phone, or how it "corrected" your text.  I'm not trying to argue semantics.  In this case, I'm trying to understand them.

------

I'm standing by my main point for this discussion topic:  Hillary Clinton has known about the electoral process for decades.  Of the nine chances she has had (so far) to run for the presidency and possibly win, she has tried twice.  She lost in 2008.  Yesterday, after her second failed attempt, she conceded.  In 2020, if she is able and willing, she will have her tenth opportunity to go for a run.

The electoral process is not perfect.  I'm not saying that the current system couldn't evolve or be improved.  However, in my opinion, the current electoral process is better than one based on a nationwide direct popular vote.

[swake]

Why the anger?  I'm sure your daughter and her friends were taught things don't always go their way and how to be gracious in loss.  This is as free a system as there is to pick our leaders.  We are not some third world craphole where people start looting and rioting when they are unhappy with the outcome of something.  If they are that angry, perhaps they should start with the system the DNC ran to assure HRC was a foregone conclusion.

Democrats got eight years of control of the White House with a bonuse two years at the start of that term with a Dem HOR and Senate.  That's how we got the ACA.  That, itself was a mobilizing event, which helped elect Trump, IMO.

I'm pretty certain two years of GOP dominance will lead to a shift in the parties in the legislative branch.  In the meantime, the Democrats have two years to pick a dynamic candidate who can beat Trump.

The Democrats fell off their formula of success that ushered in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Young, intelligent, idealistic candidates who were capable of energizing their party.  Hillary has never had that charisma and frankly, she was a re-tread well past her prime.  She came off as the authoritarian grandmother not as someone most people could really relate to.  If she had faced a different candidate than Trump, we'd likely have been looking at something more of a landslide favoring the GOP.

These kids are almost all former Bernie supporters that came to Clinton only because Trump is so awful. Because wrong is wrong. They are Obama supporters largely and if they are not it's because he's too conservative.

This generation is larger than the baby boomers and is already very diverse. They have been raised to be inclusive on issues of race, gender and sexuality. They see electing Trump as going back to the dark ages almost.

[erfalf]

Right there.  Had this same discussion with my daughter last night. She missed being able to vote by two months, but bunch of her friends did and a lot of them are up in arms about the EC now.  Simple put, the EC isn't going to change because it generally works, it at the core of the way we elect presidents, and there are reasons why it was done that way.  Gripe all you/we want, it isn't going to happen.

Per my earlier post though, I do think a movement could be made somehow to get all states to apportion their electors by vote percentage within the state.  That is already allowed, and a few do it this way now.  That alone would result in a much tighter match to popular vote, while also having the side affect of removing the concept of a wasted vote as every vote in every state would actually matter.

Was honestly thinking about how that would look last night. It can't be overly complicated. The electorate must trust that it works. Tat being said the "fairest" way I thought was to give the two votes (that represented the Senate seats) to the winner of the state popular vote, then allocate the others based on % of vote won. Rounding or not, Trump would have prevailed in this fashion as well as he won 30 states. I still think the current winner take all fashion gives a lot more power to the states (not all obviously). Time changes which states are swing states. Going straight allocation is just popular vote in disguise and pointless to even have an EC. That to me would be a compromise, but an unnecessary change in my opinion.

That all being said, many young people don't understand this system for whatever reason. They also often don't understand that this is not a democracy that they live in. They may have been told that, but that's just our underpaid teachers not understanding either apparently (or parents).

[swake]

Was honestly thinking about how that would look last night. It can't be overly complicated. The electorate must trust that it works. Tat being said the "fairest" way I thought was to give the two votes (that represented the Senate seats) to the winner of the state popular vote, then allocate the others based on % of vote won. Rounding or not, Trump would have prevailed in this fashion as well as he won 30 states. I still think the current winner take all fashion gives a lot more power to the states (not all obviously). Time changes which states are swing states. Going straight allocation is just popular vote in disguise and pointless to even have an EC. That to me would be a compromise, but an unnecessary change in my opinion.

That all being said, many young people don't understand this system for whatever reason. They also often don't understand that this is not a democracy that they live in. They may have been told that, but that's just our underpaid teachers not understanding either apparently (or parents).

That's a load of crap. They understand.

The will of the people has now been subverted in 2 of the last 5 elections. It's long past time to kill the electoral college.  Why should someone's vote in Idaho count more than mine? Why should my vote count more than someone in California just because of what state you live in? That is just plain wrong.

Even if killing the EC isn't possible at least a simple federal law that forces states to allocate electors based on the vote percentages. 

The last time the people's will was subverted we got a mishandled war in Afghanistan, a pointless war in Iraq and the worst economic calamity of the last 100 years.

And Trump is far, far worse than Bush Jr.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And Trump is far, far worse than Bush Jr.

What??   Worse than an alcoholic, cocaine addict, wife beater??   Say it ain't so....!!   And whose said wife killed her high school sweetheart when driving drunk??

[heironymouspasparagus]

Why the anger?  I'm sure your daughter and her friends were taught things don't always go their way and how to be gracious in loss.  This is as free a system as there is to pick our leaders.  We are not some third world craphole where people start looting and rioting when they are unhappy with the outcome of something.  If they are that angry, perhaps they should start with the system the DNC ran to assure HRC was a foregone conclusion.

What comes around, goes around.....  But according to Trump at the time, we should start "rioting and looting"...

And Ted Nugent was his usual class act...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republicans-react-obama-win-anger-gloom-calls-fight-article-1.1198334

[swake]

Here's a tweet for you about revolution over the popular vote:

~ lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!







— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012 (he was lying about the popular vote, but then of course he was)

[swake]

And then this:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
10:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012

[swake]

From 2012, an election Obama won by millions of votes:

[Conan71]

What does this say about Hillary supporters?  It's one thing to talk stupid smack post election, vandalism is taking it to a whole new level:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-downtown-la-trump-protests-20161109-htmlstory.html

[swake]

What does this say about Hillary supporters?  It's one thing to talk stupid smack post election, vandalism is taking it to a whole new level:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-downtown-la-trump-protests-20161109-htmlstory.html

I'm telling you, there's a lot of anger out there now. People feel they have lost their country (sound familiar?)

[Conan71]

Was honestly thinking about how that would look last night. It can't be overly complicated. The electorate must trust that it works. Tat being said the "fairest" way I thought was to give the two votes (that represented the Senate seats) to the winner of the state popular vote, then allocate the others based on % of vote won. Rounding or not, Trump would have prevailed in this fashion as well as he won 30 states. I still think the current winner take all fashion gives a lot more power to the states (not all obviously). Time changes which states are swing states. Going straight allocation is just popular vote in disguise and pointless to even have an EC. That to me would be a compromise, but an unnecessary change in my opinion.

That all being said, many young people don't understand this system for whatever reason. They also often don't understand that this is not a democracy that they live in. They may have been told that, but that's just our underpaid teachers not understanding either apparently (or parents).

I got to thinking about this more and more.  Perhaps an allocation system rather than winner takes all would get more people to the polls because they feel their vote would really matter in deeply red or deeply blue states.  I don't know that it changes the fact that our country seems split down the middle now, but I could see where it might encourage more people to show up on election day.