There's a lot of chatter in the web about Michelle Obama running in 2020; she would be the lib wet dream.
There's a lot of chatter in the web about Michelle Obama running in 2020; she would be the lib wet dream.
The fact that Hillary won the popular vote by more than 233,000 votes (current count) doesn't help the situation. I get the sense that it'll be a point of contention for some time.
I agree, but it happened because of the electoral college. Most people get all huffy about it thinking it should be 'one person, one vote'. But it plays a vital role in forcing a proper balance of voting weight among the states. Without it, a few large cities or states could decide the entire election. And when that's allowed to happen, that's all the politicians will care about, and everyone else will get treated like second class. That's why it was done in the first place. It does give more weight to more populous areas as it should, but still maintains a more fair balance and forces politicians to listen to and respect the less populous states.
Hillary was and is a terrible candidate. And it still boggles my mind how some still aren't willing to admit it. But the proof is right in the pudding. She was so terrible she lost to Trump, who they claim was vehemently worse. Obviously America did not agree. When reality doesn't agree with your theory, you better develop a new theory (or blame someone else, I guess). I commend those who are now turning on the DNC, realizing they very likely screwed the rest of their own constituency out of an election.
I'm all for continued diversity of presidential candidates, but if those who are pushing a female candidate strictly for the sake of having a female president don't drop the "if you don't vote for her you're sexist" routine, they are going to have a rough time. Ordinary people just trying to do the best they can in life can only stand being told they a racists, bigots, and sexists for so long before they get fed up.
Last edited:
And to think that Trump tweeted about how bad the electoral college was before the vote...
But oh well, lots of people on the left lectured trump supporters about how it'd be bad form to contest the results and that it wasn't how we did it in our country (we respect the results here). Clearly that was before they lost.
hypocrisy abounds.
Yes! It's weird, but I do feel a bit hypocritical listening to the losers this time. I was them 8 years ago.
On a totally side note, is anyone else super impressed by those White House guards? Awesome.
Agreed. That's the problem with calling elections before they're concluded. Sometimes you don't get the results you expect.
I wonder how late absentee ballots and voter fraud factor into the popular vote totals?
The popular vote only matters in the individual states. Since we are a union of states, the Electoral College is the proper way to elect a president.
With a state as highly populated as California or New York, even a relatively minor percentage of the vote count difference between candidates can vastly overwhelm the differences in the opposite direction of several smaller states. As an example, if state A with 10,000,000 voters voted 55% to 45% in favor of candidate X, and State B and C with 2,000,000 voters each voted the opposite, with candidate Y winning the 55%, the vote count would be 5,500,000 plus 900,000 plus 900,000 totaling 7,300,000 for candidate X but only 6,700,000 for candidate Y. X wins the popular vote, but Y won 2 states compared to only 1 for X. It is actually a bit more complicated when the number of electors is taken into consideration, but the principle is the same.
Woody
Similar threads
