Facts.... now a republican wants to talk facts? Or are these alternative facts we are talking about? What actual democratic policies do you have back any of that up? You guys have anecdotal protest signs to make up your theories about where the left is as opposed to actual polities the leader of the Republican Party has implemented that a large majority of Republican voters are polled as supporting. The left doesn't even know where the left has gone because the left isn't implementing policy. They (the people not politicians who aren't in power) are simply trying to block and speak out against things like science denial, protecting health care that the GOP wants to gut, protecting clean air and water, etc. Where is the left going ... id call it an area of common sense self preservation. Where the Trump admin and his followers are going? I have no idea but it's nowhere I want the country to be.
I am not saying President Trump did not win the election fair and square. He did. I am pointing to facts. If we're equating likability to individual votes, then factually more people liked Hillary Clinton. If we're equating likability to states , then more states liked Trump. But I usually don't equate likability to a non-human entity. Doesn't matter. We are forever stuck with both facts. If it weren't in the millions, if it was a smaller number, like in 2000, it probably wouldn't be referenced as much. But close to 3 million is a lot. Unfortunately, President Trump will always have that asterisk next to his Presidency.
Actually, even the Electoral College is not fairly representative. I believe that a citizen of Wyoming's vote holds much more weight than a person from California's does. Not sure if someone from California should be penalized that way.
It's not unfortunately. It's an anomaly and that's very good. The US isn't that crazy and nutty. The simple fact is Trump is a very unpopular President. Since becoming POTUS, he hasn't change much - some said he's pretty much still in campaign mode - and the approval / disapproval and other ratings for this POTUS continue to make the point of how unpopular he is. 2020 should be "make america smart again". We aren't this stupid.
Do you know that it is mathematically possible that a candidate could win close to 80% of the popular vote and still lose the Presidency? Crazy. Yes, I meant unfortunately for Trump supporters. I find amusement in the fact that this will probably always haunt him.
That describes a lot of posters here in the D&D on Clutchfans. Actually, there are very few who fit in the "independent" 20%, myself included. We have a bunch of extreme left and a few extreme right around here with an occasional independent who typically doesn't stick around because of all the bickering. I am sure most of the extreme left will say or may actually think they are independent. I will be surprised if some admit it. I fully admit I fall to the extreme right but I was not an strong Trump supporter preferring Cruz but did vote for him as more of an anti-Hillary vote.
Think rationally and try to understand that a basketball forum is not a natural breading ground for the 'extreme left'. It's more likely that you fall in an extremist ideological mind set which skews your paradigm. Extremists usually go posts on their own leftist or rightt winger message boards.
I agree it's arguing about a consolation prize in the presidential election, and that Hilary was a poor candidate who couldn't deliver traditionally Democratic states. I'm not denying that at all.
Love this take. This is a basketball forum which adds a great backdrop for the discussion as people from different sides meeting on mutual ground for a much more nuanced conversation. To the Trump supporters here - this is a good place for you to interact with folks from the left in a place where there are no pre conceived notions and a mob geared to attack any potential "trolls" that enter their safe space. I say let's embrace the diversify here instead of pointing the finger at anyone without an opinion like yours here and labeling them as an extremist. Well unless you have a clear agenda like liltexx who is clearly trolling. I often disagree but do enjoy the alternate takes of even folks like Bobbythegreat as frustrating as they might be.
Bobby views most of the board as extreme leftist also. It's crazy to think but that's what they think. I guess the Houston Rockets inherently attracts ultra leftists. Maybe it's the red color?
The way to look at it is that the person from California is represented by 55 electoral votes and the person from Wyoming is only represented by 3 electoral votes. Essentially the perspective of Californians is more represented than Wyoming combined with that of all 6 states that border Wyoming. Those who think this is unfair essentially want to make the perspective of those in states like Wyoming and every state they border even more irrelevant than they already are and make the perspective of that one state even more represented than it already is.
Texas' electoral votes did not represent me- I did not vote for President Trump, yet he carried Texas. People in Wyoming can vote for their governor, state representatives, and city government officials. Voting for the President of the U.S. is voting for someone who, by definition, represents all citizens regardless of state- and the President is primarily involved with executing federal law which applies to all states, correct? So, how exactly is using the Electoral College a better representation of the will of the people than 1 person, 1 vote? Seems to be that voting for a governor and state representatives, whose primary goal is to serve the citizens of their state, is the proper way to give each person representation for their state. And if I recall, I don't think the governor's vote is put up to an Electoral College system in which each county has equal representation, right? So, when voting for the governor of a state, it's based on the popular vote, right? Seems to me that Harris, Bexar, and Travis Counties have unfair sway in the governor's vote and that smaller counties in Texas are not fairly represented- according to the Electoral College logic. To be honest, Bobby, your argument sounds more like socialism. "Oh, we don't want poor Wyoming to be left out of the party, so we're going to give them 3 compared to 55 for CA even though that is way, way out of proportion to the populations of each state." Socialism.
Yeah, they did. Just because the majority didn't go with you doesn't change anything. The voice of Texas was heard, just like the voice of California, and the voice of every other state. States like Texas, and California carry more weight than those of Wyoming or Nebraska, but everyone gets their say. If you switch to a raw national vote then a handful of cities will determine every election. This recent election was a show of how the system worked to perfection. The vast majority of the country leaned one way and that carried the day over the handful of large cities that leaned heavily the other way. That's exactly how things are supposed to work. There is a built in advantage for those who appeal to the relatively few large population centers, but that's not enough to overshadow the rest of the nation. The system you are suggesting might have made you happy in this election, but if those large population centers end up taking stances against the ones you prefer I'd bet you change your mind. 20 states shouldn't overrule 30 states.
You see there is this thing called relativity. You think it's the left that is moving away from you, right? But look closely. Very close. What's that? Yes, the left is running - hard. But wait, they aren't running away from you! But towards you. And they have a shirt on, that says, "New Democrat" Now look down. Yes, right beneath your feet. Surprise! You're on a horse, backwards - galloping away from the left who can't keep up with your gallop. The left is getting further way even though they are moving towards you!!! Everything is relative!
Wyoming has 586,107 residents and 3 electoral college votes. California has 39,144,818 residents and 55 electoral college votes. Mathematics. U.S. citizens shouldn't be penalized for choosing to live in California. Nor should they be penalized for living in Wyoming. They should make the ratio equal so that California gets 121 electoral college votes or something like that. Fair. And if that means politicians visit CA more than WY- well, that already happens now- they visit OH and PA, etc. WAY more than WY. When it is mathematically possible that a candidate could receive 79% of the popular vote and STILL lose the election, that means the system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Yes, the left has helped Trump win. Lol. Bernie Sanders would agree if Clinton and the DNC didn't help him pay his mortgage on his second home. They made it all too easy by rigging the primary. That's just part of why they basically shot themselves in the foot.
No, that means it's working. It means that a few densely populated areas can't ALWAYS dictate the direction of the entire country. It means that states that have sparse populations can still matter. Most of the time the large population centers will get their way, but not always. I mean, that's how it was intended to work...
It's funny how you can convince people to throw out an entire system in favor of mob rule so easily. All it takes is for one election to not go their way.
I have been against the EC for ages. It would help bring an end to the two party system, I am all for that.
