Summations Only

In today's political climate, a D next to your name on a ballot is reason enough not to vote for that candidate. I doubt that Sanders would have received those votes. One of the solutions is to have Republicans in power so they can demonstrate that they are incapable of governing in a way that benefits rural America. It's one thing to be against Obamacare because it starts with Obama, but it is another when you are faced with the prospect of losing your insurance and/or Medicaid because of Republican policies. Vote for Jill Stein to send a message that you want a different type of Democratic candidate. Result: Trump.Vote for Hillary Clinton and voice your opinion in subsequent primaries about the type of candidate you want. Result: Clinton (i.e. not Trump).I guess it comes down to which you prefer. In my opinion, the second option seems a lot better. It's not as if Clinton was appointed by elite Dems in a smoky back room. She won the primary election.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Land doesn't vote. People do.Your method of representing the vote could allow a county with a single vote to count as much as a county with 1 million votes. That's bad math. From what I have read, part of the reason for the Electoral College was to prevent the election of a completely unfit President. It was thought that a college of somewhat sane people might undo the vote made by the people if need be, such as preventing the election of Napoleon or some such craziness. Since then, laws in some states require the elector to vote the same as the people, so that has lost some bite over the years.One could also argue that using the number of Senators in the equation for doling out electors is a nod to preserving state rights and not allowing more populous states from overpowering less populous states. This was the reasoning for the two houses of Congress. I just took a look at the 2012 Presidential election results, and Obama won by 5 million in the popular vote and 332 to 206 in the Electoral College. Hillary won by 3 million votes, and lost the Electoral College. That seems pretty screwed up.

The irony is that the next Democratic candidate could get fewer votes than Hillary and still win handily. Trump got 3 million fewer votes than Hillary and still won. I doubt that anyone voting for Stein or Johnson thought they would win. It's a bit like watching a 3 year old walk right by you and onto the highway where they are struck by a car. You can claim that it isn't your fault because you weren't driving the car, but is that really the truth? The current electoral system favors the party in power, so it is a self reinforcing problem.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Then you should be saying that the next Democratic candidate needs to get the right votes, not more votes. Nope, that's not it. Since 2000 there have been two occasions where the winner of the presidential election did not win the popular vote, and both times it was a Republican. Republicans are currently in power, hence the self reinforcing problem. On top of that, state districts are heavily gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans since 2010, so that gives them overrepresentation in the House and Senate.If it swings the other way, I am sure that Democrats will be just as unwilling to change the rules.

If your motto is "more cowbell this time", you should probably find a new topic to rant on.

No irritation and no gun involved. I am often morbidly entertained by watching people display their psychological problems in public, sort of like being transfixed while watching a dumpster fire.

No need to be irritated. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to read my posts.

Winning the popular vote by 3 million in a presidential election would be a "problem" most political parties would dream of having.It would seem that the major problems they have to conquer are local, as in gerrymandering. Each state is going to have its own quirks and type of viable candidate, so I don't think there is any single magic idea that is going to work.

quote:

---

With preliminary data now available about nationwide congressional voting trends this year, we can begin to tackle some of these questions. First, while Republicans, as of this writing, received a plurality of votes cast for Congress nationwide this year49.9 percent, again according data from the Cook Political Reportthey received a greater share, 55.2 percent, of the seats. Democrats, as a result, won a smaller share of seats than they did votes: 44.8 percent of seats as compared to 47.3 percent of the votes. (These numbers may change as final vote tallies are updated.)
Republicans in Congress got a seats bonus this election (again)

---

It would seem that the real problem is in congressional candidates and not the vote at the top of the ticket. While the scales are still tipped in the favor or Republicans, the Dems still can't complain too loudly since they got fewer votes by a couple percentage points.You may have echoed these same sentiments earlier in this thread, so I apologize if I am retreading well worn ground.

That's exactly what they tried to do. Pennsylvania was thought to be as much of a lock as California. The same for Michigan. The voter models they were using to tell them where to spend their money was wrong, and no one really knew it was wrong until after the election. What they saw was higher than expected voter turn out in rural areas in some states, with Pennsylvania being a perfect example.As the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.Added in edit:Here are some links for the polling data leading up to the election. The polling in both Pennsylvania and Michigan look pretty good for Clinton, especially so in Penn where Republicans hadn't won in quite some time:realclearpolitics.comrealclearpolitics.com A lot of that has to do with voter turnout as well. The demographics that tend to vote Republican have traditionally turned out in higher numbers in off year elections. Obama was sponsored by large corporations, and he kicked ass. Obama was as Republican Lite as it gets. Even his healthcare plan was a Republican plan. Obama crushed it in the voting booth.I can't help but lean towards the old saw that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Personality has a lot to do with getting elected, and Hillary just flat out lacked personality.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

As does every single politician. None of them are perfect. They did look at rural working people and the rural unemployed. What they didn't predict, and no one predicted, was that voter turnout in those demographics would be much higher than in previous years. Trump had them the entire time.

"Trailer half full" was the first phrase that came to my mind.

At some point people from the middle class and below will notice that no one is building a wall, their tax bill is about the same while the rich are getting a massive tax break, and a long list of other unfulfilled promises. Republican healthcare system? Nowhere to be found.What happens next? I think I will grab some popcorn, kick back in the recliner . . .

What undermines credibility is when a group of people focuses on one story that doesn't mean anything, and then ignores piles of credible and fact based reports that show them in a poor light.

In one moment, Miller is demeaning the veracity and honesty of what CNN reports on. The next moment, Miller wants to be on CNN so badly that they have to get security to remove him from the set.The lady doth protest too much, methinks.