Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8802 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 2:09 PM
292 online now:
halibut, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 287 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,618 Year: 27,224/21,208 Month: 1,137/1,714 Week: 345/525 Day: 20/67 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9596
97
9899100Next
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 1441 of 1491 (822421)
10-24-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1430 by Percy
10-23-2017 5:52 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Thank you for the respectful request.

Please see my post in the Moderation Link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1430 by Percy, posted 10-23-2017 5:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 1442 of 1491 (822422)
10-24-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1429 by Taq
10-23-2017 5:43 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Taq writes:

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

That was weird.

I get it that you desperately want to burn me by using my own words against me (like I easily did to you).

But since the last words I directed toward you were “thanks for sharing,” it is therefore rather non-sensical to use my words: “No need to be irritated. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to read my posts” against me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1429 by Taq, posted 10-23-2017 5:43 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7501
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1443 of 1491 (822423)
10-24-2017 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1434 by Percy
10-24-2017 10:25 AM


Re: the attribution
Let me explain again. Fixating on just the electoral college results while refusing to consider what happened to cause those results ignores important causative factors.

I'm doing neither. I have been talking about how systemic issues may be behind the loss and various ways one might tweak the system to minimize these causes going forwards.

I think you mean the national popular vote total isn't what maps onto the electoral college. That mapping happens state by state. But this point you're making?
Everyone already knows this and no one is arguing it.

Rrhain is arguing she won the election when in fact she won the popular vote and lost the election. That's what I was arguing against. Rrhain's position, as he stated it, would suggest the popular vote is the election. He doubled down on this position when I challenged it.

The part that is different is that I'm not expressing some wish that more people felt more positive about Clinton as a candidate.

This particular subthread is about the people that disliked Clinton and their possible role in her loss.

Like the analogies of the one apple and of a couple packages, you're blowing a very, very minor issue regarding the distribution of votes up into a big deal where there's some clear message about changing candidate selection procedures for the Democratic party.

I'm not suggesting there's some clear message. The only point is that there was some small number of people that didn't vote for Clinton because they explicitly did not want to vote for her, but would have voted Democrat for some other candidate. Since the margin was small, that small number of people may have been sufficient to cause the loss. There were not insignificant numbers saying they would not vote for her on the lead up and this was a warning sign that there was a problem afoot.

But of course that isn't the message that was received, because such things are normal occurrences in every election. That we had this discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college made 2016 out of the ordinary, but it doesn't say the Democrat's primary process is flawed.

It's flaws stand alone. They are there regardless of the results of any given election.

Now I know your argument is that better processes exist, but you've presented no evidence that is so, just made claims that processes exist that could tell us such things as whether protest votes are likely to be registered, as if the closeness and bitterness of primary battles didn't already give us plenty of that kind of information.

Approval voting does give more specific information in this regard. But I presented no evidence because you explicitly claimed earlier you were not interested in that kind of discussion. So I stuck to a few simple examples of circumstances how that would look and simply stating my view that more optimal selection is desirable and may avoid a Trumpesque character in the future.

In the bottom 15 of all elections? That's simply not possible because of the small number of votes cast in the many elections of the 1800s.

Yeah - I think I already explained my disdain at absolute numbers for this exact reason - indeed, the uselessness of absolute figures was what I was arguing against. So here are bottom 15 of winners by margin, to 1 significant figure:


  1. JQA: -10%
  2. Hayes: -3%
  3. Trump: -2%
  4. Harrison: -0.8%
  5. W. Bush: -0.5%
  6. Garfield: 0.09%
  7. Kennedy: 0.2%
  8. Cleveland: 0.6%
  9. Nixon: 0.7%
  10. Polk: 1%
  11. Carter: 2%
  12. W Bush: 2%
  13. Cleveland: 3%
  14. Wilson: 3%
  15. Obama: 4%

If Clinton won, Trump wouldn't be there and Clinton would be between Carter and Bush.

But I get your point and it's a poor one. There's nothing unusual about a small margin of victory.

Indeed -- about 28% of them get a margin lower than 5%. I'm not focussing on the unusualness of the situation, just pointing out that her absolute number of votes is not important - it's the margin that has more meaning. In this case, it puts her in the bottom 15 of 58 had she won.

What I was actually suggesting was that repeating the argument that Clinton "did not resonate with enough people" or that she "anti-resonated with too many people" does not overcome how many times this has been shown false.

Except it hasn't. By only resonating with the number she did, that put her at real risk of falling afoul of the electoral college bumpiness.

It also speaks poorly of your position that you feel forced to make claims of fine distinction that saying "she did not resonate with 'people'" communicates significantly different information than saying "she did not resonate with *enough* people".

Blame the opponent who couldn't see the distinction between these two positions that forced me into having to explain it, not me.

Gee, you mean like Sanders? How can you keep suggesting this while having no counter to the factually obvious, that Sanders would have garnered even less votes than Clinton?

Or someone else. The point I was making was that the people that voted for Clinton wasn't sufficient to overcome
a) Those that wanted Trump
b) Those that preferred Trump to Clinton
c) Those that voted for neither, particularly those who would have voted Democrat had it not been Clinton standing.

After all, more people voted against Sanders in the Democratic primaries than voted against Clinton. The split was 60/40 in favor of Clinton.

We've gone over how picking a single preferred nominee may produce results other than the one who would accrue the most votes.

You think it obvious that there are more Clinton voters that would have declined to vote Sanders than Sanders voters that would have declined to vote Clinton in an election against Trump. Maybe that's the case, but it's hardly on point so I won't belabour it further.

This argument was already destroyed with my list of lost elections followed by victory four years later.

Something not being a good sign is certainly not the same as saying 'this means they are guaranteed to lose the next election'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1434 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 10:25 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1449 by Percy, posted 10-25-2017 9:29 AM Modulous has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1444 of 1491 (822429)
10-24-2017 6:13 PM


Another One Bites the Dust
Today Jeff Flake, Republican Senator from Arizona, announced that he would be retiring from the Senate after his current term. In his retirement speech he was deeply critical of the Trump administration. It is well worth reading. It is good to hear another Republican stand on principle - there seem so few.

If you have trouble accessing the Washington Post website, here's a link to a copy of the speech at the New York Times.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1446 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-24-2017 6:31 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1445 of 1491 (822430)
10-24-2017 6:25 PM


Corker Unloads on Trump
This is a video of an CNN interview earlier today with Republican Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee where he unloads again on Donald Trump:

--Percy


    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3557
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 1446 of 1491 (822431)
10-24-2017 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1444 by Percy
10-24-2017 6:13 PM


Re: Another One Bites the Dust
It is good to hear another Republican stand on principle - there seem so few.

Still, it seems to me to be an "I'd rather quit than fight" thing. If they really want to stand on principle, they should switch to being an Independent or a Democrat, and caucus with the Democrat side.

Moose

Note: By edit, fixed to "I'd rather quit than fight", although "I'd rather quiet than fight" might be as accurate.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : It's "quit", not "quite".

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Had "that" instead of "than" in 3 places - D'OH.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1444 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 6:13 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1447 of 1491 (822433)
10-24-2017 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1439 by Stile
10-24-2017 2:28 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Stile writes:

What are you describing as a "democrat?"

You're asking me to define Democrat (which should be capitalized)? Why?

Someone who agrees with all democratic policies/directions/actions? That would be a self-fulfilling statement you've made, then.

Not something I ever said.

Someone who always votes democratic? Again, self-fulfilling.

Also not something I ever said

I was able to make sense of very little of the rest of what you wrote, not enough to compose a response, plus there's no hint of progress toward a better understanding of each other.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1439 by Stile, posted 10-24-2017 2:28 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1448 of 1491 (822434)
10-24-2017 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1440 by Modulous
10-24-2017 2:57 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

A) I was responding to you saying something about I was wishing for a candidate closer to my views. My response was that I was talking about the electorates views - not my own.

You're using the electorate's views as a proxy for your own. It's really your own views you're talking about.

The radar should be optimised to finding a candidate capable of winning the most votes in the election. Whether or not that happens to be a candidate more in line with my views is immaterial to this point.

But you think such a radar must exist only because you're hoping for candidates closer to your views. And Clinton did win the most votes in the election. It was in the electoral college that she lost.

B) I am not saying that Clinton's loss indicates the system is flawed. I am saying the system is flawed, and this might have contributed to Clinton's loss.

Well, you sure sounded for a long time like you were saying that Clinton's loss indicates the system is flawed, especially with all your talk about the proper radar identifying candidates who would have received more votes.

Also, you keep talking about Clinton as if she were the only one with negatives. Sanders had negatives, too.

I think you already covered them.

Okay, let's remember that I already covered Sander's negatives when we examine what you say next:

Well you making up the results is not an endorsement obviously.

So as I already described, Sander's received less votes in the Democratic primaries than Clinton, and he carried the additional baggage of being a democratic socialist, but you think I'm just making up what would have happened had he been the Democratic candidate.

And your result is possible, of course.

Not only possible, but given what we know by far the most likely.

However, it would mean that, despite Sanders getting more people who say they would vote for him in the Primaries, less people voted for him.

Your own link said that such polls often don't hold up.

This would not be impossible, but it would be unusual if Sanders had the support to win using Approval voting but did much worse in primary election.

Well, you're not alone in arguing that Sanders would have defeated Trump, but it remains a hypothetical. What we know is how near a thing was Clinton's loss.

But the number of people who vote does not go up all the time.

It goes up all the time. Not every time.

It goes up all the time but not every time - you say such strange things sometimes that it makes me wonder if there isn't some difference between British and American English that is causing a communication problem. We don't seem to be getting anywhere.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1440 by Modulous, posted 10-24-2017 2:57 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1452 by Phat, posted 10-25-2017 11:53 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1457 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2017 2:49 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1449 of 1491 (822441)
10-25-2017 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1443 by Modulous
10-24-2017 3:43 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

Let me explain again. Fixating on just the electoral college results while refusing to consider what happened to cause those results ignores important causative factors.

I'm doing neither.

You're doing both. Over and over again you've stated that it was the electoral college Clinton lost and that that's all that matters, not the popular vote.

I have been talking about how systemic issues may be behind the loss and various ways one might tweak the system to minimize these causes going forwards.

You've been doing that, too, but there's no point denying something you've said repeatedly. For instance, in your Message 1416 you said:

Modulous in Message 1416 writes:

The popular vote number has no bearing on the Presidency. She 'won' the popular vote - but there's no tangible prize for that contest. She lost election which is held by the electoral college.

Rrhain is arguing she won the election when in fact she won the popular vote and lost the election. That's what I was arguing against. Rrhain's position, as he stated it, would suggest the popular vote is the election. He doubled down on this position when I challenged it.

Again, your disagreement stems from differing terminology, not the facts on the ground. Is that what you want to argue about, how his terms interpreted with your definitions yield different conclusions? You both know what you mean, why not argue about that?

The part that is different is that I'm not expressing some wish that more people felt more positive about Clinton as a candidate.

This particular subthread is about the people that disliked Clinton and their possible role in her loss.

Yes, so? You stated what you thought my views were, and I noted one part where you had characterized them incorrectly ("I'm not expressing some wish that more people felt more positive about Clinton as a candidate."), then went on to explain why that difference was significant, that it wasn't the number of people who disliked Clinton that I'm focused on, but on the irony of casting a vote to send a message to the Democrats that contributes to the election of the opposite of a Democrat, indeed, the opposite of anyone deserving of such office.

I'm not suggesting there's some clear message. The only point is that there was some small number of people that didn't vote for Clinton because they explicitly did not want to vote for her, but would have voted Democrat for some other candidate. Since the margin was small, that small number of people may have been sufficient to cause the loss. There were not insignificant numbers saying they would not vote for her on the lead up and this was a warning sign that there was a problem afoot.

Yes, I understand all that, but that doesn't change the fact that 2016 was not the right election to register a protest vote. There was too much at stake. Very, very few in the general political neighborhood of the Democrats would have wanted to show their dislike of Clinton by registering a protest vote that got Trump elected. They wanted to show their dislike of Clinton by withholding their vote from her because they thought that a safe thing to do because Trump was so far behind in the polls and not a threat.

It's flaws stand alone. They are there regardless of the results of any given election.

Well, it seemed that you were arguing earlier that Clinton's loss was evidence that the Democratic primary process was flawed, that that was why you thought it was flawed, but if you think it's flawed regardless I don't see any value in arguing the point, though I will say again that the Republicans use a nearly identical process. Since you like hypotheticals it's worth noting that if both parties used the process you prefer then both parties may have had different candidates and the Democrats may still have lost.

Indeed -- about 28% of them get a margin lower than 5%. I'm not focussing on the unusualness of the situation, just pointing out that her absolute number of votes is not important - it's the margin that has more meaning. In this case, it puts her in the bottom 15 of 58 had she won.

I disagree that "her absolute number of votes is not important" and that "the margin had more meaning" in 2016. I think both are significant factors.

What I was actually suggesting was that repeating the argument that Clinton "did not resonate with enough people" or that she "anti-resonated with too many people" does not overcome how many times this has been shown false.

Except it hasn't. By only resonating with the number she did, that put her at real risk of falling afoul of the electoral college bumpiness.

Except that it has been shown false. You conclude that "too many" people (however many that is) didn't like her when the reality is that it is just where 0.05% of the total votes were cast that made the difference. Conclusions like yours from such tiny numbers can't be justified. Had those votes fallen differently and Clinton won would you really have concluded that "enough" people liked Clinton? No, of course not. That conclusion isn't justified, either.

It also speaks poorly of your position that you feel forced to make claims of fine distinction that saying "she did not resonate with 'people'" communicates significantly different information than saying "she did not resonate with *enough* people".

Blame the opponent who couldn't see the distinction between these two positions that forced me into having to explain it, not me.

Yes, of course, I should have realized that you're never vague or claim distinctions without a difference or are nuanced to the point of oblivion.

Or someone else. The point I was making was that the people that voted for Clinton wasn't sufficient to overcome
a) Those that wanted Trump
b) Those that preferred Trump to Clinton
c) Those that voted for neither, particularly those who would have voted Democrat had it not been Clinton standing.

Yeah, c) is a good part of my main point, the irony of those who wanted a Democrat, just not Clinton, and voted in such a way as to end up with Trump.

We've gone over how picking a single preferred nominee may produce results other than the one who would accrue the most votes.

You're basing this on polls during the primaries that are notorious for not holding up in the main election.

Just Googling around I ran into this random fact: 10% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump. Talk about voting against your own best interests! Our discussion is not taking into account that there's a perverse or at least random element among the voters.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1443 by Modulous, posted 10-24-2017 3:43 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1450 by Phat, posted 10-25-2017 10:21 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1454 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2017 2:15 PM Percy has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10028
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 1450 of 1491 (822444)
10-25-2017 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1449 by Percy
10-25-2017 9:29 AM


Trump 2.0?
This whole argument seems rather unimportant to me. I'm more concerned what the current possibilities are that Trump could conceivably win a second term and who the worthy opponents are out there who could viably challenge the current status quo. I don't like the path that the US has veered towards.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1449 by Percy, posted 10-25-2017 9:29 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1451 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2017 11:45 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1458 by ringo, posted 10-25-2017 3:29 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1451 of 1491 (822455)
10-25-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1450 by Phat
10-25-2017 10:21 AM


Re: Trump 2.0? Probably
Probably.

The democrats have not fixed any of their problems and are instead hunkering down and purging Berniecrats from the DNC. If they win any seats in 2018 it will be due to failure on the republican party ... which is possible given the divisions in the party that makes them unable to pass any significant legislation.

If there are no changes then it becomes more likely. Schrubbia was, when it seemed his popularity was lower than the first time.

The average voters are idiots that get their information from the media they watch and they aren't interested in fact checking.

Enjoy?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1450 by Phat, posted 10-25-2017 10:21 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1453 by Taq, posted 10-25-2017 12:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10028
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 1452 of 1491 (822457)
10-25-2017 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1448 by Percy
10-24-2017 8:47 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

It goes up all the time. Not every time.

I think what he means is that the population is always growing...thus more potential voters...but the turnout varies from election to election.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1448 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 8:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 1453 of 1491 (822460)
10-25-2017 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1451 by RAZD
10-25-2017 11:45 AM


Re: Trump 2.0? Probably
RAZD writes:

The democrats have not fixed any of their problems and are instead hunkering down and purging Berniecrats from the DNC.

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 year—49.9 percent, again according data from the Cook Political Report—they 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.)
https://www.brookings.edu/.../22/gop-seats-bonus-in-congress

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1451 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2017 11:45 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1455 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2017 2:36 PM Taq has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7501
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1454 of 1491 (822461)
10-25-2017 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1449 by Percy
10-25-2017 9:29 AM


Re: the attribution
You're doing both. Over and over again you've stated that it was the electoral college Clinton lost and that that's all that matters, not the popular vote.

As far as the election - the electoral college is all that matters. Analysis of the results takes into account all sorts of numbers, and that's fine and I've employed both State popular vote and nationwide popular vote in my doing this.
I have indeed discussed said popular vote and I have indeed considered causes.

What causes do you think we should discuss? The main one I've seen from you is the electoral college. As we agree, this is however, just a fact on the ground. It's not something that is going to change to any significant degree. So while it is true, so what? It verifies my initial point to you that systemic causes may be the primary ones to examine. Do you have others you think we should touch on? Luck seems a bit...well random...so not much point going there. I'm stuck as to what else you may have championed as a possible cause so far.

To introduce fresh information to the discussion I present gaming the electoral college

So

Winner takes all: If all States used Winner takes all the results would have been different. Not much. Trump gained a vote in Maine he would otherwise not have won. Result 305:233

Congressional district popular - 2 votes to the winner of the popular vote in a State, then the rest are distributed according to the number of CDs:
290:248

CD majority - 2 votes to the party that wins the most congressional districts, the rest according to the number of CDs won: 297: 241

Proportional popular - 2 votes to the State winner, the rest based on percentage of votes gained. 276:257 with 5 going to third parties

Pure Popular vote - all State's electoral votes distributed based on the percentage of votes gained. 267:265 with 6 third party votes. 4 for Johnson, 1 for Stein and 1 for McMullen

So these methods would not have been sufficient for a Clinton win. I think the tie in the last method would likely favour Trump though I'm not entirely sure - the one State one vote concept here makes it tricky to be sure, but I'm leaning Trump given the House's makeup.

Of course, this all assumes people vote the same under different election rules - which is a terrible assumption to make!

In 2012 Stein got 0.36% of the popular vote. In 2008 McKinney on 0.12%. In 2004 Cobb got 0.1%. We could argue, rather arbitrarily naturally, that the Green's 'base' is the average of these at 0.2%

In 2016 Stein got 1.1% About 0.9 points above baseline. Assuming, unsafely of course, that all of these extra votes came from people who would otherwise have voted Democrat - those numbers could easily have tipped the balance. Suggestive that protest votes could have been a significant factor. That said - the right leaning third parties split the Republican votes by more I think. This is suggestive that the Republicans may have done a worse job at selecting a candidate (which is probably a given, from a variety of perspectives).

Of course, those votes may have gone to Greens regardless if we instead interpret the numbers differently, that a recent surge has seen them approximately tripling their numbers in the last two elections. In this case, no hypothetical Democratic Candidate is likely to have both stopped this surge and kept votes from their 'side' swinging to the right.

You've been doing that, too

By your own words then, I cannot possibly be "Fixating on just the electoral college results while refusing to consider what happened to cause those results".

then went on to explain why that difference was significant, that it wasn't the number of people who disliked Clinton that I'm focused on,

This is the Rrhain and xongsmith sub-discussion - which narrowed the discussion to the 'dislike' issue. You can focus on other areas if you like - but your focus of...

...the irony of casting a vote to send a message to the Democrats that contributes to the election of the opposite of a Democrat

Has been expressed multiple times. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it other than the merry-go round of 'this election's results weren't necessarily the focus for those people'. Yes, we agree that voting for someone other than Clinton while wanting Clinton to win resulted in ironic consequences for those people who did this.

Yes, I understand all that, but that doesn't change the fact that 2016 was not the right election to register a protest vote.

And that's a fine opinion to have. There isn't much mileage left in that, I suspect. It really boils down to you saying that the consequences of a Trump presidency today outweigh the benefits of the strategy of protest voting. That may, or may not, be true. It's going to be impossible to predict if it is true. So where does avenue of discussion really lead us?

Very, very few in the general political neighborhood of the Democrats would have wanted to show their dislike of Clinton by registering a protest vote that got Trump elected.

I've asked before; you seem certain of this point. You might well be right, but do you have anything to back it up with?

Well, it seemed that you were arguing earlier that Clinton's loss was evidence that the Democratic primary process was flawed, that that was why you thought it was flawed, but if you think it's flawed regardless I don't see any value in arguing the point, though I will say again that the Republicans use a nearly identical process.

Then I will reply again that wouldn't it be great if the DNC used a better one than the Republicans?

Since you like hypotheticals it's worth noting that if both parties used the process you prefer then both parties may have had different candidates and the Democrats may still have lost.

The Democrats losing isn't great, but is basically inevitable from time to time, right? Three in a row is an anomaly in modern Presidential races after all. But in your scenario the consequence wouldn't be Trump, so that's a bonus I suppose, right?

I disagree that "her absolute number of votes is not important" and that "the margin had more meaning" in 2016. I think both are significant factors.

By 'important' I was referring to the context of comparing her to historical elections. That she got more votes than Reagan isn't meaningful. If she had gotten less votes than Reagan - that'd be an meaningful point in a historical comparison.

We can also raise the point that Trump's popular vote margin as a percent was very small relative to history, which is also meaningful - in the context of Trump's mandate of the people etc. His electoral college percent was also pretty small compared historically, which also speaks to his mandate regarding the States.

Except that it has been shown false. You conclude that "too many" people (however many that is) didn't like her when the reality is that it is just where 0.05% of the total votes were cast that made the difference. Conclusions like yours from such tiny numbers can't be justified.

Well, given that her Supporters lived where they live, and we're not imagining a hypothetical scenario of voters that could have just moved around -if 0.1% more had liked her enough to vote, either globally or locally in those right places - her victory would have been assured. So again, I don't see how it is false.

Sure, you could argue with margins that luck played its role. I've not disagreed with this. My point has been that had she had more support she could have lessened the impact that luck would have had. Had the numbers been very slightly different, and she won it would still have been by luck. I've argued that in order to get over the bumpiness of the electoral college, or generally of luck, she needed more.

Had those votes fallen differently and Clinton won would you really have concluded that "enough" people liked Clinton? No, of course not. That conclusion isn't justified, either.

Indeed - it would undermine my point that tight marginal results are a result of not gaining sufficient support to overcome the element of chance (traffic conditions, one's kids getting sick etc etc), the bumpiness of the college and so forth.

You're basing this on polls during the primaries that are notorious for not holding up in the main election.

Well sure, but that's true regardless of the voting system used to pick the candidate.

Just Googling around I ran into this random fact: 10% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump. Talk about voting against your own best interests! Our discussion is not taking into account that there's a perverse or at least random element among the voters.

Seems about right as a number. I have commented earlier that a significant group of people weren't voting Party allegience or 'left/right'. They were voting 'shake things up' or simply 'change'. The question one is left wondering then is, what percent of Clinton's primary supporters would have voted for Trump had Sanders won the nomination?

That 'let's shake things up' mentality was quite a clear element of the zeitgeist of 2016.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1449 by Percy, posted 10-25-2017 9:29 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1459 by Percy, posted 10-25-2017 8:29 PM Modulous has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1455 of 1491 (822462)
10-25-2017 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1453 by Taq
10-25-2017 12:53 PM


Re: Trump 2.0? Probably
Winning the popular vote by 3 million in a presidential election would be a "problem" most political parties would dream of having.

You may have echoed these same sentiments earlier in this thread, so I apologize if I am retreading well worn ground.

So I'll repeat what I said about that: getting a massive vote in states you have already won the electoral college votes, but failing to win electoral votes in swing states is to my mind a failure to properly manage where the election energy, cashflow, ads, etc was spent. ie - less time in california and more in pennsylvania and michigan could have made a difference. The extra votes were wasted when a few more votes in specific areas were needed.

This is a problem at the DNC/campaign level, and I don't see any discussion of changing game plans. Hubris.

From what I have seen, Hillary's book is pathetic.

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.

The democrats don't seem to know how to campaign in "off year" elections, letting republicans win in state and federal races for representatives etc.

Wasserman-Schultz was particularly myopic in that regard, when several issues -- like $15/hr minimum wage, universal health insurance, paid family leave, etc -- were available but ignored.

Going for corporate sponsorship is a huge mistake when your base is working people trying to make ends meet.

The more they campaign as "republican lite" the fewer people will be interested, especially in off-years.

So yes, Trump will likely win a second term, because the democrats will be running the same losing campaign.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1453 by Taq, posted 10-25-2017 12:53 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1456 by Taq, posted 10-25-2017 2:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
9596
97
9899100Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017