The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[firstfloor]

‘The Daily’ podcast has ‘ The Bank That Kept Saying Yes to Trump’.

[rogue06]

Republicans due to the 2016 wave election held the governorships and so didn't need democrats in order to redistrict, and they did, big time, along with their voter repression tactics.

Governors don't redistrict. That's the job of state legislatures. ETA: A few states use independent commissions

Of course it matters because, both sides are vying for votes in each state.

And this is why the left still cannot comprehend how they lost in 2016. It does not matter how large of a margin you win by in any given area, it does not affect the outcome in other areas.

It's a canard.

You are hopelessly and deliberately ignorant.

Well obviously you wouldn't, but you live in the bubble where you have alternate facts.

That level of projection is what has led to a worldwide shortage of irony meters.

[carpedm9587]

The Democrats still controlled the Senate and of course Obama was president. IOW, the Republicans couldn't do much redistricting without a whole lotta help from the Democrats.

Out of curiosity, what does the U.S. Senate and who holds the White House have to do with congressional redistricting?

[firstfloor]

How’s the trade war going?
Putin wants Chinese 5g.

[oxmixmudd]

Governors don't redistrict. That's the job of state legislatures. ETA: A few states use independent commissions

And this is why the left still cannot comprehend how they lost in 2016. It does not matter how large of a margin you win by in any given area, it does not affect the outcome in other areas.

You are hopelessly and deliberately ignorant.

That level of projection is what has led to a worldwide shortage of irony meters.

Just to point out, the 'left' didn't actually lose 2016 in terms of popular vote. Trump won because our system allows for the possibility that a president that most people in the country do NOT want can get elected in spite of that fact.

It's a technical win only - he does not have a majority that want him in office and never has.

Jim

[tabibito]

Just to point out, the 'left' didn't actually lose 2016 in terms of popular vote. Trump won because our system allows for the possibility that a president that most people in the country do NOT want can get elected in spite of that fact.

It's a technical win only - he does not have a majority that want him in office and never has.

Jim

That might change if the left keeps shooting itself in the foot.

[Cow Poke]

Just to point out, the 'left' didn't actually lose 2016 in terms of popular vote. Trump won because our system allows for the possibility that a president that most people in the country do NOT want can get elected in spite of that fact.

It's a technical win only - he does not have a majority that want him in office and never has.

Jim

Jim,

Both sides knew "going in" what the rules were. Neither side believed they needed to win the popular vote to take the White House, and both sides ran their campaigns to get the magic number of electoral votes.

Saying the "left" didn't actually lose in terms of popular vote is like saying the Yankees didn't actually lose the ball game in terms of balls hit. It's meaningless.

[oxmixmudd]

That might change if the left keeps shooting itself in the foot.

I agree. The move towards out and out socialism is guaranteed to push more moderately conservative voters like myself who really do not want 4 more years of trump into that same position that gave Trump the win in 2016 - a rock and a hard place where even Trump looks better than the other option. It's a really stupid move in my mind.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Jim,

Both sides knew "going in" what the rules were. Neither side believed they needed to win the popular vote to take the White House, and both sides ran their campaigns to get the magic number of electoral votes.

Saying the "left" didn't actually lose in terms of popular vote is like saying the Yankees didn't actually lose the ball game in terms of balls hit. It's meaningless.

I disagree. I means a lot. Because a president who does not win the popular vote has to work within the reality that more than half the country would rather not have him. He does not have any sort of a mandate for his ideas, and he is from the perspective of most of the country not welcome. So trying to help bring the country together though some appeals to compromise in some cases should be part of that position. As it is, the man in charge is not liked or supported by more than half the country - and cares nothing about running roughshod over that majority, and that is NOT good for the country as a whole.

Which is why I tend to think that - desire to give less populated areas a voice aside - the idea of the electoral college probably needs to go. The leader of the country needs to be a person the majority of the country decided would be their leader.

Jim

[Sparko]

I disagree. I means a lot. Because a president who does not win the popular vote has to work within the reality that more than half the country would rather not have him. He does not have any sort of a mandate for his ideas, and he is from the perspective of most of the country not welcome. So trying to help bring the country together though some appeals to compromise in some cases should be part of that position. As it is, the man in charge is not liked or supported by more than half the country - and cares nothing about running roughshod over that majority, and that is NOT good for the country as a whole.

Which is why I tend to think that - desire to give less populated areas a voice aside - the idea of the electoral college probably needs to go. The leader of the country needs to be a person the majority of the country decided would be their leader.

Jim

The idea of the electoral college was to give less populated states an equal voice in the union and some power. The states elect the President. Not the people. That the states allow their citizens to vote on which way the electors will vote is a privilege. They don't have to. The state government could simply decide to pick electors that vote the way they want them to. Of course that would tick off their constituents. But the whole reason for the electoral college is to keep a few populated states from bullying the others. To me, the electoral college was a brilliant idea.

[Mountain Man]

Just to point out, the 'left' didn't actually lose 2016 in terms of popular vote.

Jut to point out, Hillary lost the electoral college, which is the only vote that matters.

[tabibito]

Seems to me that within the politics of a union of states, 1 state 1 vote (so to speak) is reasonably democratic.

[lilpixieofterror]

Just to point out, the 'left' didn't actually lose 2016 in terms of popular vote. Trump won because our system allows for the possibility that a president that most people in the country do NOT want can get elected in spite of that fact.

It's a technical win only - he does not have a majority that want him in office and never has.

Jim

Which is like pointing out the other team in the World Series scored more total runs vs the winning team.

[carpedm9587]

I disagree. I means a lot. Because a president who does not win the popular vote has to work within the reality that more than half the country would rather not have him. He does not have any sort of a mandate for his ideas, and he is from the perspective of most of the country not welcome. So trying to help bring the country together though some appeals to compromise in some cases should be part of that position. As it is, the man in charge is not liked or supported by more than half the country - and cares nothing about running roughshod over that majority, and that is NOT good for the country as a whole.

Which is why I tend to think that - desire to give less populated areas a voice aside - the idea of the electoral college probably needs to go. The leader of the country needs to be a person the majority of the country decided would be their leader.

Jim

You might take heart in the Electoral College Vote Interstate Compact. You see, there is a way to actually keep the electoral college AND give the office to the winner of the popular vote. Currently, 14 states and D.C., representing 189 electoral votes, have signed a compact to give their electoral votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote. The compact takes effect when the total number of states signing the compact have a total of 270 or more electoral votes. There are states representing 99 more electoral votes with legislation pending. 81 more electoral votes are needed to trigger the compact, so the possibility has become more real recently.

As best I can tell, this requires no Constitutional amendment since the constitution gives the states the power to determine how their electoral votes are allocated. There are already differences (e.g., winner take all vs. 2 statewide and one for each district), so this is simply another difference.

If your state is on the list of states with pending legislation, and you find the electoral college as antiquated as I do, you should let your state legislators and the governor know that you are behind this initiative.

Michel

[Mountain Man]

You might take heart in the Electoral College Vote Interstate Compact. You see, there is a way to actually keep the electoral college AND give the office to the winner of the popular vote. Currently, 14 states and D.C., representing 189 electoral votes, have signed a compact to give their electoral votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote. The compact takes effect when the total number of states signing the compact have a total of 270 or more electoral votes. There are states representing 99 more electoral votes with legislation pending. 81 more electoral votes are needed to trigger the compact, so the possibility has become more real recently.

As best I can tell, this requires no Constitutional amendment since the constitution gives the states the power to determine how their electoral votes are allocated. There are already differences (e.g., winner take all vs. 2 statewide and one for each district), so this is simply another difference.

If your state is on the list of states with pending legislation, and you find the electoral college as antiquated as I do, you should let your state legislators and the governor know that you are behind this initiative.

Michel

Anybody who agrees to that pact is an idiot because it would effectively consolidate power in only the most populous states, which is exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended.