Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[TheFinnFan]

Not really. The first presidential election I was able to vote in was 1992 (I just missed the cutoff in 88), so I have voted in 7 presidential elections. The candidate I voted for has won the vote in 6 of the 7 elections I've voted in...yet now on two occasions the system has been broken. Trump was moaning about the exact same thing in 2012.

Well both parties have moaned about it ofcourse. But Im pretty sure if crooked Hillary would have won it this wouldnt be an issue. It wasnt issue for them before the result ....but after...Thats another thingy eh

 

[tsubaki]

I guess to my last point I'd say that if it was a clear cut victory in both the popular and electoral vote, it would be much less likely there would be protestors...at least on the scale we've been seeing. It was the same in 2000.

That said, this campaign was ran in such a way that it really doesn't matter who won...there would have been protests either way.

I am not sure, I think the popular vote is the only thing they have to cling to rather than admit the scale of the defeat that the Clinton campaign has just suffered.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Dems thought their blue wall wouldnt be penetrated but look what happened

 

[Tubey]

No, what you said was:

Yes, which is correct? Because if they did place importance on it, they couldn't have voted for him. You vote for what you like, so obviously Trump supporters liked him regardless of what he said.

Therefore, what I'm saying is that Trump supporters aren't necessarily racists; but they certainly don't place much importance on supporting someone who is demonstrably a racist (blacks inherently lazy, Mexicans are rapists and so on.) All you saw from Trump supporters was "it was a silly thing to say" at best, and at worst they defended it.

It really is this simple - you said "To [denounce racism/misogyny] would have resulted in an advantage going to someone who they and a significant portion of other folk disliked." So it leads on to the obvious - they placed not handing an advantage to a politician higher in their priorities than having a problem with racism and misogyny.

So when people say "white working class" - they're talking about that general indifference to those sort of topics, and it's a fair comment to make given the demographics of Trump's support.

 

[ilikecheese]

Well both parties have moaned about it ofcourse. But Im pretty sure if crooked Hillary would have won it this wouldnt be an issue. It wasnt issue for them before the result ....but after...Thats another thingy eh

If the shoe was on the other foot you'd be in here flipping out about a rigged system.

 

[USABlue]

The electoral college has its flaws but going to a straight popular vote just shifts the problem...instead of Ohio and florida deciding the elections cali/texas/ny will. Either way large sections of the country will feel neglected. You think either canidate wouldve paid any mind to people in places like New Hampshire if there was no electoral college?

 

[ilikecheese]

I am not sure, I think the popular vote is the only thing they have to cling to rather than admit the scale of the defeat that the Clinton campaign has just suffered.

Yes. They lost by winning 2 million more votes than their opponent.

 

[ilikecheese]

The electoral college has its flaws but going to a straight popular vote just shifts the problem...instead of Ohio and florida deciding the elections cali/texas/ny will. Either way large sections of the country will feel neglected. You think either canidate wouldve paid any mind to people in places like New Hampshire if there was no electoral college?

I don't think a straight vote is the way to go either...some combination of the two seems prudent.

 

[Tubey]

The electoral college has its flaws but going to a straight popular vote just shifts the problem...instead of Ohio and florida deciding the elections cali/texas/ny will. Either way large sections of the country will feel neglected. You think either canidate wouldve paid any mind to people in places like New Hampshire if there was no electoral college?

Correct. Democracy simply works that way. It's the same in the UK - exactly the same in fact. Look at an electoral map - you see Tory voters all over England, but Labour in London and the north.

So when a Labour government comes to power, that swathe of blue is not represented - but when the Tories are, the big cities and the entirety of Scotland is let down.

No easy way around it. Basically liberal mindsets are in the urban areas, and conservative mindsets are in rural areas.

 

[USABlue]

I don't think a straight vote is the way to go either...some combination of the two seems prudent.

the electoral college already tries to be that hence California getting 55 electoral votes vs new hampshire having 5

 

[neil999]

The electoral college has its flaws but going to a straight popular vote just shifts the problem...instead of Ohio and florida deciding the elections cali/texas/ny will. Either way large sections of the country will feel neglected. You think either canidate wouldve paid any mind to people in places like New Hampshire if there was no electoral college?

You should have to win both, or run-off/support from third candidate/2nd preferential vote

 

[USABlue]

You should have to win both, or run-off/support from third candidate/2nd preferential vote

so if they split them how do you decide? support from 3rd candidate? so Johnson would pick the winner?

 

[tsubaki]

Yes, which is correct? Because if they did place importance on it, they couldn't have voted for him. You vote for what you like, so obviously Trump supporters liked him regardless of what he said.

Therefore, what I'm saying is that Trump supporters aren't necessarily racists; but they certainly don't place much importance on supporting someone who is demonstrably a racist (blacks inherently lazy, Mexicans are rapists and so on.) All you saw from Trump supporters was "it was a silly thing to say" at best, and at worst they defended it.

It really is this simple - you said "To [denounce racism/misogyny] would have resulted in an advantage going to someone who they and a significant portion of other folk disliked." So it leads on to the obvious - they placed not handing an advantage to a politician higher in their priorities than having a problem with racism and misogyny.

Tubey - you are expecting supporters of a candidate to denounce him because they are told something by a media with its own favourite in the contest. That they might refuse to denounce him doesn't mean that they are turning a blind eye to his misogyny, it just means that they don't want his opponent to win. Exactly the same phenomena was seen by Clinton supporters with all the avoidance over the DNC email hack, or by you whenever the subject of Blair comes up.

So when people say "white working class" - they're talking about that general indifference to those sort of topics, and it's a fair comment to make given the demographics of Trump's support.

You are saying that white working class folk are indifferent to racism, misogyny and the rest?

 

[neil999]

so if they split them how do you decide? support from 3rd candidate? so Johnson would pick the winner?

Potentially yes, would actually give more importance to 3Rd candidate's, just an idea...thoughts?

 

[ilikecheese]

You should have to win both, or run-off/support from third candidate/2nd preferential vote

I would imagine it would get more people off their butts and to the polls.