Revised- Three million vote lead and growing

Hillary Clinton now leads the national popular vote for president by roughly one million votes, and her victory margin is expanding rapidly. That margin could easily double before the end of an arduous process of counting ballots, reviewing results and reconciling numbers for an official total.

But one thing is certain: Clinton’s win is unprecedented in the modern history of American presidential politics. And the numbers should focus attention on the democratic dysfunction that has been exposed.

When a candidate who wins the popular vote does not take office, when a loser is instead installed in the White House, that is an issue. And it raises questions that must be addressed.

Doesn't matter. The rules are the rules. Even if it turns out that she won MI (though her margin of loss is growing in that state) Trump still won.

This is only a lesson from Trump who will need to know that, with the election over, and his time to govern beginning in about two months, that he leads a very divided nation, with 53% voting AGAINST him.

Will he seek to validly heal the divide by being inclusive? By listening to a broad range of views. Or will it just be the manic Giuliani, the racist Bannon, and the greedy Trump kids, who catch his ear?

Right now it looks like inclusiveness, and recognition that he really isn't a popular president, doesn't factor into what he is doing.

I know that Trump won according to the rules. No one is disputing that. I', not even sure there is much to root for a change to the popular. The point here is to encourage Democratic voters in the 14 or so States that matter in elections that they have to vote. The rest of the States can go ho-hum. And that's why people raise the issue. Why should 1/6th of the people decide for the other 5/6th?

This is such a joke.  Do you really think if this was a PR country, Trump would just campaign in 11 states and forego places like NY and Cal?  Get over it, Hillary lost and had this was a PR nation, the campaigning would be different and she still would have lost.  Trump flipped Blue states to Red!  Trump out did, out classed and out gunned a well funded Hillary.

Kari is such a bitter LOSER.

He now wants the rules changed since he lost. He was clutching to straws on election night, he was telling Hillary supporters to wait for votes to come in as Blue states turned Red.

Time for the losers to lick their wounds and swallow their pride and save themselves from further embarrassment by stop parroting left wing media analysis.

Let President Trump govern and judge him in four years. 

By then, African American cities will look like the beautiful Toronto.

 

Amral, no one is crying over spilt milk. The discussion is to question the need to go popular vote or PR in States. Why do you have an objection to an open-minded inquiry. That's the stuff of thinking minds. Have you digressed from this state? Caught up in the Trump hysteria? Tsk...

Folks,

Here is a summary of how votes are counted.

At the end of the night, at the close of Poll, the machines are "open" and the numbers of casted ballots  are derived. 

This is only for the votes done on the voting machine.

There are a significant number of votes yet to be counted.

Here is a partial list

Mailing Ballots

Affidavit Ballots

Special Ballots

Absentee Ballots

At my poll site in Queens at PS 161 Q, we had 4004 votes casted and approximately 1000 "manual votes"

 

In conclusion, this election is only final after each state board verifies and approved the finally tally; typically 2 to 3 weeks after an election

 

 

All you sour grapes, go home and lick your wounds.  Hillary lost and lost big time.  If you don't like it, change it or go where the system suits you more.

Had the nation had a PR system, the campaigning would have been different, and just how Hillary lost traditional Blue States where Trump chose to campaign, she would have lost, or the gap narrowed where he did not bother.

Get this again, Hillary LOST, nothing will change it, go home and come again in 2020.

Idiot who is talking about a PR system for the Presidency.  We are talking about the total popular votes being the deciding factor.

By PR I assume that you are saying each state will give the winner it's total electoral votes.  Just have to clarify because like a true clown you keep tripping over yourself.

Idiot who is talking about a PR system for the Presidency.  We are talking about the total popular votes being the deciding factor.

By PR I assume that you are saying each state will give the winner it's total electoral votes.  Just have to clarify because like a true clown you keep tripping over yourself.

Barthead, you are free to "lobby"!  You are a fool to think because Hillary got a lopsided victory in NY and Cal, it would have been that way in a PR.  The entire campaigning would have been different! So go right ahead and try to revamp the US constitution.  We could hardly get our sh1t right in Guyana, now we want to change America!

Listen dummy, PR will not be mandated by the Feds and each state will decide, so by my guest, I have no problem with PR, neither does Trump.  In fact this was one of his criticism of the system so, go right ahead and lobby for the change in NY or whichever state you live!

I ain't tripping over anything, I know where I stand, and either way, who cares, Trump would have likely won.  But what the hell difference does it make now.  You guys now have the Trumpster for eight years!!  But go ahead and lobby for 2020.

I really don't know why the Democratic fanatics are wasting time with trying to remove the electoral college.

1.  The GOP isn't having it.

2. The Democrats are only using this to avoid serious discussion as to why they lost the Midwest.

3.  There is no way that this bill will even be discussed.  The votes aren't there.

Now what Kari and company should be chatting about is their arrogant dismissal of comments that I raised. Kari opened up the "Requiem for Caribny" with full expectation that I would be proven wrong. 

The warnings that I made came out to be true, in fact even truer than I suspected.  The black vote might have plunged by 15%.   The white working class fled even more than was expected, and the white college educated didn't flee the GOP as much as expected (Trump with 49% won this bloc).

Obama was a charismatic candidate in the way that Reagan was.  Both of these men assembled coalitions unique to themselves.  It turns out that the higher black and millennial turn out was because of Obama, not because of their enchantment with the Democrats. Well those two groups, plus the white working class outside of the South weren't that impressed with Hillary, so either didn't vote, voted for 3rd parties, or voted for Trump.

With the population of the red states growing faster than the blue the Dems might learn that relying on the national vote mightn't be in their long term interests.  After all if one subtracts CA from the totals Hillary doesn't win.  

The Democratic party also has a problem and that is a dearth of suitable candidates.  The fact that the best that it could have done was field 2 candidates, both ageing, and both so long in the game as to not bringing anything new to the table is a DISGRACE.

With more of the state legislatures being taken over by the GOP the pipeline of candidates for the Democratic party is drying up.

The Democrats should be preparing for 2018 and should be finding good candidates to run then. Especially at the senate, where there are a mere 2 seats from taking over.

Basedrum

Listen dummy, PR will not be mandated by the Feds and each state will decide, so by my guest, I have no problem with PR, neither does Trump.  In fact this was one of his criticism of the system so, go right ahead and lobby for the change in NY or whichever state you live!

You are a one tracked stupid person. This is a era of heightened awareness on elections and the call for changes to the electoral college stands on its own merit. It is not about what you think another candidate would do in light of the reality here. 

The electoral college is patently unfair to citizens in some of our largest states. It is why participation in these regions are often very low. The question is whether we should have these elections where large percentages of people do not count and where it is possible to win with smaller number of the popular vote.

This has been a perennial question and the first official use of political procedures in place to initiate change has been activated. It means the discourse in academia and one on which hundreds of scholarly books exist will now be heard. 

Lastly, this is not the first time it was discussed here either. It was discussed as early as 2000

Caribj

I really don't know why the Democratic fanatics are wasting time with trying to remove the electoral college. 1. The GOP isn't having it. 2. The Democrats are only using this to avoid serious discussion as to why they lost the Midwest. 3. There is no way that this bill will even be discussed. The votes aren't there.

You do not have to know why democrats are concerned with the electoral college. It has to start somewhere and I would gladly remind you what whenever progressive change that meaningfully impact lives of citizens it has always originated among the democrats.

The GOP has always been a party of the conservative right where progressive action is abjured as policy. As a democrat once noted, one does not do a thing because it is easy or hard but because it is right and necessary.

Danyael it is this very arrogance that has given the GOP the Supreme Court, the President, the Senate and the House.  I remember your arrogant response when I told you that a loss in PA and MI was possible!

The Democrats bomb my phone, my mail box and my emails when they want my vote, so I have every right to offer my opinion. Slavery was abolished in 1865 so they do NOT have the right to ignore my views and then arrogantly demand that I vote for them.

Hillary LOST. She wins the national vote only because CA is a huge state and it votes lopsidedly for the Dems. This does NOT represent broad based support for her. The Dems CANNOT succeed based upon lop sided wins in one state!

There is NO chance that the electoral college will be abolished because there are NO votes for it. The fact that the Dems now raise this is a futile attempt to evade the fact that the rules that they had no problem with on November 7th, when they thought that they would win now suddenly become problematic.

Here is the reality.  The electoral college is a predictor of how Congressional races and the Senate will run, because it is based on these numbers.  Of Hillary lost PA then likely the Democrats will lose in Congressional races in that state and also the Senate races.

Now the Dems always do worse in the mid terms than they do in the presidential because their base doesn't understand the importance of voting for senate and congressional positions, so stay away.

I suggest to you that the priority now should NOT be the electoral college.  That will NOT happen.  The priority ought to be for the Democratic party to move to the post Clinton/Obama era, to find new candidates, to reconnect with its base, and to take back the Senate in 2018.

And in the meantime hope that Trump and the GOP don't do too much damage in 2017-18.

Hillary can have a 5 million lead, but the rules are based on the electoral college.

Why waste time with this when there is a ZERO % chance that the electoral college will be removed.

I suggest that the Democrats ensure that they have suitable candidates in the House to run against the GOP, so that the GOP lead shrinks, instead of increases.

I also suggest that the Dems focus on increasing  the Senate seats from 48 to at least 55.

As is they are vulnerable to lose Senate seats as the senators who are up are disproportionately Dems, with many in seats that Trump just won.

Winning is really better than losing but claiming the moral high horse.  The latter cannot vote in the House.

caribny posted:

Danyael it is this very arrogance that has given the GOP the Supreme Court, the President, the Senate and the House.  I remember your arrogant response when I told you that a loss in PA and MI was possible!

.

An arrogant Liberal loser is Conservatives best friend!

ba$eman posted:
caribny posted:

Danyael it is this very arrogance that has given the GOP the Supreme Court, the President, the Senate and the House.  I remember your arrogant response when I told you that a loss in PA and MI was possible!

.

An arrogant Liberal loser is Conservatives best friend!

Baseman it is a fact that whenever a GOP president is around war and recession is a result.

No wonder you all pretend that Reagan was the last GOP president.  You want us to forget about the last 2.

caribny posted:
ba$eman posted:
caribny posted:

Danyael it is this very arrogance that has given the GOP the Supreme Court, the President, the Senate and the House.  I remember your arrogant response when I told you that a loss in PA and MI was possible!

.

An arrogant Liberal loser is Conservatives best friend!

Baseman it is a fact that whenever a GOP president is around war and recession is a result.

No wonder you all pretend that Reagan was the last GOP president.  You want us to forget about the last 2.

Nah, old man Bush took the helm after a protracted expansion under Reagan, so the cyclical inflection was expected!  He then had to compete with Bill, a tough act.  Bush Jr took, again, after a protracted expansion and an inflection was expected regardless who was in the WH.  Of course, then came 9/11, the wars and housing crisis.  These were none of his making, ok Iraq.  He listened to Rice too much.

Obama presided over a period of a return to zero.  Trump will create some real growth and expansion.  I hope he does not get sucked into any open conflict with Iran, the one major good point of Obama!

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×