2016 Presidential Horse Race

[connor_in]

Without Electoral College, we'd live in real-life 'Hunger Games' - Chicago Tribune

Americans are so sick of politics right now that merely mentioning a phrase like "let's get rid of the Electoral College" might compel some to stick pins in their eyes.

Please! Don't harm yourselves! Besides, eye stabbing is just too darn chock-full of drama.

So what if I threw in a version of an American future without the Electoral College just to liven things up a bit?

Think of an America with happy, prosperous people living on the East and West coasts, a people secure with great educations, manners, entertainments, wealth. And amenities that come with such a cool future, like driverless cars, humanoid robots and unlimited data directly transmitted to chips embedded in your skulls.

And what of the "heartland," which politicians privately call "flyover country" but which you and I still call the Midwest?

"Hunger Games."

Gaunt faces, old clothes, bleak horizons. A giant electrified fence stretching across what were once called "states" but are now called "districts." And each district ruled by a governor appointed by the president.

And great mud holes where the Great Lakes used to be, and skinny teenagers hunting critters with bow and arrow to put meat on the table.

Is that possible? Probably not.

I apologize for even typing such a stupid idea and for foolishly mixing presidential politics and sci-fi. One is reality, the other is pure fantasy. My bad.

In reality, for example, President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump just met in the White House and had a long friendly talk, smiling and saying kind things about each other, and what's so darn fantastical about that anyway?

My excuse is that it's been a long political season and nerves are frayed, and now Americans are once again talking about getting rid of the Electoral College.

They're not screaming about it. People are talking about it rationally, thoughtfully, civilly.

It happens in close presidential elections, especially when the victor, in this case Trump, wins the electoral votes but loses the popular vote, in this case to Hillary Clinton by about 200,000 ballots at last count.

She received more votes. He won more states, thus winning the electoral votes from those states, as is the law.

Is this really fair? Or is it some dusty trick from some faded document, allowing the elites to enforce their will upon us again and again?

With Clinton losing the electoral vote and winning the popular vote, as did her fellow Democrat Al Gore a few years ago, many Americans are offering reasons why we should just throw the Electoral College in the garbage and let the popular vote prevail.

"It is only fair," said a friend. "Every vote counts. And the candidate with the most votes wins. What's wrong with that? It's called democracy."

That's what it's called all right: Democracy, which means either the "rule of the people" or "rule of the mob," depending on whether you just liked the songs in "Hamilton" or actually read his stuff.

Democracy started in ancient Athens, when citizens (and citizens only) could cast pebbles and decide things. And majority rule has been the operative phrase. And why shouldn't the majority rule? Why should minorities like tiny "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire have sway over populous California?

Even Trump once despised the Electoral College and said we should get rid of it.

"The Electoral College is a disaster for a democracy," he tweeted in 2012.

Naturally, Trump didn't tweet his anti-Electoral College dreams when he won the presidential election over Clinton.

Yet thoughtful people who voted for Hillary are making the case and doing it well.

"I think it is antiquated," wrote a reader from Naperville. "Why deny a large group of people their voice by not counting their vote? My priority is still to count only the popular vote. What do you think?"

Nice, but when people ask me "what do you think?" I'm inclined to tell them, and often they're displeased.

There is merit to the idea of a popular vote for president. It would certainly be efficient and speedy, especially with our advanced technology. The problem is that in some things I opt for inefficient and slow. Yeah, I'm weird like that.

I'm not even a big fan of early voting. I figure that if voting is actually important to you, then you'll get up on Election Day and get your butt down to the polling place and cast a ballot in person.

Still, if we got rid of the Electoral College, think of the shape of things to come. Soon after, we could have immediate national referendums on almost every important issue. And depending on America's mood, we could swing quickly, one way or another, this way and then back again.

We wouldn't need a House of Representatives or a Senate. Legislation takes too long. The president could appoint governing bureaucrats who would move with great speed. States wouldn't count for much, if anything. They'd disappear eventually, as would the idea that the people of Kentucky might see things differently than the people of New York.

The populated coasts would become supreme. And if California got passionate and wanted Great Lakes water, we'd have a quick national vote on it. Bingo. A pipeline to drain the lakes, and it's done.

We'd have real democracy for a change. And the majority would rule. And that ancient experiment called a republic, designed to be inefficient and slow, to protect the minority view?

Who'd want that anyway?

 

[BeauBenken]

Woman Abuses Child On Video Because He Voted For President-Elect Donald Trump In Schoolwide Election | Turtleboy Sports
I thought the meltdowns were funny, but this is bullshit.

This is borderline child abuse.

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Redditor's brother works at a grocery store. They received a box of these this morning. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Awkward?src=hash">#Awkward</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ElectionNight?src=hash">#ElectionNight</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ElectionHangover?src=hash">#ElectionHangover</a> <a href="https://t.co/tejYeptjAk">pic.twitter.com/tejYeptjAk</a></p>— Andy Cole (@AndyCole84) <a href="https://twitter.com/AndyCole84/status/796507745201651712">November 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In all serious: this is the most consequential political battle now. And Trump has the only vote. Worker’s party or green-eyeshade party. <a href="https://t.co/Unoi2hnvoU">https://t.co/Unoi2hnvoU</a></p>— Michael B Dougherty&#55356;&#57155; (@michaelbd) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/797191051555536896">November 11, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

God help us.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I remember how he ran SAMCRO, dude would be more crooked than Hillary.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In all serious: this is the most consequential political battle now. And Trump has the only vote. Worker’s party or green-eyeshade party. <a href="https://t.co/Unoi2hnvoU">https://t.co/Unoi2hnvoU</a></p>— Michael B Dougherty�� (@michaelbd) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/797191051555536896">November 11, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

God help us.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit this but I'm uncertain what I should take from that tweet.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit this but I'm uncertain what I should take from that tweet.

It was a comment on this Tweet:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">On the day Paul Ryan says he wants to privatize Social Security, Trump's economic adviser says this: <a href="https://t.co/oQ2X7wUQJe">pic.twitter.com/oQ2X7wUQJe</a></p>— Samuel Oakford (@samueloakford) <a href="https://twitter.com/samueloakford/status/797187856666132480">November 11, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The economic policies being pushed by Ryan and Puzder (who is quoted there) are diametrically opposed, and would benefit totally different classes of voter. Which one Trump chooses to back will tell us a lot as to whether this'll just be a retread of the last Bush admin, or whether Trump actually intends to retool the GOP in a more populist direction.

 

[ulukinatme]

Michael Moore KILLING it... On MSNBC... What world is this?

Michael Moore joins wide-ranging election talk | MSNBC

I've not been a big fan of Moore, always thought he was a little unhinged and overboard, but for once I was rather surprised to see him get it. He called it before the election that Trump would win...and part of me wanted to say "Here's crazy Moore again, everyone says this is done."

I'm listening to that broadcast right now, the guy to the right of Moore is still pushing racism/sexism as the reason Hillary lost...still doesn't get it. I thought what Moore was saying was spot on, it spoke to me...and I can't believe I can say that.

Okay, can we get Mike Rowe into elected office somehow? The guy just seems so damn sensible, which means that he'd be a failure in politics. Okay never mind, forget what I said.

Don't need him in an elected office. Put him in Trump's cabinet in charge of Labor. I'm not even kidding, I think he's a great advocate for skilled labor.

 

[Cackalacky]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In all serious: this is the most consequential political battle now. And Trump has the only vote. Worker’s party or green-eyeshade party. <a href="https://t.co/Unoi2hnvoU">https://t.co/Unoi2hnvoU</a></p>— Michael B Dougherty�� (@michaelbd) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/797191051555536896">November 11, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

God help us.

Proposes $1,000,000,000,000 public works program to put Americans back to work and make America great again. Isn't this the exact opposite of what people voted him in for. Lmao.

 

[IrishLax]

Proposes $1,000,000,000,000 public works program to put Americans back to work and make America great again. Isn't this the exact opposite of what people voted him in for. Lmao.

No?

 

[Cackalacky]

No?

With the current Republican stance on public funding for infrastructure being what it is and them giving Obama so much shit for the Stimulus, is any Republican going to agree with this plan? This is a Dem's dream.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Proposes $1,000,000,000,000 public works program to put Americans back to work and make America great again. Isn't this the exact opposite of what people voted him in for. Lmao.

Obama's American jobs Act wasn't seriously considered by Congress.

 

[Bluto]

I've not been a big fan of Moore, always thought he was a little unhinged and overboard, but for once I was rather surprised to see him get it. He called it before the election that Trump would win...and part of me wanted to say "Here's crazy Moore again, everyone says this is done."

I'm listening to that broadcast right now, the guy to the right of Moore is still pushing racism/sexism as the reason Hillary lost...still doesn't get it. I thought what Moore was saying was spot on, it spoke to me...and I can't believe I can say that.



Don't need him in an elected office. Put him in Trump's cabinet in charge of Labor. I'm not even kidding, I think he's a great advocate for skilled labor.

You might want to checkout some of Thomas Frank's work. Pretty astute cultural critic with a populist bent.

 

[Cackalacky]

Obama's American jobs Act wasn't even considered by Congress.

Right.During Obama's first term Republican voters and congressman alike didn't like the $850 billion stimulus. It is viewed as anathema to long term growth and revenue generation. I mean I am real surprised the Trump backers would approve of spending 1trillion on infrastructure. This is something that Bernie was backing.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Proposes $1,000,000,000,000 public works program to put Americans back to work and make America great again. Isn't this the exact opposite of what people voted him in for. Lmao.

With the current Republican stance on public funding for infrastructure being what it is and them giving Obama so much shit for the Stimulus, is any Republican going to agree with this plan? This is a Dem's dream.

Right.During Obama's first term Republican voters and congressman alike didn't like the $850 billion stimulus. It is viewed as anathema to long term growth and revenue generation. I mean I am real surprised the Trump backers would approve of spending 1trillion on infrastructure. This is something that Bernie was backing.

That's what I was getting at earlier wondering if the GOP has learned anything over the last 16 years. The Rust Belt voters that decided this election voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. They aren't small government ideologues; for many of them, government benefits have been the only thing keeping them afloat for years. They want a candidate that's going to make government spending work for them, instead of the financial sector. That's why Ryan's proposed SS privatization (a huge boon for Wall Street and a major risk for the lower classes) v. Puzder's proposed Keynesian infrastructure plan is hugely important to the future direction of this administration. Here's hoping he tells the Ryan/ Romney wing of the party to sit the f*ck down.

 

[Cackalacky]

That's what I was getting at earlier wondering if the GOP has learned anything over the last 16 years. The Rust Belt voters that decided this election voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. They aren't small government ideologues; for many of them, government benefits have been the only thing keeping them afloat for years. They want a candidate that's going to make government spending work for them, instead of the financial sector. That's why Ryan's proposed SS privatization (a huge boon for Wall Street and a major risk for the lower classes) v. Puzder's proposed Keynesian infrastructure plan is hugely important to the future direction of this administration. Here's hoping he tells the Ryan/ Romney wing of the party to sit the f*ck down.

If recent comments that I have seen from The Heritsg Foundation et al are any indication I don't think they have. Being a civil engineer I know we need it absolutely and I would love for them to do it but this is not something conservatives in my state would ever agree to. It would be very funny to me if they did adopt it as it would appear, from my very cynical view point, a huge stimulus plan is acceptable as long as its not a Dem plan.

 

[IrishLax]

With the current Republican stance on public funding for infrastructure being what it is and them giving Obama so much shit for the Stimulus, is any Republican going to agree with this plan? This is a Dem's dream.

Exactly. Donald Trump did not win by adhering to neo con bullshit. He won by turning people lower class workers who voted for Obama from blue to red.

 

[wizards8507]

That's what I was getting at earlier wondering if the GOP has learned anything over the last 16 years. The Rust Belt voters that decided this election voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. They aren't small government ideologues; for many of them, government benefits have been the only thing keeping them afloat for years. They want a candidate that's going to make government spending work for them, instead of the financial sector. That's why Ryan's proposed SS privatization (a huge boon for Wall Street and a major risk for the lower classes) v. Puzder's proposed Keynesian infrastructure plan is hugely important to the future direction of this administration. Here's hoping he tells the Ryan/ Romney wing of the party to sit the f*ck down.

You're being disingenuous. Paul Ryan's Social Security privatization would not be any risk for the lower classes whatsoever since it's OPTIONAL privatization. Any person who's happy with the current shit system will be more than welcome to continue in it. Anyone with half a brain will CHOOSE to invest their own money.

You know better.

 

[Cackalacky]

Exactly. Donald Trump did not win by adhering to neo con bullshit. He won by turning people lower class workers who voted for Obama from blue to red.

I am still catching up on what actually happened between voter turnout and exit polling results but it does appear that this is true. He took like 10-20% of votes away from Hillary in a states Obama won handily. And he outperformed Romney in Red states.

 

[wizards8507]

I am still catching up on what actually happened between voter turnout and exit polling results but it does appear that this is true. He took like 10-20% of votes away from Hillary in a states Obama won handily. And he outperformed Romney in Red states.

I don't think that's right. Trump didn't convert much of anyone. Just loads of Obama voters stayed home, giving Trump higher percentages.

 

[kmoose]

With the current Republican stance on public funding for infrastructure being what it is and them giving Obama so much shit for the Stimulus, is any Republican going to agree with this plan? This is a Dem's dream.

What is the current Republican stance on public funding for infrastructure?

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't think that's right. Trump didn't convert much of anyone. Just loads of Obama voters stayed home, giving Trump higher percentages.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cleveland.com/articles/19649953/donald_trump_flipped_rust_belt.amp?client=safari

 

[Cackalacky]

What is the current Republican stance on public funding for infrastructure?

You serious Clark? Lol. Not even going to bother with this one.

 

[Bluto]

What is the current Republican stance on public funding for infrastructure?

Bridges should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. More or less.

 

[kmoose]

Nope. Drug use between demographics, particularly white and blacks have no significant statistical variance. However, due to cultural differences between inner cities and suburbs, police activities and investigations are performed much more in areas affecting specific demographics. According to your stance these should be the same becasue laws and implementation of laws are equal and not discriminatory

Per the ACLU:

First off, I didn't say drug USE was different. I said participation in the drug TRADE might be different. Black and Hispanic gangs have always controlled the crack and meth trades. Liberals bitched about addicts being put in prison, so the laws were changed to hit the dealers much harder. Now liberals want to bitch about how unfair drug laws that THEY largely brought about are.

 

[wizards8507]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.clev...ald_trump_flipped_rust_belt.amp?client=safari

I understand the percentages. My point is that there is a much larger number of Obama voters who stayed home this time than Obama voters who became Trump voters.