2016 Presidential Horse Race

[loomis41973]

I've had some fantastic Wednesdays this year.

 

[ulukinatme]

More Biden memes just to cheer everyone up:

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[ulukinatme]

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Worth noting. Mostly false.

Yale Cancels Midterms After Students Were Upset by Trump's Win : snopes.com

WHAT'S TRUE: Some academic obligations at Yale were shuffled due to the hectic events surrounding the 2016 election.

WHAT'S FALSE: Students neither requested nor received accommodations in the cited classes because they were "upset by Donald Trump," the affected students were supporters of both candidates, and most students adhered to the pre-election exam schedule without requesting any changes.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Yale students asking for extensions on assignments due to election results have their requests denied: <a href="https://t.co/eSXQjaKfDi">https://t.co/eSXQjaKfDi</a></p>— Jon Victor (@jon_victor_) <a href="https://twitter.com/jon_victor_/status/796774958647148544">November 10, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[Irish#1]

I really wish athletes and actors/actresses would stick to entertainment.....
The political shaming above is just as bad as any other shaming.
And we all know we should want to vote just like Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus.... Good grief give me a break.

PS... I didn't see Buster's name on the left..... He has to be furious....

You didn't know actors and musicians are experts on pretty much everything?

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Spontaneous protest huh? Try again <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN">@CNN</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MSNBC">@Msnbc</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews">@Foxnews</a><br>Craigslist in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Philadelphia?src=hash">#Philadelphia</a><br>Soros is funding <a href="https://twitter.com/LindaSuhler">@LindaSuhler</a> <a href="https://t.co/aA05xUOG9a">https://t.co/aA05xUOG9a</a> <a href="https://t.co/Ffci9Y8Gw8">pic.twitter.com/Ffci9Y8Gw8</a></p>— David Wingate (@wingate_david) <a href="https://twitter.com/wingate_david/status/797061804299911168">November 11, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Just to vent:

I'm growing tired of the "We need to use the popular vote!" or "The Electoral College is unfair!" complaints. Someone whom I highly respect for their intelligence completely let me down today with an argument about the Elec. voting and how poorly weighted it is using the WY vs CA comparison (perhaps you've seen the meme). While I don't disagree that the weighting is off based on population per state per electoral vote, even when you re-run the numbers with fair weighting, Trump still crushes Clinton. She was a horrible candidate and it showed by how few states she won. A better Dem candidate could've fought for FL, PA, MI, WI...maybe even OH and IN. But she lost ALL of those. Again, even with better distribution of the 530+ electoral votes, Trump still wins EASILY. I hate it, but facts are facts.

Secondly, the popular vote completely eliminates any representation Heartland America would receive. All future POTUS would be elected via the big/populated Dem-leaning cities. Which is completely unfair. I can't seem to understand why smarter people don't recognize this.

 

[Meatloaf]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Spontaneous protest huh? Try again <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN">@CNN</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MSNBC">@Msnbc</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews">@Foxnews</a><br>Craigslist in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Philadelphia?src=hash">#Philadelphia</a><br>Soros is funding <a href="https://twitter.com/LindaSuhler">@LindaSuhler</a> <a href="https://t.co/aA05xUOG9a">https://t.co/aA05xUOG9a</a> <a href="https://t.co/Ffci9Y8Gw8">pic.twitter.com/Ffci9Y8Gw8</a></p>— David Wingate (@wingate_david) <a href="https://twitter.com/wingate_david/status/797061804299911168">November 11, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I had to walk past this bullshit on my way home from work. In addition to your run of the mill Trump protest, they demanded the PPD be abolished. Pretty much explains how so many non voters are showing up at these protests.

 

[drayer54]

Just to vent:

I'm growing tired of the "We need to use the popular vote!" or "The Electoral College is unfair!" complaints. Someone whom I highly respect for their intelligence completely let me down today with an argument about the Elec. voting and how poorly weighted it is using the WY vs CA comparison (perhaps you've seen the meme). While I don't disagree that the weighting is off based on population per state per electoral vote, even when you re-run the numbers with fair weighting, Trump still crushes Clinton. She was a horrible candidate and it showed by how few states she won. A better Dem candidate could've fought for FL, PA, MI, WI...maybe even OH and IN. But she lost ALL of those. Again, even with better distribution of the 530+ electoral votes, Trump still wins EASILY. I hate it, but facts are facts.

Secondly, the popular vote completely eliminates any representation Heartland America would receive. All future POTUS would be elected via the big/populated Dem-leaning cities. Which is completely unfair. I can't seem to understand why smarter people don't recognize this.

Totally agree. How awful would it be if us flyover corn desert patrons had to live at the mercy of Chicago, LA, and NYC. Look at how upstate NY and downstate IL vote... They are already at their mercy. The founders were brilliant. Another reason to re-read Federalist 10 and admire James Madison.

Folks in LA, NYC, South Bend, and small town everywhere must live under the same government. This is why I sometimes ponder if our great country would be greater with a divorce.

 

[connor_in]

Just to vent:

I'm growing tired of the "We need to use the popular vote!" or "The Electoral College is unfair!" complaints. Someone whom I highly respect for their intelligence completely let me down today with an argument about the Elec. voting and how poorly weighted it is using the WY vs CA comparison (perhaps you've seen the meme). While I don't disagree that the weighting is off based on population per state per electoral vote, even when you re-run the numbers with fair weighting, Trump still crushes Clinton. She was a horrible candidate and it showed by how few states she won. A better Dem candidate could've fought for FL, PA, MI, WI...maybe even OH and IN. But she lost ALL of those. Again, even with better distribution of the 530+ electoral votes, Trump still wins EASILY. I hate it, but facts are facts.

Secondly, the popular vote completely eliminates any representation Heartland America would receive. All future POTUS would be elected via the big/populated Dem-leaning cities. Which is completely unfair. I can't seem to understand why smarter people don't recognize this.

Per various websites, MI still hasn't been called. DJT leads with 100% counted, but it still shows gray and their electoral votes are not listed in his column to push him over 300 to 306.

 

[NorthDakota]

Totally agree. How awful would it be if us flyover corn desert patrons had to live at the mercy of Chicago, LA, and NYC. Look at how upstate NY and downstate IL vote... They are already at their mercy. The founders were brilliant. Another reason to re-read Federalist 10 and admire James Madison.

Folks in LA, NYC, South Bend, and small town everywhere must live under the same government. This is why I sometimes ponder if our great country would be greater with a divorce.

This

 

[IrishBroker]

Totally agree. How awful would it be if us flyover corn desert patrons had to live at the mercy of Chicago, LA, and NYC. Look at how upstate NY and downstate IL vote... They are already at their mercy. The founders were brilliant. Another reason to re-read Federalist 10 and admire James Madison.

Folks in LA, NYC, South Bend, and small town everywhere must live under the same government. This is why I sometimes ponder if our great country would be greater with a divorce.

Yep.

I'll just say it....You are a cry baby and a moron if you want to banish the electoral college. This includes DJT from 2012, Slate, and every liberal who's saying this

 

[GoIrish41]

Yep.

I'll just say it....You are a cry baby and a moron if you want to banish the electoral college. This includes DJT from 2012, Slate, and every liberal who's saying this

I agree with all of this.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Just to vent:

I'm growing tired of the "We need to use the popular vote!" or "The Electoral College is unfair!" complaints. Someone whom I highly respect for their intelligence completely let me down today with an argument about the Elec. voting and how poorly weighted it is using the WY vs CA comparison (perhaps you've seen the meme). While I don't disagree that the weighting is off based on population per state per electoral vote, even when you re-run the numbers with fair weighting, Trump still crushes Clinton. She was a horrible candidate and it showed by how few states she won. A better Dem candidate could've fought for FL, PA, MI, WI...maybe even OH and IN. But she lost ALL of those. Again, even with better distribution of the 530+ electoral votes, Trump still wins EASILY. I hate it, but facts are facts.

Secondly, the popular vote completely eliminates any representation Heartland America would receive. All future POTUS would be elected via the big/populated Dem-leaning cities. Which is completely unfair. I can't seem to understand why smarter people don't recognize this.

I don't think the electoral college is necessarily the problem. The problem is that all three elected bodies (President, Senate, House) use voting systems that favor the same set of voters.

The Senate is the most obvious example of this, and was deliberately set up so that rural states wouldn't be ignored. That's fine. But it becomes problematic when a rural voter has a louder voice in all three elected bodies as is the case today.

I think there were originally semi-valid concerns about cities wielding a disproportionate amount of power because their concentrated populations were easier to reach (I say semi-valid because you can't really talk about the structure of our government without acknowledging that a lot of it was set up to protect slavery). But as the country has shifted from largely rural to largely urban (63% of the country lives in cities or suburbs) the system that was set up to keep cities from gaining a disproportionate share of power is now pretty demonstrably giving rural areas a disproportionate share of power.

I also don't agree that rural states would be ignored if we shifted to a popular vote system. Sure, Ohio and Pennsylvania and a handful of other swing states wouldn't get the insane number of visits they get now, but you still couldn't win an election by ignoring rural concerns unless you captured close to 100% of the urban vote.

At the end of the day, it's a lot of hot air. Whether through formal agreement or Constitutional Amendment, the system's not going to change without the cooperation of states that have a vested interest in keeping it in place. To the extent the popular vote's relevant, it's relevant in defining the scope of Trump's mandate.

 

[phgreek]

...Plan cannot proceed without Home Alone 1 crotch shot through the dog door. I'm out w/o it.

 

[IrishinSyria]

How much does your vote count? | Fusion

note that this tool was set up two months before the election. I think it's worth playing around with a bit to see why people are (and have been) questioning the continuing usefulness of the electoral college.

On a side note, I assume everyone saying that's the system we have deal with it would be totally fine if faithless electors changed the outcome? Because that's also part of the system.

 

[IrishinSyria]

 

[IrishBroker]

How much does your vote count? | Fusion

note that this tool was set up two months before the election. I think it's worth playing around with a bit to see why people are (and have been) questioning the continuing usefulness of the electoral college.

On a side note, I assume everyone saying that's the system we have deal with it would be totally fine if faithless electors changed the outcome? Because that's also part of the system.

I shudder to think what might happen at that point. And talk about your vote "not counting"...the electoral college directly going against what voters of said state have voted for? That's actually a legitimate argument. Much more so than "we won the popular vote" BS.


They are not having an intelligent discussion. They are whiny morons that are complaining about this because Hillary lost. It's that simple. Everything else is piggy backing.

 

[Emcee77]

I don't think the electoral college is necessarily the problem. The problem is that all three elected bodies (President, Senate, House) use voting systems that favor the same set of voters.

The Senate is the most obvious example of this, and was deliberately set up so that rural states wouldn't be ignored. That's fine. But it becomes problematic when a rural voter has a louder voice in all three elected bodies as is the case today.

I think there were originally semi-valid concerns about cities wielding a disproportionate amount of power because their concentrated populations were easier to reach (I say semi-valid because you can't really talk about the structure of our government without acknowledging that a lot of it was set up to protect slavery). But as the country has shifted from largely rural to largely urban (63% of the country lives in cities or suburbs) the system that was set up to keep cities from gaining a disproportionate share of power is now pretty demonstrably giving rural areas a disproportionate share of power.

I also don't agree that rural states would be ignored if we shifted to a popular vote system. Sure, Ohio and Pennsylvania and a handful of other swing states wouldn't get the insane number of visits they get now, but you still couldn't win an election by ignoring rural concerns unless you captured close to 100% of the urban vote.

At the end of the day, it's a lot of hot air. Whether through formal agreement or Constitutional Amendment, the system's not going to change without the cooperation of states that have a vested interest in keeping it in place. To the extent the popular vote's relevant, it's relevant in defining the scope of Trump's mandate.

This is a really interesting point.

My understanding is that the Electoral College was originally devised with the intent that it serve as a deliberative body. That is, the intent was that the electors would meet and actually discuss and deliberate over who to elect as president. But that just never really happened. By the third presidential election, the electors were coming in with specific instructions from their state as to how to vote.

Trying to look at the issue theoretically, disconnected from the modern political environment and the impact any change in the system might have on the fortunes of one party or another, it seems to me that if the Electoral College isn't going to deliberate, then it serves no logical purpose. Why send electors at all? And if you aren't going to send electors to deliberate, why not just go straight popular vote?

Of course, if we are thinking theoretically, then the popular vote system isn't great either because so many votes on both sides are uninformed. I saw this blog post floating around after the election:

Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally | Foreign Policy

(The headline is provocatively misleading; the author's point is that voters on both sides are uninformed nowadays.)

There is no real solution to the problem of political ignorance, unless we are willing to break with democratic politics. Some economists, such as Robin Hanson, favor using specialized betting markets to choose policies. Law professor Ilya Somin favors radically decentralized federal systems that encourage citizens to vote with their feet. In my recent book Against Democracy, I discuss how we might experiment with epistocracy — where political power is widespread, as in a democracy, but votes are in some way weighted according to basic political knowledge. Most of these proposals set off alarm bells (usually among people who have not bothered to think carefully about how these systems work). But each proposal at least takes seriously that universal suffrage and voter ignorance go hand in hand.

Trump’s victory is the victory of the uninformed. But, to be fair, Clinton’s victory would also have been. Democracy is the rule of the people, but the people are in many ways unfit to rule.

I don't know the details of how this "epistocracy" would work, but it's an intriguing idea. On the other hand, it would be vulnerable to attacks on grounds that it is unfairly elitist.

 

[phgreek]

How much does your vote count? | Fusion

note that this tool was set up two months before the election. I think it's worth playing around with a bit to see why people are (and have been) questioning the continuing usefulness of the electoral college.

On a side note, I assume everyone saying that's the system we have deal with it would be totally fine if faithless electors changed the outcome? Because that's also part of the system.

Understand analysis and proposing tweaking...for instance instead of all or nothing, an apportioned approach.

I totally do not get the point about faithless voters changing the vote because that is NOT how the system is intended to work, nor is it utilizing any constructive means to long term change, and would indeed cause tremendous damage to faith and trust in the institution. I think we all know there is a difference between hating how the system works, and changing it, and circumventing a system for an outcome in terms of buy in form EVERYONE.

 

[Emcee77]

The other really disturbing problem with voter information nowadays is all the fake news floating around on Facebook, which people blindly credit. My jaw dropped when I read this article about how a fake news purveyor fabricated Craigslist ads purportedly seeking to hire people to serve as Trump protestors for pay, and then based fake news stories on the fabricated ads:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?tid=sm_fb

I think I even saw one of those ads posted above! Horrifying.

To be clear, I don't have any real problem with this guy peddling fake news. I have a problem with voters apparently believing it. Democracy only works if we cure stupid. Not sure how to take steps in that direction, but until we start making progress on that score and get people to start caring about facts again, the system will be capable of dangerous results.

 

[phgreek]

...like I said I can see my way to apportioned results coming from each state as a reasonable step to consider. So even in fly over states, the cities may well tilt Democrat..which makes them now matter. But if you do not have a clear trace to each state's will, you are inviting a fight you should avoid. We already give states with more people more EC votes...now it seems like folks want cities to count more...YEA, NO THANKS!