Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosyAnne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
Maybe, but I think it is more likely that those who voted for Stein would not have voted at all, at least not for the presidential position. As it is, about 47% of the electorate did not vote for any presidential candidate, and I cannot blame them this election cycle.
Click to expand...
In the case of Wisconsin, I think it is clearly the case that Clinton lost it more than Trump won it. Trump got roughly the same number of votes as Romney did in Wisconsin. Clinton did significantly worse than Obama. I find it real interesting that people who are predisposed to support democrats could not hold their nose and vote for Clinton, even against Trump. I mean, I am a conservative and I find Trump offensive, I cannot imagine what a liberal thinks of him. The nonvoters must have thought Clinton had it in the bag.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As electoral votes go, it is not a small margin. But that is relevant for only one thing - determining the legal winner. There is no dispute about that. The dispute comes when someone claims that this election shows the people speaking loud and clear through this election. As you said, this is a nation divided. If the Trump supporters spoke loud and clear, the Clinton supporters also spoke loud and clear. All the more reason for the winners to take seriously the view of the losers going forward and look for common ground, rather than force a one-sided agenda under the mantle of a “mandate”.
Click to expand...
I would say the ****media ****spoke loud and clear. There used to be a small branch of media for opinions on the Left, and a small branch for opinions on the Right, with the Mainstream in the middle having some biases (political slant, regional variation, other unique features) but somewhat objective.

Over the last few decades, the mainstream media has mostly melted into the Left, and the media is far more concentrated in a few hands. The great bulk of the media slanted the news coverage for the Democrats, and a small branch slanted for the Republicans. Given the enormous head start of the media, it’s significant Clinton did not do better in the popular vote. I believe the media bias has the biggest impact on voters in metropolitan areas, which did go heavily for Clinton. The Electoral College is needed now more than ever, to offset the media slant.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
Not all that long ago, there was talk in conservative circles here in Wisconsin about moving to an allocated approach similar to Maine and Nebraska where the state would no longer be winner take all. Wisconsin, being a very geographically divided state would likely always be split evenly (4 reliably conservative districts, 3 reliably liberal districts, and 1 swing district - with the 2 statewide electors being swing as well). After all, Democrats had won every Presidential election here since 1984 here and conservatives were getting frustrated that they were losing all these close contests. However, at the end of the day, rational minds prevailed and the realization set in that diluting the elelctoral vote by splitting them by district would reduce the importance of Wisconsin as neither major Presidential candidate would need to woo them and therefore not need to address the concerns of Wisconsin voters.
Click to expand...
From what I’ve heard, a number of states have essentially made a compact with each other to do the same thing with their electoral votes once a certain number of states have joined in on it. I think if the United States is ever going to go with the “Congressional district method,” as some people call it, it can only work when all 50 states employ it.
 
dmelosi said:
An interesting note is that Clinton won the popular vote by more than 4 million people combining the 3 largest cities/counties of New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago/Cook. The voting margin between the democrats and republicans is huge.

For my own interest, I am comparing welfare in those cities to the state less those cities.
My feeling is that those areas are a glimpse of what a socialist state would be.

So far it seems to confirm that once a person has the government taking care of their employment/health care/food/housing that there is no turning back.

The voting in Cook County/Chicago for example cannot be overcome by the rest of the state. The electoral vote goes Democrat by over 800,000 votes with Cook County, it would be Republican by over 400,000 votes without Cook County.

I would love to see Illinois split in their electoral vote, but Chicago would never let that happen.
Click to expand...
How many counties make up the Chicago area compared to the rest of Illinois? Didn’t somebody on here say that the rest of the counties in the state of Illinois vote Republican? If so, I don’t think Chicago would be able to stop it from happening, then. If the rest of the state legislature is Republican outside of Chicago, wouldn’t they be able to outvote them? Chicago might be the largest city in Illinois (as well as the third-largest city in the entire country), but how many legislators come from there? What’s the current breakdown in the state legislature? Would the state legislature decide this?
 
In_Hoc_Signo312 said:
From what I’ve heard, a number of states have essentially made a compact with each other to do the same thing with their electoral votes once a certain number of states have joined in on it. I think if the United States is ever going to go with the “Congressional district method,” as some people call it, it can only work when all 50 states employ it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that system would also be prone to gerrymandering and look how preposterous that geography becomes.
 
commenter said:
I believe the media bias has the biggest impact on voters in metropolitan areas,
Click to expand...
Voters always have a choice of TV stations they watch or radio stations they listen to or websites they can search. The media might have a bias but only because they happened to have found an audience who wants that slant. Which came first, IOW.

The Democrats happened to have found policies which more favor the metropolitan areas, the Republicans the suburbs and rural areas. That’s the basic structure, it seems.
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, but that system would also be prone to gerrymandering and look how preposterous that geography becomes.
Click to expand...
As opposed to letting one county dictate who gets all the electoral votes in the state?
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe but in this day and age people tend to migrate more and more. I’m sending out Christmas cards to many who have left the Chicagoland area, in favor of better weather or opportunities elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. The state you reside in is the state you participate in the election in. When it comes to the election of a president or a senator, I am a citizen of North Carolina. Election of a representative, the 11th district of NC. My vote counts for nothing anywhere else
 
dmelosi said:
An interesting note is that Clinton won the popular vote by more than 4 million people combining the 3 largest cities/counties of New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago/Cook. The voting margin between the democrats and republicans is huge.

For my own interest, I am comparing welfare in those cities to the state less those cities.
My feeling is that those areas are a glimpse of what a socialist state would be.

So far it seems to confirm that once a person has the government taking care of their employment/health care/food/housing that there is no turning back.

The voting in Cook County/Chicago for example cannot be overcome by the rest of the state. The electoral vote goes Democrat by over 800,000 votes with Cook County, it would be Republican by over 400,000 votes without Cook County.

I would love to see Illinois split in their electoral vote, but Chicago would never let that happen.
Click to expand...
What’s all this mean? In Illinois it was one Republican governor who initiated the state income tax, another Republican governor who raised taxes in order to build a stadium for the White Sox owners, and another Republican governor (among several) who ended up in jail. And don’t get me started on an ex-Speaker of the House.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As electoral votes go, it is not a small margin. But that is relevant for only one thing - determining the legal winner. There is no dispute about that. The dispute comes when someone claims that this election shows the people speaking loud and clear through this election. As you said, this is a nation divided. If the Trump supporters spoke loud and clear, the Clinton supporters also spoke loud and clear. All the more reason for the winners to take seriously the view of the losers going forward and look for common ground, rather than force a one-sided agenda under the mantle of a “mandate”.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by common ground. Let’s remember what Obama said - “we won.” But it sounds like Trump is already doing what you suggest
 
ProVobis said:
What’s all this mean? In Illinois it was one Republican governor who initiated the state income tax, another Republican governor who raised taxes in order to build a stadium for the White Sox owners, and another Republican governor (among several) who ended up in jail. And don’t get me started on an ex-Speaker of the House.
Click to expand...
What it means is when it comes to big cities, corruption and controlling others for power is the norm, especially in Chicago. 4 out of the 7 previous Illinois governors went to prison, 3 of them being democrats, all 3 democrats from Chicago and the republican from just south of Chicago.

The republican who started the income tax is also from Chicago.

I guess you are going to say that the democratic controlled senate had nothing to do with the White Sox stadium?
 
dmelosi said:
What it means is when it comes to big cities, corruption and controlling others for power is the norm, especially in Chicago. 4 out of the 7 previous Illinois governors went to prison, 3 of them being democrats, all 3 democrats from Chicago and the republican from just south of Chicago.

The republican who started the income tax is also from Chicago.

I guess you are going to say that the democratic controlled senate had nothing to do with the White Sox stadium?
Click to expand...
What have you got against big cities? I’ve been a big-city person all my life, having lived in London and Chicago, though I happen to live in the suburbs but frequently travel into the city. In fact, a lot of suburbanites travel to work in the city as there are more job opportunities there.
 
ProVobis said:
What have you got against big cities? I’ve been a big-city person all my life, having lived in London and Chicago, though I happen to live in the suburbs but frequently travel into the city.
Click to expand...
Please see my previous post.
 
ProVobis said:
Then why is Trump upset because he doesn’t have a mandate?
Click to expand...
Except in my opinion he does have it. He won by the rules, period, end of argument. He flipped not one, not two, but THREE solidly Democratic states in one election. That counts as a mandate in my book.

And furthermore, as to this idea that counties are meaningless in a general election, that doesn’t answer why a single county should determine the outcome of who wins the state. If anything, that further proves the point I want to make.
 
queenofheartscv said:
There is nothing wrong with Trump using Twitter to speak directly to the people. What you see here is Trump starting to punch back at the recount nonsense. If we’re gonna recount, why not look at the real fraud, dead people voting, illegals voting, double registrations???
Click to expand...
Right on.👍
 
ProVobis said:
Then why is Trump upset because he doesn’t have a mandate?
Click to expand...
Trump has an enormous mandate. he won despite all the media dismissing him as a joke and comparing him to hitler. He won in a world governed by globalists. A party and a president who obsesses over convincing the world they are right and smarter. Against lobbies that would stop at nothing.
His mandate extends to congress where the reps retained that which they were supposed to lose. And since the Supreme Court was such a large issue he won a mandate for the future. The mandate is hugely conservative.
 
In_Hoc_Signo312 said:
that doesn’t answer why a single county should determine the outcome of who wins the state.
Click to expand...
That I don’t know. High-density areas are as old as civilization. In fact, Trump has built quite a few towers there himself, so he can’t be anti-Chicago or anti anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top