Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosyAnne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
The population of the US was much smaller in Washington’s day. The law and the electoral college say Trump won. We have to go along with it. But we don’t have to pretend the victory was any more than it was - a technical squeaker.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The population of the US was much smaller in Washington’s day.
Click to expand...
So why bring up the number of votes? It says nothing about the popularity. Was Washington more or less popular among Americans in 1788 than Sec Clinton in 2016?
LeafByNiggle said:
But we don’t have to pretend the victory was any more than it was - a technical squeaker.
Click to expand...
My response was directed at those who somehow think the fact Sec Clinton got more votes than President Obama is somehow relevant. It isn’t. And it never will be.

Sec Clinton also got more votes than Kennedy. More votes than Reagan. So what?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As dvdjs pointed out, if fewer than 0.1% of the votes had changed for Clinton, the math shows she would have won. If that is not a technical squeaker, I don’t know what is.
Click to expand...
So what? The popular vote is completely irrelevant. Why conflate the results in individual states with the popular vote? The 0.1% of the entire popular vote is completely irrelevant to individual state results.

Edit: And actually, your 0.1% number is completely off. Spread that 0.1% around in strongly blue states, such as CA, WA, or MA, and it would have had no effect whatsoever.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As dvdjs pointed out, if fewer than 0.1% of the votes had changed for Clinton, the math shows she would have won. If that is not a technical squeaker, I don’t know what is.
Click to expand...
If I had more money id be richer.
 
Suudy said:
So what? The popular vote is completely irrelevant. Why conflate the results in individual states with the popular vote? The 0.1% of the entire popular vote is completely irrelevant to individual state results.
Click to expand...
I was not referring to the popular vote. Clinton already won that, but as you say it is irrelevant in determining the legal winner. No, I was referring to the votes that elected the electoral college. If 0.1% of those votes had changed in favor of Clinton, she would have won more electoral college votes than Trump. Still a squeaker.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I was not referring to the popular vote. Clinton already won that, but as you say it is irrelevant in determining the legal winner. No, I was referring to the votes that elected the electoral college. If 0.1% of those votes had changed in favor of Clinton, she would have won more electoral college votes than Trump. Still a squeaker.
Click to expand...
No, see above. Say CA had 0.1% more votes for Clinton, would that have made a difference?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, but if those 0.1% of votes were in the right place, Clinton wins.
Click to expand...
I’m giving you two years that you can justify and be in denial. I would expect the same from others if I had not liked the outcome. But in 2018 you need to abandon the denial and become right thinking. 😉

Until then, You are just adorable!
 
Suudy said:
Right. So the 0.1% number by itself is completely meaningless. Again, what’s the point in bringing this up?
Click to expand...
It is meaningful in that it shows how close we came to having a different outcome. The number of votes separating a win from a loss has been a commonly accepted measure of how close an election is. Can you think of a better, more appropriate measure of closeness?
 
Given the enormous boost she had from almost all the media Clinton did amazingly poorlyi
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I’m giving you two years that you can justify and be in denial. I would expect the same from others if I had not liked the outcome. But in 2018 you need to abandon the denial and become right thinking.
Click to expand...
You must be thinking of someone else. From the night of the election, I was resigned to having Trump as president, and have even been looking for signs of hope from him that he would be a unifier. What I do object to is the false narrative that somehow this election was any sort of a resounding mandate to ignore the desired policies of half the nation and cater only to the policies favored by those who supported Trump. That would be a mistake.
 
It is still a zero sum game and the score is Trump 1 Clinton 0.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You must be thinking of someone else. From the night of the election, I was resigned to having Trump as president, and have even been looking for signs of hope from him that he would be a unifier. What I do object to is the false narrative that somehow this election was any sort of a resounding mandate to ignore the desired policies of half the nation and cater only to the policies favored by those who supported Trump. That would be a mistake.
Click to expand...
I have posted several times why it’s a mandate.

However let’s look at it this way.

A warm front comes in tomorrow that is supposed to raise the temperature by 32 degrees. Now if the temp was already 70, that would mean it would be a 102. And in your eyes, a mandate for shorts.
But if the temperature was 5 degrees and then tomorrow it changed to 37, you still have the huge swing and you actually have more change ( ask a snowman)

That an outsider who wasn’t supposed to win, won is a mandate just like if a person that was supposed to win won by 60 percent.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Trump used the media to his advantage much better than Clinton. Not that the media favored him or anything. He is just more expert at it.
Click to expand...
Ok, now it’s just getting ridiculous. The media was and is the dems strongest tool.

Trump played the media, he didn’t “use” it better.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Ok, now it’s just getting ridiculous. The media was and is the dems strongest tool.

Trump played the media, he didn’t “use” it better.
Click to expand...
“Played”, “used”, it’s all the same thing. And no, I don’t think the MSM is for the left what Breitbart is for the alt-right.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is meaningful in that it shows how close we came to having a different outcome. The number of votes separating a win from a loss has been a commonly accepted measure of how close an election is. Can you think of a better, more appropriate measure of closeness?
Click to expand...
Sure. The margin of victory in the actual votes for president that matter: the EC.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What I do object to is the false narrative that somehow this election was any sort of a resounding mandate to ignore the desired policies of half the nation and cater only to the policies favored by those who supported Trump. That would be a mistake.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But I also reject the idea that since Sec Clinton won the popular vote, that somehow Trump “stole” the election or that his election was somehow illegitimate or should have never been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top