Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosyAnne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stevegravy said:
True, but she and her team still blew it. Cannot win the brass prize getting 10-1 votes margins in ghettoes and barrios and housing projects and college campuses where the snowflakes grow. Got to have a wider appeal than that.
Click to expand...
Apparently that appeal extends to all over the world, seeing the number of absentee ballots still being counted.
 
Suudy said:
Sure. The margin of victory in the actual votes for president that matter: the EC.
Click to expand...
That is a much coarser measure of closeness, since it cannot reflect how close any particular state was, and therefore how close we came to that state flipping. CA and its EC votes went for Clinton. But was it because CA was overwhelmingly for Clinton? Or was it because CA was just barely for Clinton? The EC vote doesn’t give any insight into that question.

It’s like you are driving from New York to Omaha, and someone asks “How much further?”. And you say “Oh, just one more state.” It would be more informative if you said “Oh, just 40 more miles.” (In fact you can be one state away from Omaha and still have less than 10 miles to go.)
 
Suudy said:
As I posted before, I know several who refused to vote for president or senator at all, knowing the 3 big counties in WA would overwhelmingly go for the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Count me among those who didn’t vote. There was no way I could vote for either, but what good did that do, unless the House ends up choosing the President.
 
Suudy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, no. Trump will be president. Fair and square. No argument there.
 
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 agree entirely. There is no mandate…Reagan v. McGovern, now there’s a mandate. Trump’s victory ranks only 44th all time (factcheck.org/2016/11/trump-landslide-nope/) If he tries to ignore the substantial opposition or messes with the wrong programs, social security, medicare…) he risks an epic mid-term thumping for the GOP.
 
Suudy said:
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.
Click to expand...
What would be effective would be a more proportionate distribution of the 7 million of abstentee ballots IMO. By definition they are living outside their states and most are living overseas. As has been noted before CA, WA, and NY hold most of these absentee ballots but under whose rules?
 
Thanks to Ws and Obama’s “mandates” it really doesn’t matter how much trump won by, the mandate of the American people is to give the president unprecedented power than has ever been had. Through the situational policies after 911 from bush, to the ego driven policies of obama, the presidency has surpassed its constitutional ballance of power. Really we can thank the arrogance of the last two presidents for that.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Thanks to Ws and Obama’s “mandates” it really doesn’t matter how much trump won by, the mandate of the American people is to give the president unprecedented power than has ever been had. Through the situational policies after 911 from bush, to the ego driven policies of obama, the presidency has surpassed its constitutional ballance of power. Really we can thank the arrogance of the last two presidents for that.
Click to expand...
Fair point. As Bush said, “9/11 changed everything.”
 
stevegravy said:
True, but she and her team still blew it. Cannot win the brass prize getting 10-1 votes margins in ghettoes and barrios and housing projects and college campuses where the snowflakes grow. Got to have a wider appeal than that.
Click to expand...
The ideas that I responded to were that HRC was “roundly” rejected, and that Trump has a mandate. These ideas are incompatible with the actual facts.

Your analysis of how HRC vote was accumulated also misses the mark, widley. Anyone interested in a detailed analysis might try 538:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
 
dvdjs said:
The ideas that I responded to were that HRC was “roundly” rejected, and that Trump has a mandate. These ideas are incompatible with the actual facts.

Your analysis of how HRC vote was accumulated also misses the mark, widley. Anyone interested in a detailed analysis might try 538:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
Click to expand...
I personally don’t put much value in 538. They blew the whole tea leaf reading of the polls for over a year.

Trumps mandate is if he gets 270 electoral votes.

All this harping reminds me of a football team that racked up the most yard passing, the most yards running, most first downs, monopolized the time of possession and on and on but lost 35-34. It don’t matter. You get a W or a L.

Hillary is the loser same as McCain, or Romney or Kerry or Gore and all the way back.
 
stevegravy said:
I personally don’t put much value in 538. They blew the whole tea leaf reading of the polls for over a year.

Trumps mandate is if he gets 270 electoral votes.

All this harping reminds me of a football team that racked up the most yard passing, the most yards running, most first downs, monopolized the time of possession and on and on but lost 35-34. It don’t matter. You get a W or a L.

Hillary is the loser same as McCain, or Romney or Kerry or Gore and all the way back.
Click to expand...
There is no harping. Just correcting the record on baseless claims.
 
stevegravy said:
I personally don’t put much value in 538. They blew the whole tea leaf reading of the polls for over a year.

Trumps mandate is if he gets 270 electoral votes.

All this harping reminds me of a football team that racked up the most yard passing, the most yards running, most first downs, monopolized the time of possession and on and on but lost 35-34. It don’t matter. You get a W or a L.

Hillary is the loser same as McCain, or Romney or Kerry or Gore and all the way back.
Click to expand...
You are right as far as who the person was that won. There is no disputing that Trump won according the rules. But that still leaves open the question of how Trump (or anyone on the “winning” side) should behave after the election. After the election, the winner now has a job to do. That job is to represent all the people. Including the people who did not vote for him. Including the people who did not vote at all. As he discerns what he should do now, it is only right that he take into account that his margin of victory was slim, and that a very large part of the electorate supported policies contrary to his preferred policies. This is not some trash-talking sports team, talking about their opponents. This is the President. I hope that when Trump realizes the enormity of the responsibility that now rests on his shoulders, he will exercise some humility and listen to opposing views.
 
stevegravy said:
I personally don’t put much value in 538. They blew the whole tea leaf reading of the polls for over a year.

Trumps mandate is if he gets 270 electoral votes.

All this harping reminds me of a football team that racked up the most yard passing, the most yards running, most first downs, monopolized the time of possession and on and on but lost 35-34. It don’t matter. You get a W or a L.

Hillary is the loser same as McCain, or Romney or Kerry or Gore and all the way back.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Trump exceeded the electoral votes.It wasn’t a squeaker by any measure
 
stevegravy said:
Absentee ballots usually break for republocrats.
Click to expand...
🙂 Seriously, I would like to see some numbers.

I read somewhere that absentee voting will become more and more popular going forward so I hope they’re ready.
 
stevegravy said:
I personally don’t put much value in 538. They blew the whole tea leaf reading of the polls for over a year.
Click to expand...
Actually they came the closest giving Trump a 30% chance, having run a simulation 10,000 times coming up with 3,000 wins based on a 2-3% Clinton margin of popular vote. The national polls giving Clinton a 2% win were spot on.

Actually the 30% was a better chance than the Cubs had of winning the WS for most of the year. Just sayin…
 
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...
He may be skilled at using the media, but that fact is far outweighed by the fact that the great majority of the media was biased for Clinton (or any secular, pro-choice politician). The media may have leaned towards Trump in the primaries, as opposed to conservative, pro religious Republicans, but once he was perceived as somewhat prolife, somewhat anti-secular agenda, heavily anti-big government, he was trashed by most of the media.

Other than banning or limiting abortion, there is no greater priority in my mind than breaking up the giant media corporations. Nobody should own more than one cable channel, more than one major newspaper, more than one TV station. This would break up some of the few conservative empires too, which is fine with me, but by far the giant media conglomerates are to the secular left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top