Why Trump Won

[sneaky_flute]

9 minutes ago, wopphil said:

No man in California should make that little money.  If you are making only minimum wage, work two jobs. 65-70 hours a week at minimum wage will put you at $35,000. And if you have a half-functioning brain, you will quickly find yourself making more than minimum wage. 

Those aren't livable earnings in California. And no one should have to work 70 hours a week to make ends meet. This type of sentiment suggests that you've never had to work a minimum wage job. Were you born into privilege? 

Sure, we need more skilled people in the primary sector. We need more nurses and engineers. We also need people in the service industry. Furthermore, raising minimum wage would be a good thing because it increases consumer demand. 

[sneaky_flute]

On 11/12/2016 at 4:36 PM, wopphil said:

More and more, I think Trump's victory is the fault of leftist policies that a vast majority of Americans despise. Not just Obamacare, but things like outlawing plastic grocery bags, transgender bathrooms and sports teams, opposition to police officers (remember that meeting Hillary had with Michael Brown's mother?), and the constant war on business. People had enough and took out their frustrations through their votes. Democrats should stop advocating the extreme positions and pay more attention to the middle.

Clinton et al. don't represent the left. They're more center-right than anything. Trump won because Clinton neglected to address the working class and by sabotaging Sander's campaign, she alienated an enormous segment of the population that would have otherwise voted against Trump. 

[Thomas]

Very little from the from the left makes my heart warm in the thought that the Trump administration will only last 4 years. Granted Trump may do something (though seriously what is there left for him to do???) that will get him out of office after 4 (or less) but that something probably won't be something I should be hoping for. I'm not sure how pragmatic the left can become while the right implements their policies. To make matters worse I do agree with the thought that no matter how much Trump fails to live up to his promises most on the right will find a way to blame the left regardless of how much control the right has. So we have the core of the left getting angrier and angrier and lashing out only for that serving to alienate the voters they need to actually keep the right out of office. It is a self perpetuating hate machine that only feeds upon itself.

[Stradling]

26 minutes ago, sneaky_flute said:

Those aren't livable earnings in California. And no one should have to work 70 hours a week to make ends meet. This type of sentiment suggests that you've never had to work a minimum wage job. Were you born into privilege? 

Sure, we need more skilled people in the primary sector. We need more nurses and engineers. We also need people in the service industry. Furthermore, raising minimum wage would be a good thing because it increases consumer demand. 

If they aren't livable wages or earnings then do something else.  My 17 year old son in high school makes $12.50 an hour, which if he was working full time would equate to $26k.  If you aren't capable of being more employable than a 17 year old kid then more times than not, thats on the individual.  Raising minimum wage won't help these people. 

Of course people shouldn't have to work 70 hours, but sometimes (always) you've got to show initiative  to get ahead in the world.  Besides I'm sure the guys on this board making a decent living have had plenty of 70 hour works weeks in their lives.  Without question our resident lawyers, doctors, blarg, myself, hell Brandon who was in the same business has worked that many hours without a doubt.  If you're afraid or too lazy to put in the hours to be successful then you simply deserve what you get.  

[Stradling]

Oh and the reason Trump won is simple, the left didn't come out and support Hilary.  Trump had less votes than Romney did 4 years ago, and Romney lost the popular vote by 5-6 million votes in 2012.  

[Thomas]

I do think there is validity to the left's assertion that voting was suppressed by strategies on the right to reduce the number of places to vote in certain areas of the country and increasing the time it took to vote in an attempt to discourage voting. I wonder what would happen if the left agree to 100% voter IDs tied to a system where voters could vote anywhere in the country based on using the ID to log into a voting system.

[Angels#1Fan]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

Oh and the reason Trump won is simple, the left didn't come out and support Hilary.  Trump had less votes than Romney did 4 years ago, and Romney lost the popular vote by 5-6 million votes in 2012.  

The left turned out but not in the right places. Clinton did in fact win the popular vote, the problem was the turn out in certain places was lower than Clinton had hoped for which gave Trump wins in several states that were unexpected. In 6 out of the last 7 elections Dems have won the popular vote, it's only because of the Electoral College that cons have won 2 of the last 3 elections! Both W. Bush and Trump lost the popular vote and I would argue that the will of the voting public was not carried out.

I think it's clear that changes need to be made in the way we elect the president. After all we elect all of our local, state, and federal officials by a popular vote..the majority rules in those cases. Why should the most important political office in the world be determined by an out dated and archaic system that doesn't reflect the will of the majority of Americans? The Electoral College made more sense two hundred years ago, but in modern America all it does is give the minority more power than they should have. We don't need to abandon the electoral system altogether but some adjustments need to be made to insure that the will of the people is protected. 

[ABC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

[ABC]

As for winning the popular vote, there a likely probability that more people will vote in a Presidential election where there is no electoral college. We do not know how that will affect the overall results. I'm guessing that it'll generally help democrats and give them an even wider popular vote margin. Maybe it'll go the other way.

[Thomas]

9 minutes ago, #CF8 said:

As for winning the popular vote, there a likely probability that more people will vote in a Presidential election where there is no electoral college. We do not know how that will affect the overall results. I'm guessing that it'll generally help democrats and give them an even wider popular vote margin. Maybe it'll go the other way.

Especially when Texas implements compulsory voting under penalty of death while simultaneously designating one voting center for Austin and Houston. 

[Angels#1Fan]

The Electoral College came about to protect wealthy landowners from having to much power because only property owners were allowed to vote!  Men and woman without property were largely (but not altogether) prohibited from voting.

We don't live in these times anymore and the voting process needs to be adjusted to reflect how America has changed in the last two hundred years. The fears of wealthy landowners controlling elections has long passed.

[Angels#1Fan]

31 minutes ago, #CF8 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

This has become a real problem.

[Thomas]

2 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

The fears of wealthy landowners controlling elections has long passed.

[Jay]

3 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

The Electoral College came about to protect wealthy landowners from having to much power because only property owners were allowed to vote!  Men and woman without property were largely (but not altogether) prohibited from voting.

We don't live in these times anymore and the voting process needs to be adjusted to reflect how America has changed in the last two hundred years. The fears of wealthy landowners controlling elections has long passed.

That's an over-simplification.

The electoral college was implemented to give all the states some voice in electing the president. The number of electors in the Electoral College is equal to the number of U.S. representatives and Senators, plus 3 for the District of Columbia.

 

[Thomas]

Just now, Jay said:

That's an over-simplification.

The electoral college was implemented to give all the states some voice in electing the president. The number of electors in the Electoral College is equal to the number of U.S. representatives and Senators, plus 3 for the District of Columbia.

 

Plus the legitimate fear that the public could be easily swayed by to vote for an incompetent dangerous candidate since the distribution of information was at best limited when the Constitution was drafted. Not sure what our excuse is this go around.

[Angels#1Fan]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

That's an over-simplification.

The electoral college was implemented to give all the states some voice in electing the president. The number of electors in the Electoral College is equal to the number of U.S. representatives and Senators, plus 3 for the District of Columbia.

 

I didn't care to write a book about the history of the electoral college so I gave the Readers Digest version, but the fact remains (imo) that todays voting process doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people because (again imo) voters aren't properly represented by the current system. 

[gotbeer]

11 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

The Electoral College came about to protect wealthy landowners from having to much power because only property owners were allowed to vote!  Men and woman without property were largely (but not altogether) prohibited from voting.

We don't live in these times anymore and the voting process needs to be adjusted to reflect how America has changed in the last two hundred years. The fears of wealthy landowners controlling elections has long passed.

What's the difference from wealthy landowners having too much power.  To California and New York controlling the country? 

[Thomas]

Just now, Angels#1Fan said:

I didn't care to write a book about the history of the electoral college so I gave the Readers Digest version, but the fact remains (imo) that todays voting process doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people because (again imo) voters aren't properly represented by the current system. 

I look forward to politics becoming ESPN where only Boston, NYC, and LA matter.

[Angels#1Fan]

1 minute ago, gotbeer said:

What's the difference from wealthy landowners having too much power.  To California and New York controlling the country? 

In todays America the majority of people live in large urban cities. It's the way it is.

The difference between two hundred years ago and now should be obvious.

[Adam]

Another thing that would be far less of a big deal if power weren't so centralized

[mtangelsfan]

If there were no Electoral College California and New York would have all of the power.

That really isn't right, or fair since that is the term being tossed around.  The laws of this land try to give states equal say in how the government is run.  It also gives the more populated areas more power due to the House.  This is a commonsense approach.  

Why should the two coasts rule the entire middle of the country?

[ABC]

Because of the EC a few states like Ohio and fucking Florida have all the power. How is that different?

[mtangelsfan]

26 minutes ago, #CF8 said:

Because of the EC a few states like Ohio and fucking Florida have all the power. How is that different?

They have no more power than any other state.  Just because they are swing states doesn't make them have any more power.  

[Taylor]

33 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

If there were no Electoral College California and New York would have all of the power.

That really isn't right, or fair since that is the term being tossed around.  The laws of this land try to give states equal say in how the government is run.  It also gives the more populated areas more power due to the House.  This is a commonsense approach.  

Why should the two coasts rule the entire middle of the country?

Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that because every state pitches in a share of electoral votes, it decentralizes the power from the more populated states? But if the more populated states have more electoral votes, what difference does it make?

[Jason]

States get their popular votes in by means of Senators and congressmen. With no EC you get a situation like California. Here LA and SF make all the political decisions for the whole state. People in metropolitan areas look at the world much differently than the rest of us.