Why Trump Won

[Adam]

Plus all the Cons have jobs and might not be able to make it to vote.

 

I kid. I kid.

[Stradling]

I am curious how many more republicans would vote just in Ca if it was a popular vote.  Especially if the candidate wasn't a talking Orange. 

[Jay]

What we got from this election is the will of the people. I don't see how it could be any more clear.

Clinton had every advantage. She had the money, she had the high-powered surrogates like the Obamas, Katy Perry, etc., she had the "ground game," and so on.

But Trump still won. He won every swing state, right? And then he flipped some Blue states.

So I don't think it was the "antiquated system". It was just the game being played, somebody wins and somebody loses.

 

[Tank]

2 hours ago, #CF8 said:

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

 

2 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

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

i think there's a difference in how much perceived power they actually have (especially when you factor in all of the EC votes in california that never really seem to be up for discussion) versus how the media tends to report on how the vote is going in the swing states.

on the surface, penn, florida, and michigan have no more power than any other state, and certainly not as much as CA, NY, or TX.

[Tank]

48 minutes ago, cezero said:

I feel bad for the working class people in industrial jobs in the Midwest who really think Trump is going to help keep their jobs from being outsourced. I'm not saying that Clinton would have been able to help much, either. I feel bad for the people regardless of all of that. 

trump talked strongly about keeping american companies here in the states. i'm curious to see how he deals with this issue. it's important to a lot of people, and i hope it's a priority for him.

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

If I was a Californian I be much more upset about only having two votes in the Senate than only having 55 electoral votes.

California makes up for that in the House of Representatives. It all balances out.

[Thomas]

28 minutes ago, red321 said:

By turn out the vote I'm referring to people are closer, and therefore it's easier to get them to the polls.

Do you have any idea how many people a F-250 can carry? I'm really not sure what your impression of rural life is like but it doesn't really seem rooted in reality.  Doing a vast majority of things in the country is easier than in the urban counterpart.

[Blarg]

54 minutes ago, cezero said:

Pres Obama came just barely short of saying the Clinton campaign didn't spend enough time in rural areas. 100,000 voters isn't really a huge number, and if exit polls are accurate, a lot of people in WI and such voted for Trump reluctantly. Major blunder from her campaign. 

I feel bad for the working class people in industrial jobs in the Midwest who really think Trump is going to help keep their jobs from being outsourced. I'm not saying that Clinton would have been able to help much, either. I feel bad for the people regardless of all of that. 

 

Clinton was for NAFTA until it wasn't popular but she still would have sided with business outsourcing since  they bought and paid for her.

[red321]

3 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Do you have any idea how many people a F-250 can carry? I'm really not sure what your impression of rural life is like but it doesn't really seem rooted in reality.  Doing a vast majority of things in the country is easier than in the urban counterpart.

thanks...I've spent plenty of time in rural areas

I'm not referring to getting folks to the polls as in driving up and picking them up. I'm referring to the fact that you have higher population density. Let's say I have an early gotv rally...in an urban center I have a potential audience of tens of thousands. In a rural setting your potential audience is a lot less, might be in the thousands. So, even if you are getting 1% of potential voters, that translates into a much higher reach.

You are thinking in terms of people actually voting as compared to the ability to maximize your dollars and time spent per voter trying to get them to the polls.

[mtangelsfan]

I would also argue that removing the electoral college would strengthen the two party system and make the hope for a third, more centrist party totally impossible.

That would be a mistake.  

[Thomas]

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

I'm not referring to getting folks to the polls as in driving up and picking them up.

56 minutes ago, red321 said:

By turn out the vote I'm referring to people are closer, and therefore it's easier to get them to the polls.

I can't imagine any reason for confusion. But I digress....

14 minutes ago, red321 said:

thanks...I've spent plenty of time in rural areas

And yes Trump has many black friends. I understand.

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

I'm not referring to getting folks to the polls as in driving up and picking them up. I'm referring to the fact that you have higher population density. Let's say I have an early gotv rally...in an urban center I have a potential audience of tens of thousands. In a rural setting your potential audience is a lot less, might be in the thousands. So, even if you are getting 1% of potential voters, that translates into a much higher reach.

You are thinking in terms of people actually voting as compared to the ability to maximize your dollars and time spent per voter trying to get them to the polls.

Yes we already covered this earlier in the thread.  Cities and urban centers are the big winners in a popular vote. Rural areas get shafted. High school civics. EC created in part because rural states fear dominance by states with larger population centers. God knows how much more tribal lands are ignored in this scenario. Granted rock bottom is pretty much rock bottom.

But what you haven't answered is the answers to any of the uncertainty the changes a popular vote brings. There are so many introduced variables that how would you even run a simulation on it let alone hazard a guess or in your case near certainty regarding the likely outcome of this hypothetical?

[red321]

Poor clarification on my part in regards to getting people to the polls. GoTV and getting people to the polls is more than just physically driving them.

I think the idea that hidden Republican voters would suddenly flock to the polls in states like California or NY is fairly unlikely. Take a look at California, for the most part the lowest turnout was in counties that are Democratic strongholds. My "certainty" is more just extrapolating where I feel the most bang from the buck would come from and results from 6 of the last 7 elections.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/status/

http://www.electproject.org/2016g (voter turnout percentages by state)...again...larger states tend to have lower turnout. Interesting question would be where is the shortfall coming from Texas.

 

I also struggle with this assumption that rural voters should have such a large outsized impact, especially when you consider they already are guaranteed equal representation in the Senate. In regards to the Presidential election why should a vote in Wyoming count 3.6 times as much as a vote in California? High school civics also highlight the EC was based on distrust of the general electorate, wanting to ensure congress couldn't be corrupted in selecting a president, and slaves states getting outsized representation, etc. etc. 

 

[mtangelsfan]

That is because you have never lived in rural areas.  

[Thomas]

2 minutes ago, red321 said:

http://www.electproject.org/2016g (voter turnout

 

percentages by state)...again...larger states tend to have lower turnout. Interesting question would be where is the shortfall coming from Texas.

I don't necessarily see that correlation. Much more battleground states than by size.  Imagine though that this could be found somewhere on the net. Get that statistician on Excel stat! Though seriously Utah, what's up?  Voter turnout is really really hard to predict. Even in this election in a scenario we've now have had numerous times pretty much everyone got it wrong. By a lot. Going to a completely unobserved method?  Good luck on that. That sound you heard was Nate Silver saying fuck it and going to Tahiti to count coconuts.

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

I also struggle with this assumption that rural voters should have such a large outsized impact, especially when you consider they already are guaranteed equal representation in the Senate. In regards to the Presidential election why should a vote in Wyoming count 3.6 times as much as a vote in California? High school civics also highlight the EC was based on distrust of the general electorate, wanting to ensure congress couldn't be corrupted in selecting a president, and slaves states getting outsized representation, etc. etc.

We just elected Trump and you want to argue the folly of voter mistrust? Honestly if the EC hasn't been neutered by many states to compel electors to vote the results instead of their conscience you could have had a rather pleasant outsome. Honestly there is still a chance, albeit slight, of this between now and next month's election. Seriously, the way this year has gone would you be surprised if something else came out against him??  And it seems the only alternative to an out-sized voice in no voice. Zero. Zip. See below.

 

1 hour ago, red321 said:

I'm not referring to getting folks to the polls as in driving up and picking them up. I'm referring to the fact that you have higher population density. Let's say I have an early gotv rally...in an urban center I have a potential audience of tens of thousands. In a rural setting your potential audience is a lot less, might be in the thousands. So, even if you are getting 1% of potential voters, that translates into a much higher reach.

You are thinking in terms of people actually voting as compared to the ability to maximize your dollars and time spent per voter trying to get them to the polls.

 

[Jay]

You know what they always say, "the electoral map favors the Democrat" well if that's true it's doubtful the Dems will want to change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-electoral-map-problem-is-not-about-trump-its-about-demographics/2016/05/08/14cdf1fc-1523-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

The GOP’s electoral-map problem is not about Trump. It’s about demographics.

Republicans have a major electoral-map problem in November. Major.

Donald Trump’s victory last week in Indiana’s primary not only effectively sealed the GOP nomination for the real estate billionaire but also brought into sharp relief how difficult it will be for any Republican to get to 270 electoral votes and beat Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president this fall.

 

[m0nkey]

3 hours ago, Adam said:

Plus all the Cons have jobs and might not be able to make it to vote.

 

I kid. I kid.

But not really

[Spirit]

4 hours ago, cezero said:

Pres Obama came just barely short of saying the Clinton campaign didn't spend enough time in rural areas. 100,000 voters isn't really a huge number, and if exit polls are accurate, a lot of people in WI and such voted for Trump reluctantly. Major blunder from her campaign. 

I feel bad for the working class people in industrial jobs in the Midwest who really think Trump is going to help keep their jobs from being outsourced. I'm not saying that Clinton would have been able to help much, either. I feel bad for the people regardless of all of that. 

 

 

Yeah, he not so subtly threw her right under the bus.   http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-clinton-campaign-work-231370?cmpid=sf

Obama pointedly declined to endorse Clinton’s own explanation for her defeat, instead suggesting that the former secretary of state’s failure to “show up everywhere,” not just the big diverse cities she targeted in her final campaign push, proved to be her downfall.

“How we organize politically I think is something that we should spend some time thinking about. I believe that we have better ideas, but I also believe that good ideas don’t matter if people don’t hear them,” Obama told reporters. “And one of the issues the Democrats have to be clear on is, given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere. We have to show up everywhere. We have to work at a grass-roots level, something that’s been a running thread in my career.”

 

[Thomas]

Threw under the bus. Drove the bus over her. Backed up. Did it again.

[Blarg]

Look, she wasn't a 40 something with low mileage on her body. Clinton is crowding 70, had health issues and took breaks from the long campaign. I think if she had tried the grassroots campaign of 90 townships in 90 days she would be pushing up daisies right now.

[Adam]

He hates her anyway

[Spirit]

21 minutes ago, Adam said:

He hates her anyway

 

He is a lot like us, isn't he?

 

 

 

[IEAngelsfan]

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

 

He is a lot like us, isn't he?

 

 

 

Hate is such a strong word.......yes.

[Taylor]

Obama is such a brogressive.

[Brandon]

22 hours ago, calscuf said:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-donald-trump-american-voices-20161113-story,amp.html?client=safari

There is a rich tapestry of stupid in this article.  I'd have to say favorite is this:

"In Huntington Beach, Anthony Miskulin, 37, used to make six figures as a loan officer, until the Great Recession hit. Now he toils in corporate sales, making $26,000 a year. He shares a house with four other people and commutes three hours by bus, having given up his car. He shoulders $57,000 in student-loan debt.

“I never anticipated being in this situation,” he said, soaking up the sun — one form of recreation he can still afford — on an 80-degree day on the Orange County coast. “My vote for Donald Trump, it wasn’t out of bigotry. It wasn’t out of hatred. It was about survival.” 

So, he's making $100K plus pre-recession and he never, ever thought that maybe, maybe, something would happen were a twenty-something with limited job skills wouldn't be making $100k plus a year?  And when reality hits and he's making what someone of his skill set normally makes, instead of saving his oringinal plunder, or going back to school and learning to be something actually valuable to society, he says "fuck it", this is because of Mexicans and I'm voting Trump.  Awesome, Tony.  Sorry you lost the Ferrari.

 

22 hours ago, #CF8 said:

Many loan officers still make 100K. Many make several hundred k. He can still make 100K as a loan officer if he did what takes. Money was rolling uphill in real estate back then and every boat was lifted by the unsustainable tide. I'm sure that at his current gig, he has co-workers making well over six figures doing what he does. 

 

seriously. i think that article is fake, unless he was one of those bartender turned loan officers in the early/mid 2000's. and if he was he made so much his debt would have been paid off cash.

i guess i don't get it. i moved to lo after being a higher up in a credit union and owning my own company. i tucked my tail between my legs and became a lowly lo for a bit and sadly made a solid six figures. if you're in oc and have even a slither of lo knowledge you're not making 26k a year. i bring on dudes that make at least 150k from the start who have no experience.

to make you guys hate my industry more, after brexit happened the rates basically hit all time lows, a dude i work with made a minimum of 72k in one month before considering bonuses, etc. just pure loan volume funded.

[Brandon]

14 hours ago, Stradling said:

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.  

May or may not have

 

 

Just kidding. It was easy, no doubt, but I also slept on the couch at my office to get up at 5am so I could help my loan officers on the east coast where it was 8am and their start time.