Trump Has A Mandate

[annabenedetti]

If there were good evidence of cheating or over-counting in favor of Democrats in a state that Republicans won, why do you suppose Republicans and the Trump campaign sued to stop the recount? Shouldn't we go ahead with a recount if it has the potential to uncover fraud? For that matter, what makes you so sure the discrepancy was due to pro-Clinton cheating?

Not only that, did you see the numbers? They're talking about 388 ballots.

The majority of machines were off by one or two votes:

■248 precincts with too many votes and no explanation (77 were 1 over; 62 were 2 over, 37 were 3 over, 20 were 4 over, 52 were 5 or more over).
■144 precincts with too few votes and no explanation (81 were 1 under, 29 were 2 under; 19 were 3 under; 7 were 4 under; 8 were 5 or more under)

Yes, do the audit, and find out how many of those 388 miscounts were due to fraud, and how many due to human error.

 

[Town Heretic]

i'll pay for your ticket to Cananda since the "deplorables" run this country now.:banana:

Are you trying to make America grate again? lain: And how isn't aCW all over the man date business?

 

[annabenedetti]

Trump is the final piece in the sense that rebulicans have majorities in both state and federal legislative bodies

You mean like W had?

and now will no longer have to fear a presidential veto or out of control executive actions that curtail the conservative agenda at all levels.

You're saying the conservatives fear our government and its checks and balances working the way they were designed to work? Do you fear that?

All of this counts as a Republican mandate since a mere 8 years ago democrats were in full control of everything.

And a single President before that, the GOP was in charge of everything. How did that work out for us?

 

[patrick jane]

You mean like W had?


You're saying the conservatives fear our government and its checks and balances working the way they were designed to work? Do you fear that?

And a single President before that, the GOP was in charge of everything. How did that work out for us?

View attachment 25059

Darn it !! I picked the wrong picture, sorry, disregard

 

[annabenedetti]

pot head Californian voters gave Hillary the poplar vote.

The poplar vote? So now you're blaming the trees?

Republicans simply don't have an answer to very liberal and populous state

Mostly the Republicans simply don't have a clue.

 

[rexlunae]

i'll pay for your ticket to Cananda since the "deplorables" run this country now.:banana:

Sorry, can't get rid of me that quickly.

 

[everready]

Trump doesn't have a mandate, Hillary Clinton has a mandate.

As mail-in and absentee voter ballots continue to trickle in and the country braces for President-elect Donald Trump to step into power, Hillary Clinton quietly marked a milestone.

The latest election totals showed that Mrs Clinton, who lost to outsider Mr Trump last month, has received more votes than Mr Obama did in his 2012 victory, according to data from the National Archives and a running total by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

She has overtaken Mr Trump by nearly 2.8 million votes (48% to Mr Trump's 46%).

Mrs Clinton's lead is the largest of the five times when a US presidential candidate won the popular vote but failed to win the election.

In fact, aside from Mr Obama's 2008 win, Mrs Clinton has received more votes than any other US presidential candidate in history.
​

In light of your findings what do you suggest they do?


everready

 

[annabenedetti]

In recent years, California has been turning into what amounts to a one-party state. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of Californian's who registered as Democrats climbed by 1.1 million, while the number of registered Republicans dropped by almost 400,000.

Republicans should be asking why they're losing so many of their voters.

There were two Democrats — and zero Republicans — running to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer. There were no Republicans on the ballot for House seats in nine of California's congressional districts.

The reason for that is that we have a top-two modified open primary. The top two candidates with the most votes in the primary go on. Both top vote-getters were Democrat. Not surprising.

At the state level, six districts had no Republicans running for the state senate, and 16 districts had no Republicans running for state assembly seats.

That's a Republican problem, all right. I wonder what they're doing about it.

But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

If you take California out of the popular vote equation, then Trump wins the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes. And if California voted like every other Democratic state — where Clinton averaged 53.5% wins — Clinton and Trump end up in a virtual popular vote tie. (This was not the case in 2012. Obama beat Romney by 2 million votes that year, not counting California.)

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to crow about California proving the genius of the electoral college, it doesn't really work for you to take California out of the popular vote tally to make it look better for your candidate.

 

[Town Heretic]

In light of your findings what do you suggest they do?

California natives and the party at large could facilitate a significant migration of voters without remotely losing their majority, helping those activists move to other parts of the country where their numbers can then lock up the EC in line with the popular vote. :shocked: What's a year or so in a life against the impact?

 

[ok doser]

ok, so it wasn't Trump per se, it was that a Republican won the White House.

more importantly, hillary did not win

 

[rocketman]

The popular vote is irrelevant for deciding the election but it can be relevant to the question about who has a mandate. When the winning candidate won with less votes than his opponent it seems hard for that person to claim he has a mandate.

And you cannot prove if every vote was legally cast so, the notion that the popular vote is even a valid number is in question. The final tally was 306 vs. 232, Trump ended up with 74 more electoral votes than did Clinton which is the standard for winning the presidency and he beat her handily, the senate & house both maintained full majorities that translates into a republican mandate to change the direction of the country...period.

 

[Daniel1769]

In a way, Trump has somewhat of a mandate. Republicans wanted Trump for President. Democrats wanted a left wing liberal for president. So they both got what they wanted.

 

[ok doser]

you think trump is a left wing liberal? :freak:

 

[Town Heretic]

And you cannot prove if every vote was legally cast so, the notion that the popular vote is even a valid number is in question.

Rather, anyone disputing the validity of the votes has the burden of proof and the assumption is that absent that the numbers are exactly what they purport to be...an additional irony over the dispute by the winning side is that those same numbers generated the EC victory, divided along state lines. So if the process is inherently suspect the outcome is equally suspect no matter who wins.

The final tally was 306 vs. 232, Trump ended up with 74 more electoral votes than did Clinton which is the standard for winning the presidency and he beat her handily,

He won the EC, a victory of imagination over representation, but that's the game and everyone knew it going in so all's fair in love and politics.

the senate & house both maintained full majorities that translates into a republican mandate
to change the direction of the country

Only a Republican could translate losing the popular vote handily, and losing seats in the House and Senate into a mandate to change directions. :chuckle:

...period.

More like an ellipsis.

 

[kmoney]

Quote Originally Posted by rocketman View Post
And you cannot prove if every vote was legally cast so, the notion that the popular vote is even a valid number is in question.

Rather, anyone disputing the validity of the votes has the burden of proof and the assumption is that absent that the numbers are exactly what they purport to be...

:up:

 

[jeffblue101]

You mean like W had?


You're saying the conservatives fear our government and its checks and balances working the way they were designed to work? Do you fear that?

And a single President before that, the GOP was in charge of everything. How did that work out for us?

that only reinforces the point that rebulicans now lead by Trump have a mandate, as voters in general will have a change of heart on ineffective leadership by any party, Bush was bad so voters gave Obama a chance at change, Obama was a terrible president so voters are now giving rebulicans another shot.

 

[rexlunae]

And you cannot prove if every vote was legally cast so, the notion that the popular vote is even a valid number is in question. The final tally was 306 vs. 232, Trump ended up with 74 more electoral votes than did Clinton which is the standard for winning the presidency and he beat her handily, the senate & house both maintained full majorities that translates into a republican mandate to change the direction of the country...period.

You can't question the popular vote without questioning the electoral college. The states directly use their vote totals to chose their EC delegations, and news organizations use those same official tallies to figure out the popular vote. If there were corruption like Trump has been claiming, dangerously and without evidence, they should be pushing to prove it, because it would make the EC result just as bad. The fact that they aren't, the fact that they are trying to halt recount efforts proves that it is merely rhetoric. And it's really anti-democratic rhetoric, used to undermine the validity of elections. Coming from a President-elect, this is extremely troubling.

 

[jeffblue101]

California natives and the party at large could facilitate a significant migration of voters without remotely losing their majority, helping those activists move to other parts of the country where their numbers can then lock up the EC in line with the popular vote. :shocked: What's a year or so in a life against the impact?

it would be kinda of funny to see a radical leftist living in California move to pennsylvania in order to swing future elections but his new job ends up being financially tied to the coal mining and fracking economies.

 

[ok doser]

:up:

we have to prove that every single vote is valid? :freak:

 

[rocketman]

Rather, anyone disputing the validity of the votes has the burden of proof and the assumption is that absent that the numbers are exactly what they purport to be...an additional irony over the dispute by the winning side is that those same numbers generated the EC victory, divided along state lines. So if the process is inherently suspect the outcome is equally suspect no matter who wins.

Maybe in your mind but, since this institution has been working for well over 200 years with few instances of the vote being split between Popular & Electoral it is only the losers that are decrying the system is broke. Furthermore, given there is no way to validate the popular vote without a voter identification system in place the popular vote winner cannot claim victory to that number even if it was the standard, which it is not. All you have is sour grapes that your candidate could not sell her wares outside of liberal urban cities.

He won the EC, a victory of imagination over representation, but that's the game and everyone knew it going in so all's fair in love and politics.

Imagination? Not so much, the electoral vote is the only vote that counts under the constitutional system that framers set up, move to a banana republic if you want mob rule. Clinton knew the standard going into this election, everyone knew the standard, and if you cannot meet the standard you lose, it is easy to whine about the rules when they don't work in your favor at the outcome. Sour Grapes...

Only a Republican could translate losing the popular vote handily, and losing seats in the House and Senate into a mandate to change directions. :chuckle:

More like an ellipsis.

Which party controls this government? :think: Democrats won 1 senate seat and 10 house seats...I wouldn't call that a stunning victory by any stretch and given that since 2010 democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, one would have conclude that the democrat party is on a roll. :chuckle: