Trump Has A Mandate

[Alate_One]

Didn't our traditional news media do a far better job of that, though? It's just that, I have a hard time believing enough people to affect the election outcome actually paid any attention to dumb stuff dumped onto social media.

That's the thing. Our traditional media DIDN'T do a good job of it, they kept harping on nothingburger stories like e-mails.

Here are word clouds taken from a poll of 30,000 people on what they remembered hearing about each candidate.

It's pretty clear why Trump won, and it didn't have anything to do with policy differences.

 

[Town Heretic]

An assertion yes but, no more of an assertion than claiming victory to a standard that can not be validated in either case. This is what I would assert as an impasse.

Except we aren't on equal footing, rm. You want to presume an inequity in process that's never found validation. Absent that, it's reasonable to trust the process. But if you felt you couldn't trust the process absent proof of a negative you couldn't then trust the outcome through the EC, which again is only a reflection of those numbers, filtered through a process that negates the lesser of two sums.

Ronald Reagan saw two landslide victories and I believe that 525 electoral votes has never been exceeded, Bill Clinton also saw a marginally large EC vote at 379, it would conclude that both saw wide support across the board. Different times and certainly a different country, Trump cannot claim an EC landslide because it was not but, his party by holding all three branches after this fistfight of an election can claim the mandate, and so it will be fulfilled.

Again, claiming a mandate when more voters were against you than for you and your party lost seats simply doesn't add up. It's at best a party mandate, which he had when he won the nomination.

Fair enough, sorry I lumped you in with the sour grapes crowd. Trump was never my pick either but, I would have voted for anyone that would have denied Clinton's candidacy.

In order, not a problem, I'll always let you know if you have me wrong on a point and on the nominees...

And yet we look at the voting map by county and it is almost exclusively liberal urban centers i.e. big cities where she saw her votes. The lines might not be there when you fly over but, they tell a story when you look at a map now don't they?

Well, sure. But an awful lot of land with fewer people shouldn't be more entitled or powerful than more people more heavily concentrated.

That is funny I thought I was speaking against the mob and for the constitutional system that served this nation well for over 200 years.

I got that, but you really weren't, since as you noted for most of that, almost all of it, the EC has rubber stamped popular opinion. And the EC itself is a reflection of popular vote, constrained not by some larger operation of principle, but by the curious notion that where you live can be more important than how many of you live there.

Neither I nor the republican party have the problem, the problem lies with the opposition that is slowly losing control of every government branch local, state by state, & nationally also holding their ideologic upper hand in the courts.

Except that ignores the small losses at the national level, the aging and necessarily diminishing power of your demographic, it's problem among minorities and the young, etc.

It is all bad for them from where I am looking at this, the problem lies in pushing ideology, political correctness & minority rule upon an entire nation...it is being wholly rejected as we speak... Interesting times indeed.

The main problem with that summation is that the EC just pushed minority control of the nation (less than half the electorate, etc.) every party pushes ideology or they'd be unaffiliated, and if not for the unintentional gerrymandering effect the nation would have once again put a president of one party in play against a Congress ruled by the opposition.

 

[Quincy]

It's pretty clear why Trump won, and it didn't have anything to do with policy differences.

Just to be clear, I agree that it wasn't the policy matters that made the decision, for most people at least. I think that in coal country and the industrial midwest/heartland, it mattered but not that much outside those areas. It just doesn't seem like hacking (and fake news for that matter) hurt as badly as some people think. Hillary defeated herself, just look at the emphasis on emails in the graphic. I don't think that's all about the Podesta scandal, very little of it is. It's all about the private email server. Her own mistakes buried her. At any rate, if she had not ignored some states, gotten more in touch with normal people and not let the traditional media make the last two years all about Trump 24/7 then we may have had a different outcome, than this Republican Washington and their perceived mandate.

 

[Town Heretic]

Just to be clear, I agree that it wasn't the policy matters that made the decision, for most people at least. I think that in coal country and the industrial midwest/heartland, it mattered but not that much outside those areas. It just doesn't seem like hacking (and fake news for that matter) hurt as badly as some people think. Hillary defeated herself, just look at the emphasis on emails in the graphic. I don't think that's all about the Podesta scandal, very little of it is. It's all about the private email server. Her own mistakes buried her. At any rate, if she had not ignored some states, gotten more in touch with normal people and not let the traditional media make the last two years all about Trump 24/7 then we may have had a different outcome, than this Republican Washington and their perceived mandate.

To me it's simple. She got the numbers, but not the distribution. She could have had both had she been less arrogant and not played crooked politics within her party. That led to some Bernie support defection. In an election where the margins mattered, it cost her.

 

[Alate_One]

To me it's simple. She got the numbers, but not the distribution. She could have had both had she been less arrogant and not played crooked politics within her party. That led to some Bernie support defection. In an election where the margins mattered, it cost her.

Arrogance in believing the polls which had been right so often. But yes she got greedy when she should have shored up her base. But had the Comey letter not happened, she might have been proved right.

Bernie did not help matters in refusing to concede and promoting the narrative that the nomination could be "stolen" from him. The leadership didn't want him to win yes, but there wasn't nearly the dirty politics that was claimed by his side.

 

[Quincy]

To me it's simple. She got the numbers, but not the distribution. She could have had both had she been less arrogant and not played crooked politics within her party. That led to some Bernie support defection. In an election where the margins mattered, it cost her.

All that and more. She let Trump control the discourse on all the major news networks. She thought she could beat Trump because he was worse than her, but she grossly underestimated people and what they will put up with in character flaws. All the networks and their constant complaining about him, along with her jumping on the bandwagon (deplorables?), probably drove a lot of people to the Trump camp. Every time the old guard media raised a fuss over the dumb things he'd say, his crowds just bigger and bigger.

 

[rocketman]

Except we aren't on equal footing, rm. You want to presume an inequity in process that's never found validation. Absent that, it's reasonable to trust the process. But if you felt you couldn't trust the process absent proof of a negative you couldn't then trust the outcome through the EC, which again is only a reflection of those numbers, filtered through a process that negates the lesser of two sums.

We are on equal footing, you claim the popular vote system is equal without a standard to validate whether all voters are legally entitled to vote, and I say that without a standard you have no idea whether the vote tally is correct, looks like an impasse to me, and I don't think it is remotely reasonable to presume anything without said standard.

Again, claiming a mandate when more voters were against you than for you and your party lost seats simply doesn't add up. It's at best a party mandate, which he had when he won the nomination.

Party mandate or personal mandate, it is still a mandate given the dems can't even capture one house of the legislature or the presidency.

Well, sure. But an awful lot of land with fewer people shouldn't be more entitled or powerful than more people more heavily concentrated.

I disagree, people in heavily populated cities especially when those cities only represent a few of the states not all, and they should not hold all the cards to govern an entire nation, that is how the framers saw it, and how it was passed by an overwhelming majority of the original states when the constitution was to be ratified. Our representative republic was supposed to represent not just people in states but, states themselves. We have had this conversation and your complaint is with the constitution & framers not with me.

I got that, but you really weren't, since as you noted for most of that, almost all of it, the EC has rubber stamped popular opinion. And the EC itself is a reflection of popular vote, constrained not by some larger operation of principle, but by the curious notion that where you live can be more important than how many of you live there.

Of course it rubber stamps the popular vote...in the given state where the vote was taken i.e. if you cannot win the states as well as the people of those states you lose. This government was meant to be central but, not more powerful than the states at it's inception for the very reason to keep it in check by the states, even less populated rural states that reject being lorded over by a bunch of big city urban liberals, the EC gives their less populated state a voice, even though it may be a very small voice.

Except that ignores the small losses at the national level, the aging and necessarily diminishing power of your demographic, it's problem among minorities and the young, etc.

I disagree, the demographic is changing but, it is far from diminishing, the landscape will change that you can rest assured but, that does not equal a slam dunk for liberals as they have been losing ground for some time now in all demographics except nutters.

The main problem with that summation is that the EC just pushed minority control of the nation (less than half the electorate, etc.) every party pushes ideology or they'd be unaffiliated, and if not for the unintentional gerrymandering effect the nation would have once again put a president of one party in play against a Congress ruled by the opposition.

Minority of the major cities but, certainly not the minority of the population of U.S. states which again is the standard. You can have your way with the presidency but, the libs still could not sell that mess to gain control of either house both of which are popular vote I might add. Liberals will just have to suck it up for the next 8 years and watch as their attempt at marxism is torn down.

 

[Town Heretic]

We are on equal footing, you claim the popular vote system is equal without a standard to validate whether all voters are legally entitled to vote

I don't know of anyplace where there's no standard for voters. You can't reasonably tout the success of a system for 200 years or so then tell me it's essentially corrupt. And ultimately the error in your position is a bit like this: rumors do not stand equally with fact. The fact is process and result. The rest is speculation absent a legitimacy provided by proof.

Party mandate or personal mandate, it is still a mandate given the dems can't even capture one house of the legislature or the presidency.

Congress is little different than it was and the difference is away from your point, not toward it. But the point of anyone touting a mandate is to legitimize/recognize a popular support for a particular stance or action. That doesn't exist here in relation to the American public. So you could as easily say the Democrats and Hillary were given a mandate by most or more and the term becomes little more than a way to note some segment of the public is galvanized, depending on how you carve it up...and no one uses mandate to say that.

I disagree, people in heavily populated cities especially when those cities only represent a few of the states not all, and they should not hold all the cards to govern an entire nation

States are land outside of people. I think people should determine the course of the nation and the notion that geographic concentration should be a limit on power is as odd as suggesting the minority should rule the majority, provided you can spread that minority out. I understand that there are regional interests, thin as those have become, but that's what Congress represents.

Of course, I also would like to see anyone voting pass a civics exam on the order immigrants must, that right and privilege are our birthright, but that empowered citizenship should reflect more than presence.

I omit further EC answers because we've kicked that can solidly enough, I think, for anyone to see and understand our differences where they exist.

I disagree, the demographic is changing but, it is far from diminishing,

What data are you looking at? The last I saw young people are disproportionately more liberal and you haven't made serious inroads into minority groups that are becoming more and more of the electorate. You can't expect the EC to save your bacon indefinitely.

According to Pew research from 2015: "Democrats hold advantages in party identification among blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials. Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education and evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation."

I think you saw some of that in this election, where a hugely divisive figure from the left still managed millions more of the electorate, if while losing the EC. Absent alteration that's going to wash over your party at some point. You can't be the party of a shrinking, aging, white population unless you mean to lose power. It's a good moment, in terms of power, to be from the right, but if you believe in the principles of conservatism you're going to have to find a way to translate that or it's, again, an Indian Summer.

 

[rocketman]

I don't know of anyplace where there's no standard for voters. You can't reasonably tout the success of a system for 200 years or so then tell me it's essentially corrupt. And ultimately the error in your position is a bit like this: rumors do not stand equally with fact. The fact is process and result. The rest is speculation absent a legitimacy provided by proof.

Given that no proof of citizenship is required and that citizenship is the standard to vote in America per federal law, you have a quandary don't you? That would be a standard with no burden of proof or validation, absent of enforcement of the standard you will have voter fraud, we have immigration laws as well but, if they are not enforced than you have illegal immigration as well, that we know,so it is just as plausible to posit there are people voting illegally as well. To what degree is not an answerable question, it cannot be quantified without data.

Congress is little different than it was and the difference is away from your point, not toward it. But the point of anyone touting a mandate is to legitimize/recognize a popular support for a particular stance or action. That doesn't exist here in relation to the American public. So you could as easily say the Democrats and Hillary were given a mandate by most or more and the term becomes little more than a way to note some segment of the public is galvanized, depending on how you carve it up...and no one uses mandate to say that.

No, this newly elected government doesn't reflect the densely populated cities but, it surely represents the majority of the states and the people in them, were liberals do not reside. It is president of the "United States" not president of the "United Cities" the standard is to capture the people & the states TH (this has already ben discussed ad nauseum), the republican party has captured the majority of state representatives, the majority of senate seats, & the majority of state electors to capture the presidency, outside of decrying the system after the fact. That would represent a complete majority at the executive & legislate level and would also mean that it is a mandate whether you all want it or not, kind of the same mandate that Obama saw for the first two years, and pushed things through without any time for public discourse or compromise, remember what the man said? Elections have consequences... indeed they do, especially when at the end the losing faction is in the minority on all governmental fronts. I would think that this would be a teachable moment for the regressive left about their sins coming back upon them tenfold.

States are land outside of people. I think people should determine the course of the nation and the notion that geographic concentration should be a limit on power is as odd as suggesting the minority should rule the majority, provided you can spread that minority out. I understand that there are regional interests, thin as those have become, but that's what Congress represents.

That is patently false, and all you have to do is read the constitution of this nation to find that the states do have a huge role in our governmental system, and that the federal government was designed to run in the background not at the forefront. The states reflect the people that live in them therefore they are given equal voice also the reason the framers never intended that senators were to be appointed by the state legislature to represent the interests of state governments. What you want is bigger central government which is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid.

Of course, I also would like to see anyone voting pass a civics exam on the order immigrants must, that right and privilege are our birthright, but that empowered citizenship should reflect more than presence.

I don't think public schools even teach civics anymore but, I would have no rub at all to educate the masses on the subject, I don't think you will hear many amens to that from the regressive left though, the last thing they want is an informed citizenry, or at least educated on the finer precepts of our constitutional system.

I omit further EC answers because we've kicked that can solidly enough, I think, for anyone to see and understand our differences where they exist.

Ad Nauseum...:deadhorse:

What data are you looking at? The last I saw young people are disproportionately more liberal and you haven't made serious inroads into minority groups that are becoming more and more of the electorate. You can't expect the EC to save your bacon indefinitely.

Here we go with the EC again...Young people have always been disproportionally liberal, they always are until they start seeing how much money the government robs from their paycheck. We can revisit this after the first four years of Trump, if he can't sell it again then you can assert a problem.

According to Pew research from 2015: "Democrats hold advantages in party identification among blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials. Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education and evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation."

Well given that only 57% of eligible voters voted, a 20 year low, and that minorities did not show up to vote for the left's flawed candidate in any great number, that republicans turned three rust belt states red, that the lefts voter base is a silent generation outside of major urban cities....they can't sell that mess to the masses. Next election is the 2018 midterm and we can revisit who is at the advantage then, this discussion is premature to an administration that has not even begun to govern for the people, demographics change when average people (including minorities) have a full wallet, and that is what the man has promised.

I think you saw some of that in this election, where a hugely divisive figure from the left still managed millions more of the electorate, if while losing the EC. Absent alteration that's going to wash over your party at some point. You can't be the party of a shrinking, aging, white population unless you mean to lose power. It's a good moment, in terms of power, to be from the right, but if you believe in the principles of conservatism you're going to have to find a way to translate that or it's, again, an Indian Summer.

Time will tell...

 

[ok doser]

Every time the old guard media raised a fuss over the dumb things he'd say, his crowds just bigger and bigger.

it was an amazing thing to watch, wasn't it? :chuckle:

 

[kmoney]

The election was close enough it could be considered to be "about" dozens of different things. Comey's letter, the media's obsession with Trump and his twitter feed to the exclusion of all else. One thing I would say is almost certain, it had very little to do with the policies of either candidate, because they were basically not talked about by the media. Everything was about personality "corruption" and the like.

I don't fully agree with this. I agree with Quincy that Clinton was hurt significantly by losing a lot of blue-collar voters. She could have focused more on the economy and that group of voters but she didn't. Trump, meanwhile, did that a lot. That swing was based on policy.

 

[kmoney]

All that and more. She let Trump control the discourse on all the major news networks. She thought she could beat Trump because he was worse than her, but she grossly underestimated people and what they will put up with in character flaws. All the networks and their constant complaining about him, along with her jumping on the bandwagon (deplorables?), probably drove a lot of people to the Trump camp. Every time the old guard media raised a fuss over the dumb things he'd say, his crowds just bigger and bigger.

:up:

 

[Town Heretic]

Given that no proof of citizenship is required and that citizenship is the standard to vote in America per federal law, you have a quandary don't you?

I don't believe I do. At my polling place we present ID, but for most of my life the people running the local polling places have lists of registered voters and people don't tend to wander up and ask, "Have you got anyone named Jones registered?"

we have immigration laws as well but, if they are not enforced than you have illegal immigration as well, that we know,so it is just as plausible to posit there are people voting illegally as well. To what degree is not an answerable question, it cannot be quantified without data.

There have been studies directly on the point and they haven't sustained the notion that voter fraud of the sort that would be curtailed by photo ID has actually been a problem. Until there's data to the contrary it's reasonable to use the standard we have for gauging elections.

No, this newly elected government doesn't reflect the densely populated cities

Unless you have an objective argument for the ennobling impact of spreading out I'm not sure what your point is.

but, it surely represents the majority of the states and the people in them, were liberals do not reside.

Another word for getting that result would be gerrymandering.

It is president of the "United States" not president of the "United Cities"

It's the president of "We the people", not "We the landholders".

That would represent a complete majority at the executive & legislate level and would also mean that it is a mandate whether you all want it or not, kind of the same mandate that Obama saw for the first two years

I don't think he had much of a mandate. 52% of the electorate? The EC win looked like a mandate, but he had around ten million more votes than McCain. That's strong support, but I don't know that I'd call it a mandate.

, and pushed things through without any time for public discourse or compromise

We have far different memories. I recall the Republicans admitting to a "Say no" to everything/pretend to work to with the president to stall as long as possible.

That is patently false

Literally nothing I wrote was false.

, and all you have to do is read the constitution of this nation to find that the states do have a huge role in our governmental system

Didn't say they didn't.

, and that the federal government was designed to run in the background not at the forefront.

That's a philosophical argument of another color. Not one I addressed or want to bog down in.

The states reflect the people that live in them therefore they are given equal voice also the reason the framers never intended that senators were to be appointed by the state legislature to represent the interests of state governments. What you want is bigger central government which is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid.

We had slavery too. Now, back to the present, where the argument isn't over big government (which Republicans grow dramatically every time they have power).

Here we go with the EC again...Young people have always been disproportionally liberal

What's your source/citation on that?

, they always are until they start seeing how much money the government robs from their paycheck. We can revisit this after the first four years of Trump, if he can't sell it again then you can assert a problem.

Okay, fair warning given. The rest is time.

 

[Nick M]

Trump never controlled the media. You are all either wicked liars or just incredibly stupid. Maybe you all need a refresher on the content of the email. Email was not an issue (aside from her felonies), but the content. Like giving her the questions ahead of time to prepare an answer.

Some of the really good stuff was irrelevant at the time, but awesome anyway. Like how afraid they were of Ben Carson in the general election. He is not a politician, same as Trump. So there is no baggage. And he is a minority. So the race card is out the window. And working white people will vote for him, like they did Obama.

 

[Nick M]

 

[Nick M]

All that and more. She let Trump control the discourse on all the major news networks. She thought she could beat Trump because he was worse than her, but she grossly underestimated people and what they will put up with in character flaws. All the networks and their constant complaining about him, along with her jumping on the bandwagon (deplorables?), probably drove a lot of people to the Trump camp. Every time the old guard media raised a fuss over the dumb things he'd say, his crowds just bigger and bigger.

The part I didn't strike is spot on correct. He will drain that swamp, and already started.

 

[Nick M]

They hated Reagan too.

 

[ok doser]

So the race card is out the window.

they tried their darnedest to smear trump and his supporters with the "racist" brush, dint they? :chuckle:

 

[Quincy]

it was an amazing thing to watch, wasn't it? :chuckle:

It really seemed odd and remarkable, given the polling numbers. It makes me wonder if she actually had any lead regarding electoral votes, at any point during the election. It was probably much closer than people realized, even before the "deplorables" comment or before people realized that she wasn't putting in much effort (in the right states).

 

[Quincy]

The part I didn't strike is spot on correct. He will drain that swamp, and already started.

She could have done more on the ground and on the cable channels, to focus the narrative on anything other than Trump. Instead she had probably less than 1/3 the appearances on screen that Trump had and she had periods where she wasn't seen at all for days or even a week or more. She did let him control the narrative, thinking that the things he'd say would sink him, it seems.