Help! Electoral college?

[mona amon]

Can someone please explain to me what an Electoral College is? I tried looking it up in Wikipedia but I didn't get it, so the explanation will have to be really simple, like for a five year old. The way I understood it, it does not matter how many people actually vote for you, what matters is how they are geographically distributed! Surely this cannot be correct?

[Clopin]

It's a lot like a first past the post system. In the U.S people within a state vote for electors who participate in the electoral college which votes for the president. Once someone wins the popular vote within a state, by however slim a majority, they gain all of the electoral votes (there are two exceptions to this, Maine and Nebraska) for that state (although in theory the electors are are still free to vote for whoever they want). This means that, yes, technically someone could win 100% majorities in all of their states and lose 51% majorities in the others and come away with an election loss despite getting something like 80% of the popular vote (this is also completely true in FPTP parliamentary systems). This never happens though, so it's not really a concern. If you're referring to Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote, she did so by about 0.3%, and it's a fallacious argument to begin with because 100% of the campaigning during the election was done by two candidates who were both fully aware of how the electoral college works, and who tailored their campaigns towards this particular system. If the electoral system in place in the U.S was different, say a model where people vote for a president directly and the popular vote taken countrywide determines the election, then both the voting habits of the general public and the campaign strategies of a long election campaign would be entirely different.

Last federal election I chose not to vote because I didn't like any of the parties. But, let's imagine I did; I still wouldn't have voted because in my riding (which was in Alberta) the Conservative Party candidate always wins with about 80% of the vote. It would have been a waste of time to vote any which way, but that would be totally different if Canada elected its leaders under, say, proportional representation. I still might not have voted, but a number of my friends would have if they didn't. Changing the system would change the campaign strategies and voter turnout/outcome.

Think of states like seats in parliament. They're weighted (mostly by population), but all the states are represented in the electoral college. This is to prevent the entire sphere of political influence being confined to a few massive urban areas. The system has its flaws but it prevents a situation where the people (a huge number of people, btw) who live in rural 'flyover' country are completely marginalized in favour of urbanites.

[Clopin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpuIAZzmjbk

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Anyway, most modern democracies are not direct democracies. In Canada we've had two successive majority governments who both got their majorities with basically the same % of the popular vote (39). Canada is a three(ish) party system at the moment, so 39% is pretty good, but it's much maligned (usually by supporters of the losing side) that a political party/executive branch can wield so much power - a PM with a majority of seats in Canada can do just about anything - with below 40% of the popular vote. You hear this all the time, "61% of voters DIDN'T vote for Harper/Trudeau and yet they have a majority! Raaaaargh, that's ridiculous - we need electoral reform". And, of course, they shut up when the candidate they like gets into power. Turd'eau jr. actually campaigned on a promise of electoral reform and he's not going to deliver. Why would he? He has a majority and rocking the boat CAN'T benefit him.

Anyway, the time for complaining about electoral systems isn't immediately after an election when your candidate lost (not directing this at Mona or anyone in particular, just in general). Everyone had 4 years to do that, everyone knew the stakes going in, and everyone should accept the result. You can certainly point out when things get a little ridiculous, UKIP for example getting 4 million (12%) of UK votes yet only receiving 1 (0.001%) of seats in parliament, but them's the breaks.There will be flaws with representation under any system.

[YesNo]

I agree with what Clopin has said above, but I thought I would check the election results: http://www.cnn.com/election/results

It looks like Clinton has 47.8% of the vote and Trump has 47.3% and Michigan is still outstanding. Neither side got over 50% of the popular vote so if we were intending to use the popular vote we would have to have another election and eliminate the Libertarian and Green parties so one could decide between the top two candidates, but that isn't how the system works.

Bottom line: None of the four sides won the majority, 50%, of the popular vote.

[Danik 2016]

Yes/No. Something I didn´t understand. Have all US votes been computed or do they still have to count the votes of Michigan?

[Clopin]

Michigan hasn't been officially called yet apparently, but it doesn't matter because Trump has a majority of the electoral college votes with or without it.

[Danik 2016]

Thanks, Clopin. Yes, I supposed it wouldn´t make any difference. The election is decided anyway.

[stlukesguild]

The reasons for the Electoral College has much more to do with the fear of the founders of some populist outsider being elected by a less than well educated populace (which some might suggest is exactly the opposite of what the electoral system succeeded in achieving this time round). The electoral system continued as a result of slavery:

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

Think of states like seats in parliament. They're weighted... This is to prevent the entire sphere of political influence being confined to a few massive urban areas.


Instead the exact opposite has happened. Currently 62% of the US population lives in large urban centers. These urban centers tend to be far more liberal and progressive and vote in a like manner:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/StlukesguildOhio001/577531_v1_zps2poyfy46.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/StlukesguildOhio001/577531_v1_zps2poyfy46.jpg.html)

Because of the manner in which candidates get 100% of the electoral votes even if the vote is nearly 50/50... and because of the manner in which votes are more heavily weighted in favor of more sparsely populated states, we end up with results in which nearly 50% of the population has no real representation... and in which the large cities are repeatedly ignored... which results in situations such as the toxic water in Flint Michigan.

[Clopin]

Instead the exact opposite has happened. Currently 62% of the US population lives in large urban centers. These urban centers tend to be far more liberal and progressive and vote in a like manner:

What do you mean the exact opposite has happened? This is what I said. The majority of the U.S population lives in massive urban areas which don't farm, mine, ranch, produce, etc; and, which have entirely different political cultures than rural America. The electoral college ensures that you can't just clump a majority of the population, who all think likewise, in big cities and have them always vote in their own parties exclusively.

Is Flint a large city? Greater New York has two hundred times the population, no? Greater L.A/New York together have about the same population as Canada.

[mona amon]

It's a lot like a first past the post system. In the U.S people within a state vote for electors who participate in the electoral college which votes for the president. Once someone wins the popular vote within a state, by however slim a majority, they gain all of the electoral votes (there are two exceptions to this, Maine and Nebraska) for that state (although in theory the electors are are still free to vote for whoever they want). This means that, yes, technically someone could win 100% majorities in all of their states and lose 51% majorities in the others and come away with an election loss despite getting something like 80% of the popular vote (this is also completely true in FPTP parliamentary systems). This never happens though, so it's not really a concern. If you're referring to Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote, she did so by about 0.3%,

Yes, it was the numbers that got me boggled - Trump winning 290 to Clinton's 232 (or something), a pretty good lead, while polling only about the same number of actual votes as Clinton. Anyway, I'm beginning to understand things a bit better now - thank you for your informative replies, and I loved the youtube link. I had to wrench myself away after watching three of that guy's videos one after the other. :)

[Pompey Bum]

I enjoyed the videos, too. I agreed with the guy on several points, although think he underestimates the importance of cabinet appointments. As far as the electoral college goes, Mona, I've read a simplistic but clever analogy (obviously in response to the diaper-pin riots) on a couple of websites. The Cleveland Indians actually scored more runs in the World Series than the Chicago Cubs did. But the action was divided into separate contests called games, and since the Cubs won the required four games, they became the champions. That, of course, ignores Clopin's much more important points about population density, but I thought it was a nice try.

[mona amon]

It is a nice analogy, but what are diaper-pin riots? I'm guessing it refers to the very young voters who are now throwing tantrums because their side lost.

[Clopin]

"Voters"

That stretches the imagination a little bit, they probably didn't vote lol

[OrphanPip]

Last federal election I chose not to vote because I didn't like any of the parties. But, let's imagine I did; I still wouldn't have voted because in my riding (which was in Alberta) the Conservative Party candidate always wins with about 80% of the vote. It would have been a waste of time to vote any which way, but that would be totally different if Canada elected its leaders under, say, proportional representation. I still might not have voted, but a number of my friends would have if they didn't. Changing the system would change the campaign strategies and voter turnout/outcome.


A minor quibble but since Canada has voter subsidies you should still vote even in safe ridings because your vote counts as a political donation to the party you support. Since Canada has some of the strictest election financing laws in the world, the smaller parties like the Greens rely a lot on the per-vote subsidy. Unlike the US, in Canada parties have to rely on multiple small donations since corporations and unions can't give to parties and there's a relatively low individual donation cap.

(Edit: I'm a hypocrite though cause I didn't bother voting since the nearest Canadian Embassy was a three hour drive away and the paperwork involved in voting overseas is prohibitive)

[Pompey Bum]

It is a nice analogy, but what are diaper-pin riots? I'm guessing it refers to the very young voters who are now throwing tantrums because their side lost.

Yes, it's something I made up because the kiddies are wearing safety pins as a symbol that they will keep each other safe from this bogeyman of their own imagination. The diaper-pin revolution is on!

[Clopin]

A minor quibble but since Canada has voter subsidies you should still vote even in safe ridings because your vote counts as a political donation to the party you support.



I was under the impression that the Harper administration had ended the pay-per-vote subsidies. Are there other subsidies beyond that? Or are they still active? I'm not totally up on it.

It's irrelevant to me even still because I dislike the conservative and liberal parties about equally (put a gun to my head and Harper was still my preferred candidate, even in 2015... and trust me, I hate him) and I think the NDP are absolute honking clowns who shouldn't have any seats in parliament whatsoever.

[prendrelemick]

Thank goodness for the electoral college system. Otherwise a Woman who used a private email server would've been elected. Think of the chaos then!

[YesNo]

What I found interesting about this election was not issues with the electoral college system, but why the polls were as wrong about the outcome as the Brexit polls. That is something that needs to be addressed. I suspect it has to do with the hostility of these two campaigns. People were afraid to admit to someone that they were voting for Trump or voting for Brexit. That assumes people are being directly asked who they are voting for either on the phone or in person. If they could have sensed they were anonymous I don't see how being afraid to admit who they were going to vote for would have mattered. However, I don't know how the polling was done.

Regarding the rural/urban issue it seems that it must have been changes in the urban population that allowed the upset to occur since there are more people there. I assume that counties with large populations that went for the Democrats still went for the Democrats but with smaller percentages.

I was looking at the two exit polls from 2012 and 2016 wondering if I could see in which demographics the shift occurred: 2012: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/ and 2016: http://www.cnn.com/election/results A few areas stood out from a quick comparison.

In 2012 people aged 18-29 voted 60% for Democrats. This dropped to 55% in 2016.

In 2012, black and latino votes went 93% and 71% for Democrats. This dropped to 88% and 65% in 2016.

In 2012, people making less than $50,000 went 60% for Democrats. This dropped to 52% in 2016.

Although the Democrats won all these groups, they did so with a smaller base.

[Emil Miller]

What I found interesting about this election was not issues with the electoral college system, but why the polls were as wrong about the outcome as the Brexit polls. That is something that needs to be addressed. I suspect it has to do with the hostility of these two campaigns. People were afraid to admit to someone that they were voting for Trump or voting for Brexit. That assumes people are being directly asked who they are voting for either on the phone or in person. If they could have sensed they were anonymous I don't see how being afraid to admit who they were going to vote for would have mattered. However, I don't know how the polling was done.

Regarding the rural/urban issue it seems that it must have been changes in the urban population that allowed the upset to occur since there are more people there. I assume that counties with large populations that went for the Democrats still went for the Democrats but with smaller percentages.

I was looking at the two exit polls from 2012 and 2016 wondering if I could see in which demographics the shift occurred: 2012: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/ and 2016: http://www.cnn.com/election/results A few areas stood out from a quick comparison.

In 2012 people aged 18-29 voted 60% for Democrats. This dropped to 55% in 2016.

In 2012, black and latino votes went 93% and 71% for Democrats. This dropped to 88% and 65% in 2016.

In 2012, people making less than $50,000 went 60% for Democrats. This dropped to 52% in 2016.

Although the Democrats won all these groups, they did so with a smaller base.

Basically, a lot of blacks voted in a black president: eight years later, whites had finally had enough of it and voted in a white president.

[Clopin]

What I found interesting about this election was not issues with the electoral college system, but why the polls were as wrong about the outcome as the Brexit polls.

Because they're liars, and they're manufacturing a narrative that they want to use to influence voters. The polls were fraudulently sampled in both cases; it's the only real explanation.

[Pompey Bum]

Basically, a lot of blacks voted in a black president: eight years later, whites had finally had enough of it and voted in a white president.

For some reason I've been a little skeptical about exit poll analysis lately. The "whitelash" argument has been floated by some democrats lately, but most conservatives I know are happy to watch the opposition go down on the Titanic of identity politics. My impression (anecdotally--it's just from having some family in the Midwest) is that Trump made economic promises to people who were suffering and who liked what they heard. Clinton told the same people they were doing better and that pissed them off. So much for hustling optimism.

[YesNo]

Basically, a lot of blacks voted in a black president: eight years later, whites had finally had enough of it and voted in a white president.

Both the Democratic and Republic candidates were white this time, so whites would get a white president regardless. Also the exit polls in 2012 showed whites splitting 39% to 59% for Democrat and Republican. That was a similar split this time 37% and 58%. The black voters did seem to move more from Democrat to Republican.


Because they're liars, and they're manufacturing a narrative that they want to use to influence voters. The polls were fraudulently sampled in both cases; it's the only real explanation.

I suspect some of that is going on, but I think the Democrats believed they were going to win based on polling so if it were all rigged they were only fooling themselves.


My impression (anecdotally--it's just from having some family in the Midwest) is that Trump made economic promises to people who were suffering and who liked what they heard. Clinton told the same people they were doing better and that pissed them off. So much for hustling optimism.

On various levels, the Democrats pissed off people this time around.

[Emil Miller]

It's true that both candidates were white, but for white voters Clinton was part of Obama's administration, so a vote for her meant a continuation of the discredited status quo.
If Clinton had been black, she would have won regardless.

[Clopin]

My impression (anecdotally--it's just from having some family in the Midwest) is that Trump made economic promises to people who were suffering and who liked what they heard. Clinton told the same people they were doing better and that pissed them off. So much for hustling optimism.

Indeed. Michael Moore actually accidentally made a pretty good piece of pro-Trump propaganda on this exact topic. If anyone hasn't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY-CiPVo_NQ

Obviously Moore hates Trump and this video is edited from his speech, which ends with an elaboration on why a Trump presidency will be, more or less, the end of the world (lol).

[Pompey Bum]

Indeed. Michael Moore actually accidentally made a pretty good piece of pro-Trump propaganda on this exact topic. If anyone hasn't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY-CiPVo_NQ

Obviously Moore hates Trump and this video is edited from his speech, which ends with an elaboration on why a Trump presidency will be, more or less, the end of the world (lol).

Thanks, Clopin. I hadn't seen that before, but I have heard post election interviews in which Moore says as much and more. I suspect he's the voice of one crying in the wilderness, and that the various self-interested factions of the Democratic Party are not going to abandon power without a messy intra-party fight. That will have to run its course, and who knows which side will prevail? But if the Democrats continue to alienate voters by racializing what has proved to be a politics of economics, they are not going to fare any better at midterms (not to think of 2020 for the moment). For now, the Democratic Party is decapitated in terms of leadership, and its spoiled children are running wild in the streets. Will the party learn from the stunning failure of self-righteous identity politics? The Republicans are sure hoping not. Revolution, man!

[YesNo]

It's true that both candidates were white, but for white voters Clinton was part of Obama's administration, so a vote for her meant a continuation of the discredited status quo.
If Clinton had been black, she would have won regardless.

Yes, there is the link with Obama, but also with her husband's administration. So maybe she's a mixture of something.

Hopefully Trump reopens the 911 investigation and releases those documents you mentioned in a different thread that are still unavailable to the public: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/donald-trump-promises-to-reopen-911-investigation-if-elected/

[Emil Miller]

Yes, there is the link with Obama, but also with her husband's administration. So maybe she's a mixture of something.

Hopefully Trump reopens the 911 investigation and releases those documents you mentioned in a different thread that are still unavailable to the public: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/donald-trump-promises-to-reopen-911-investigation-if-elected/

A couple of items from the above link includes :

CANADIAN MILITIA VOWS TO PROTECT BORDERS FROM ILLEGAL AMERICANS.

“It’s not just the rapists and the criminals, it’s also the liberals” explains Jerry Masborough, a 40-year-old militia veteran. “Those liberals, we don’t want anything to do with them. They will make our people weak, we don’t want none of them sissies corrupting our youth. We already got a wuss for a Prime Minister, we don’t need none of them Islam-loving, queer-embracing commies in our own country” he comments. “They can all burn in Hell for all I care” he adds.

I suppose that's what's known as plain speaking.




VOLUNTEER WORKERS GATHER NEAR MEXICAN BORDER TO START BUILDING WALL.

Thousands of Trump supporters have gathered in several cities along the Mexican border over the last two days, to start building a border wall between Mexico and the United States.
According to the various groups in charge of the project, more than $120 million have already been raised to pay for materials, and money keeps pouring in at an incredible speed.
“I’ve decided that I had to do my part, if we want America to be great again,” Mr Harris told NBC. “I bought $5 million worth of materials and came here with all my employees. I want to be able to tell my grandchildren that I funded and built a few miles of the wall myself.”

It seems that the once famous American 'get up and go' is about to make a return.

[Clopin]

All the idiots threatening to move should go on down to Mexico and finally experience their dream: a world without white people! I'm sure all those countries with a sub 10% white population are wondrous paradises of tolerance, freedom, and diversity! They'll probably really enjoy themselves there, once rid of the horrible, racist, monster society known as "white America".

[Pompey Bum]

CANADIAN MILITIA VOWS TO PROTECT BORDERS FROM ILLEGAL AMERICANS.

“It’s not just the rapists and the criminals, it’s also the liberals” explains Jerry Masborough, a 40-year-old militia veteran. “Those liberals, we don’t want anything to do with them. They will make our people weak, we don’t want none of them sissies corrupting our youth. We already got a wuss for a Prime Minister, we don’t need none of them Islam-loving, queer-embracing commies in our own country” he comments. “They can all burn in Hell for all I care” he adds.

I suppose that's what's known as plain speaking.

I think their real concern is Cher.

[Emil Miller]

I don't think Donald has has thought his wall project through because, no matter how high he builds it, the Mexicans will simply tunnel under it.

[OrphanPip]

I'm a bit confused by the complaining about identity politics in this thread coinciding with all the talk of whites voting in Trump as some sort of anti-black reaction. Trump didn't really win the white vote in any greater amount than a Republican usually does, the demographics simply shifted. Trump got fewer of the wealthy college educated white voter that Republicans usually get, while he also got more of the blue collar union workers that Democrats usually get. Black people showed up to vote in fewer numbers than the previous election but not by a huge enough margin to have been a deciding factor in any of the states where Hillary lost. She failed to win a key part of the Democratic coalition they needed to win the presidency (they can't win the house because the Republicans have gerrymandered it out of contention at the state level), she failed to get the working class voters that were alienated after their preferred candidate, Sanders, lost the primaries. Is that because of racial politics? I don't think so really.

[Pompey Bum]

It was not because of racial politics, that's the point. Clinton's strategy failed. The parallels between Trump's economic populism and Sanders' anti-trade positions are startling, though. The Democrats are going to have to start there if they want to take back the industrial Midwest. As far as gerrymandering goes, well that's part of the game and always has been. Politics ain't beanbag, and the Dems do the same whenever they can. But if Trump screws up badly (bigly?) enough it won't matter. We'll be back to divided politics in two years. If not, well good for him. Let us look to the new.

[YesNo]

It was not race. Obama black and Bush white is the same bullish, globalist gray. Social mood successfully expressed its bearish, localist tendency earlier than I thought it would.

[Pompey Bum]

Addendum to the above:

Keep your eye on whether Tim Ryan (a rust belt democrat from Ohio) succeeds in his bid to replace Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader. The fix is on if he does.

P.S. Clopin must be happy about hardliner Michael Flynn getting National Security Advisor (Kissinger's old job).

[Clopin]

I'm still holding out for Secretary of Treasury Ron Paul.

[Pompey Bum]

I'm still holding out for Secretary of Treasury Ron Paul.

Well, it would be politically smart. It would bring a lot of young voters over to Trump and keep them from whoever follows Clinton. But I don't think it's very likely. Paul himself said he considered it improbable. But that also means he's interested in the possibility. And as you know I've been wrong about what's unlikely before. ;-)

I know this is weird, but I like Mike Flynn's nose. It makes him look like an American eagle.

[prendrelemick]

It was not because of racial politics, that's the point.

His campaign was overtly racist, bigoted, misogynistic, zenophobic and dishonest. But it worked, people didn't care. He was not the first to realise that the truth doesn't matter, you can say anything at all, the more outragous and ridiculous the better, but he was the first presidential candidate to try it so whole-heartedly. Get it out there, let others worry about truth, the media will lap it up, the other side will spend all their time and effort countering ridiculous things. Then say something worse and repeat. We had it with Brexit and are now reaping the mess.

Your great Country (and our little one) is about to be looted by a cabal of billionaires.

Edit: That Hamilton thing was a "dead cat" set up if ever there was one. You will have to get used to those. Manufacture an incident and big it up to bury real news - in this case Trump's settlement of a fraud case. Expect alot of that in the future. It was the Cameron Goverment's favourite tactic. It indicates an underlying contempt for us plebs .

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2013/11/24/the-dead-cat-strategy-how-the-tories-hope-to-win-the-next-el

[YesNo]

Now I know what Brexit feels like.

If instead of race, if one thinks of both Brexit and Trump in terms of a rejection of globalism and a promotion of localism, it may make more sense what is going on and why.

I suspect we will enter a recession within the next four years no matter who won that election. The billionaires will be reduced to millionaires. The move toward a local rather than a global set of values is a way to prepare ourselves for this coming recession.

One of the main reasons I don't listen to the news is that I don't have time for dead cats. Race is one the dead cats.

[Emil Miller]

Your great Country (and our little one) is about to be looted by a cabal of billionaires.



That's exactly what happened in 2008 and it was globalism that made it possible.

[Pompey Bum]

Your great Country (and our little one) is about to be looted by a cabal of billionaires.

On the contrary, the plutocrats have just received a stinging rebuke from the bluecollar folk they threw under the bus (and many others). I don't know enough about the political and economic situations in your extraordinary country to offer an opinion about the looting you predict, but I wish the great British people a better future.

[Jackson Richardson]

On the contrary, the plutocrats have just received a stinging rebuke from the bluecollar folk they threw under the bus (and many others).

No doubt, but the blue collar voters have voted against their interest. Not that they had much choice. From a European point of view, the Democrats are a right wing capitalist party as much as the Republicans.

[prendrelemick]

Lets see what happens, and how it's packaged. But I think the blue collar workers are in for a great disappointment.

[Leopard]

No doubt, but the blue collar voters have voted against their interest. Not that they had much choice. From a European point of view, the Democrats are a right wing capitalist party as much as the Republicans.

Yeah, it's funny how in America Bernie Sanders is considered some kind of radical socialist when he'd just be a mainstream social democrat in Europe.

[Pompey Bum]

No doubt, but the blue collar voters have voted against their interest. Not that they had much choice. From a European point of view, the Democrats are a right wing capitalist party as much as the Republicans.

Many in the industrial Midwest would probably agree that the Democratic and Republican establishments are two wings of one bird. But that's the point: Donald Trump has successfully hijacked the Republican establishment and is busy remaking it in his image; and Bernie Sanders has seriously challenged the Democratic Party's. But if you think Sanders is a "right wing capitalist" you have been misinformed. He is a lifelong Socialist who only became a Democrat to advance that agenda. And Trump is very far from a right wing ideologue. Politically, he is all over the place. For all Sander's disdain of him (and genuine disagreements), they share plenty of common ground.

In short the American political parties have undergone and are still undergoing tectonic plate shifts that are changing the old realities. Whatever you think you know about them is probably wrong. But you are right that the situation does not resemble British politics. Why should it?

And as far as the industrial Midwest voting against its interests goes, the proof must be in the pudding. Stemming the tide of illegally low-paid migrants and reestablishing protectionist trade policies (if Trump is even able to do those things) may well send prices soaring. But if those policies also return American manufacturing jobs (and if robots don't eat them), will anyone care? If you're not working, you can't even afford low prices. It is an astronomical challenge, of course, but I genuinely wish the President-Elect the best with it.

[prendrelemick]

I can only think American news networks have been feeding different content than we have been seeing.

He seems to be filling the swamp with bottom dwellers at the moment.

America's only hope is that occasionally what's good for Donald and his family will be good for the Country, because that will be his main focus.

[Clopin]

Stemming the tide of illegally low-paid migrants and reestablishing protectionist trade policies (if Trump is even able to do those things) may well send prices soaring. But if those policies also return American manufacturing jobs (and if robots don't eat them), will anyone care? If you're not working, you can't even afford low prices. It is an astronomical challenge, of course, but I genuinely wish the President-Elect the best with it.

My history professor straight up stated that any implementation of protectionist policies would assuredly lead to the next Great Depression. He's a German immigrant though, so I suspect if he doesn't say something like that a Merkel issued good government bomb will go off in his brain or something.

[Pompey Bum]

It's not going to cause a depression, but slap a tariff on someone and you're going to get slapped back. That's not going to send prices down, so it has to be accounted for in some way. Lower taxes help in the short term, but home manufacturing in a prosperous economy is the real solution. But like everything else it's a big challenge.

[Pompey Bum]

I can only think American news networks have been feeding different content than we have been seeing.

No, the American media have been hysterically anti-Trump since the South Carolina primary. But they failed to stop him as badly as Clinton did. Americans turn out to want their jobs back more than they want a president with a vagina. Time for everyone to get over it and move on.

[prendrelemick]

Yes move on. The office of the president now a fully owned commercial subsidiary of Trump Inc - the outfit which brought you serial bankruptcies, habitual deal breaking and million dollar fraud.

[YesNo]

Clinton is also rich: http://moneynation.com/hillary-clinton-net-worth/

However, to have a billion dollars in the US is achieved by only 540 people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billionaire Notice how the number of billionaires have increased since the 2008 recession. Hmmm. I wonder why?

Well, I don't know what I'd do with a billion dollars except to run for President.

Given my belief that we are heading for a recession deeper than what we experienced in 2008, my main worry about Clinton and the Democrats (and the Republicans) are their meddling in the Middle East and their current antagonism with Putin, the leader of a country with nuclear weapons. Trump, who is not a typical Republican, is not interested in such meddling (or so I hope). He wants to build walls. However, if the recession comes we won't need those walls because the problem will be solved: Mexicans will feel richer and more secure with more opportunity if they stayed in Mexico. The recession will take care of global warming as well.

[Pompey Bum]

Yes move on. The office of the president now a fully owned commercial subsidiary of Trump Inc - the outfit which brought you serial bankruptcies, habitual deal breaking and million dollar fraud.

The cards have been dealt, my friend. Time to make the best of what we've got.

[Emil Miller]

The advent of Trump is bringing about a reassessment of social norms that is long overdue. No longer will people need to defer to the admonitions of the self-righteous and will decide for themselves what to think about society.
Economically, there is going to be a similar revolution in which rampant hi-tech is curbed by infrastructure development.
Trump has surrounded himself with people who don't mess about and whatever names they may be called by their detractors their activities don't bother me except for those with connections to the poisonous Goldman Sachs.

[Pompey Bum]

Trump has surrounded himself with people who don't mess about and whatever names they may be called by their detractors their activities don't bother me except for those with connections to the poisonous Goldman Sachs.

US Marine Corps General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, who will probably become Secretary of Defense, apparently once said, "Marines don't know how to spell the word defeat." :lol: We'll be in good hands.

[prendrelemick]

The advent of Trump is bringing about a reassessment of social norms that is long overdue.
Hating immigrants and blaming them for our failures.


No longer will people need to defer to the admonitions of the self-righteous and will decide for themselves what to think about society.
Or, Love Trump's Hate. - They are being told what to think though, by people just as self-rightous.


Economically, there is going to be a similar revolution in which rampant hi-tech is curbed by infrastructure development.

Probably using Chinese steel and Mexican labour. Enriching exactly the same people.



Trump has surrounded himself with people who don't mess about and whatever names they may be called by their detractors

Like Hitler, only without his social conscience. The first Amendment is going to be stretched I think. I hope it will be as vigorously defended as the second is. Already Steve Bannon and Mike Flynn are suggesting Islam is not a real religion!


their activities don't bother me except for those with connections to the poisonous Goldman Sachs.

Trump is in hock to the Bank of China and Deutsche Bank to the tune of a little over half a billion dollars. His (and Flynn's) Kremlin connections don't bother me, (better to jaw than war,) but why so secretive? As for the good ol' boys at the KKK...

Anyway as Pompey said, what's done is done. But everything Trump says and does should be checked and watched because, as his supporters are already discovering, his word is worthless.

[Emil Miller]

Hating immigrants and blaming them for our failures.


Or, Love Trump's Hate. - They are being told what to think though, by people just as self-rightous.



Probably using Chinese steel and Mexican labour. Enriching exactly the same people.



Like Hitler, only without his social conscience. The first Amendment is going to be stretched I think. I hope it will be as vigorously defended as the second is. Already Steve Bannon and Mike Flynn are suggesting Islam is not a real religion!



Trump is in hock to the Bank of China and Deutsche Bank to the tune of a little over half a billion dollars. His (and Flynn's) Kremlin connections don't bother me, (better to jaw than war,) but why so secretive? As for the good ol' boys at the KKK...

Anyway as Pompey said, what's done is done. But everything Trump says and does should be checked and watched because, as his supporters are already discovering, his word is worthless.

Antagonism to immigrants arises when they enter a country illegally and become a burden on the existing population, including those who settled legally.

It seems to me that people are beginning to speak as they find after decades of finger-wagging from the PC brigade entrenched in the MSM and body politic.

Anyone who has followed Trump, knows that he has no love for China or Mexican traders and is very unlikely to allow them to export to the US without punitive tariffs.

Personally I have little interest in Islam except insofar as it becomes a threat to the West.

The whole USA is in hock to China to the tune of trillions of dollars, Trump's Chinese debt and the Ku Klux Klan pale into insignificance against such a mountain of debt.

[Pompey Bum]

I'll let Emil defend his own views, but I have some thoughts about your responses.


Hating immigrants and blaming them for our failures.

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but I don't think it's one the Democrats can much afford. Those who have lost their jobs to outsourcing or illegally underpaid migrants have already expressed their anger at being dismissed as failures or defamed as haters. Whatever you think of those people (or the American worker in general), doubling down on that line is not going to get them back.


The first Amendment is going to be stretched I think. I hope it will be as vigorously defended as the second is. Already Steve Bannon and Mike Flynn are suggesting Islam is not a real religion!

The First Amendment protects Bannon and Flynn's right to express that or any other opinion. I voted for Trump specifically because I knew he would nominate Supreme Court justices that would not attempt to erode free speech, which I believe to be under assault. The more Clinton cackled about Trump's "insulting" one group or another, the more I worried about judicial attempts to restrict free speech to the officially sanctioned variety (as can already be seen happening in Europe). But to your point, the amendment that protects Bannon and Flynn's expression of their views is the same one that protects a Muslim's free exercise of religion in the United States.


Like Hitler, only without his social conscience.

Generals Mattis and Flynn are tough guys, I'll give you that. I consider them war heroes, but even if you only take them as combat veterans they do not deserve comparison to Hitler's inner circle. It also strikes me that this sort of rhetoric advances nothing (except scaring the kiddies).


As for the good ol' boys at the KKK...

Innuendo doesn't help much either. What about the KKK?

[prendrelemick]

Through being linked to social media in a very small way I realise arguments are pointless. But debate is good and opinions should be listened to and respected. I truly hope Trump comes good and leads the free World with wisdom and tolerance, we (the World) need such a leader right now as never before . But I have to say I'm not confident it will be like that.

I am probably a liberal-pinko-lefty by American standards, but even I was fascinated by Trump, it was all great fun. He was sticking it to the Man, coming out with outragous lies and untruths that were demonstratably so. He was accusing others of the very misdemenours he had actually committed. His branded goods were manufactured in China, India and Mexico. His promised tax returns never materialised. He accused the press of bias, when in fact the bar set for Hillary and others was much, much higher. He said stupid things audaciously and was unrepentant. No one took him seriously. No one knew how to handle him. He was good copy, Everyone was having a good time.

Then it turned nasty. "Kill her" his supporters would chant while he waved and smiled, his message became concentrated and emphatically racist. His speeches were purposely inspiring hatred of non white minorities, no policy no pledges just "Build the Wall". He built a wall between Americans - it was his only chance.

Now, being a lefty pinko liberal means I am obliged to try and understand other people, to give them the benefit of the doubt - it is our great political Achilles' heel. I really thought it was all an act, people who knew him said he's not really like that. A dangerous act, but an act non the less. He was trying to win by any means, he's a businessman not a politician.

I could believe that until I watched him apeing a disabled reporter. That was the moment. If it was a joke it was a particularly nasty, cruel one. It was a slip, I think we had a glimpse of the real Donald right there, that was not an act. That is what he thinks of all of us.

A man may say anything, but you can only judge him by what he does, I think his word is worthless, but let's see.

[YesNo]

I haven't been paying attention, but I think Trump's followers were chanting, "Lock her up", not, "Kill her", on the night of the election.

I don't expect Trump to get very far with the infrastructure projects (including that wall) unless he can do it without increasing government debt.

[Danik 2016]

I don´t want to be a spoil sport, but in uncertain times one should remember that:
"If words are silver, silence is gold!"

[Pompey Bum]

I truly hope Trump comes good and leads the free World with wisdom and tolerance, we (the World) need such a leader right now as never before . But I have to say I'm not confident it will be like that.

You shouldn't be confident. Trump has already made it very clear that he intends to put America first. "The World" (as you put it) is going to have to find its own wise and tolerant leaders--or not. My hope is that the United States is able to treat nations that manage it as respected friends and post-Cold War or post-colonial dependencies no longer. But the world is a dangerous place and history is a rolling stone. I am more optimistic than you are. But I'm not at all sorry to have a man liked General Mattis looking after my defense.

[Pompey Bum]

I don´t want to be a spoil sport, but in uncertain times one should remember that:
"If words are silver, silence is gold!"

I couldn't disagree more, Danik. It is in uncertain times that intelligent and moral men and women need to discuss opinions--especially differing opinions--freely and with mutual respect. Silence breeds pestilence.

[Sancho]

Well, I didn't vote for him, but since the election my 401k has been enjoying the effects of a yuge Trump-based short squeeze.

[YesNo]

I don´t want to be a spoil sport, but in uncertain times one should remember that:
"If words are silver, silence is gold!"

I think it is best to maintain emotional distance regarding current politics. To some extent, that means not taking sides too quickly and spoken words tend to commit one to a position. Politics is mental quicksand, but one has to pay enough attention to avoid the dangers that might appear.

[YesNo]

Well, I didn't vote for him, but since the election my 401k has been enjoying the effects of a yuge Trump-based short squeeze.

I suspect that would have happened no matter who was elected.

[Pompey Bum]

Well, I didn't vote for him, but since the election my 401k has been enjoying the effects of a yuge Trump-based short squeeze.

Mine's soaring, too, Sancho--just the opposite of what This Week with Mr. Snuffleupagus assured me it would do. Hmmmm. But like ol' Kenny Rogers used to say: you don't count your cards while you're sittin' at the table (or something). Yankee Doodle keep it up! :)

[Sancho]

And that's the million-dollar question - what happens next? The very nature of a short squeeze (as I understand it) is ephemeral. That is to say - something unexpected happens, markets surge, traders scramble to cover their shorts, which drives the market even higher - in the short term. What happens next is anybody's guess.

[Danik 2016]

I think it is best to maintain emotional distance regarding current politics. To some extent, that means not taking sides too quickly and spoken words tend to commit one to a position. Politics is mental quicksand, but one has to pay enough attention to avoid the dangers that might appear.
That´s exactly what I mean, Yes/No! Thanks for interpreting me so accurately!

[Pompey Bum]

And that's the million-dollar question - what happens next? The very nature of a short squeeze (as I understand it) is ephemeral. That is to say - something unexpected happens, markets surge, traders scramble to cover their shorts, which drives the market even higher - in the short term. What happens next is anybody's guess.


True, and the global economy isn't helping. If I were a European investor, I'd be really jittery right now. But that turkey don't have to care no more. Happy Thanksgiving, man. :)

[Pompey Bum]

I don´t want to be a spoil sport, but in uncertain times one should remember that:
"If words are silver, silence is gold!"


That´s exactly what I mean, Yes/No! Thanks for interpreting me so accurately!

So will you be taking your own advice? ;-) Personally I hope not. Everyone's voice is important.

[Sancho]

True, and the global economy isn't helping. If I were a European investor, I'd be really jittery right now. But that turkey don't have to care no more. Happy Thanksgiving, man. :)

Well, back at'cha, mon frère, and you too, Danik, ma sœur.

And since its Thanksgiving, here's the tune of the day:

https://youtu.be/W5_8U4j51lI

Thanks, Arlo

[Pompey Bum]

I saw Arlo Guthrie perform in a small-ish venue a few years ago. A nice, fat, bald, sweet-looking folkie called out, "Alice's restaurant!" between songs (mostly Woody's). Guthrie looked at him and said (without irony): "Jesus Christ, you think I remember the words to that f*cking thing? You sing it!" Heh heh heh. Roll on Columbia!

[Danik 2016]

:lol::lol::lol:!Heard it just now, Sancho! Very instructive!


Happy Thanksgiving to all of you!

[Press]

Time to get back to the basics, meaning the popular vote and will of all the people should matter most.

[Emil Miller]

Today the electoral college across the USA cast their votes.
Whilst it's unlikely that Trump will be overturned as POTUS, this speech,until 5.50, when it just becomes silly about Clinton, must go down as one of the greatest in US history. Nothing,but nothing, tells it like it is until that point.

https://youtu.be/sQNzbguwwGQ

[YesNo]

The speech was pretty good. Now we will have to see what happens. I expect the market to tank hard during his term in office, not because of him, but because it is time for social mood to tank it.

Regarding the electoral college vote, it looks like Clinton had more defectors than Trump: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/19/us/elections/electoral-college-results.html?_r=0

[Lendo]

I have to say that the electoral college method is one of the things that europeans have more difficulties to understand in the american political system. In countries like France, Portugal, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium, the idea of the popular vote being overruled by an electoral college it's behond people's capability of understanding.

[bounty]

ah double post---more of the "bad internet connection!"

[bounty]

i suspect this has already been touched on here lendo but given that my internet connection is so bad, its really tough for me to go back and check, so im going to risk being redundant.

what make us (im in the usa) different than the rest of the world is we are a collection of states and its the states, not the country per se who are the ones holding the elections. we effectively have ~51 elections, not one.

in terms of the president, the "popular vote" is essentially inconsequential. Hillary Clinton won the plurality of votes by virtue of the amount of votes made in two very large city centers (NY and LA), not by appealing to wide swathes of the entire country.

one of the purposes of the electoral college functioned perfectly there, that is, to not let highly populated areas control the vote. in a legal sense, the popular vote wasn't really "overruled" since we don't elect the president that way.

[OrphanPip]

It's not unique to the US, most countries that operate under the Westminster Political System (which the US Congress is based on as well) have a system that gives more power to regional blocks than it does to the overall vote count. Canada has rarely had a PM whose party got more than 50% of the vote, and we've had 3 parliaments where the leading party lost the popular vote. We've also had one parliament in 1993 where the 2nd place party got 13% of the vote, the 3rd place 18% and the 4th place 7% and the 5th place 16% (and only 2 seats in parliament!!). Those numbers look bonkers but it was because of the collapse of the conservative party into 2 regional parties (the nationalist Bloc Quebecois in Quebec and the socially conservative Reform party in Alberta) and one sad group of party loyalist. The Progressive Conservatives saw the greatest election defeat in Canadian history losing 154 seats in a single election.

[Lendo]

i suspect this has already been touched on here lendo but given that my internet connection is so bad, its really tough for me to go back and check, so im going to risk being redundant.

what make us (im in the usa) different than the rest of the world is we are a collection of states and its the states, not the country per se who are the ones holding the elections. we effectively have ~51 elections, not one.

in terms of the president, the "popular vote" is essentially inconsequential. Hillary Clinton won the plurality of votes by virtue of the amount of votes made in two very large city centers (NY and LA), not by appealing to wide swathes of the entire country.

one of the purposes of the electoral college functioned perfectly there, that is, to not let highly populated areas control the vote. in a legal sense, the popular vote wasn't really "overruled" since we don't elect the president that way.

I give you an example: in Portugal, my country, the party that nowadays rule the country lost the election, it was in second place in the popular vote. But the only way for the party to rule was to colligate to other two parties, and than to get the majority of the parliament. Basiclly, three parties got together, and united they would represent the majority of the popular vote. The only way to rule, it's to have the majority of the popular vote, which translates in a majority in the parliament.

Despite the particular characteristics of the US national political system of 51 states that represent a single nation, for an europpean is very, very difficult to understand that a candidate who had 2 million votes less can win the election. For an europpean, the electoral college decision being more important than the electoral vote it's completely surreal. Because there's countries like Spain (which is composed by autonomous regions), Portugal (which has two autonomous regions) and Germany (which is composed by 16 states) in which the popular vote is the decision mechanism. In Europe, popular vote is the mainstream and usual electoral mechanism, and i can't even think of one country that does not work this way.

[tonywalt]

I give you an example: in Portugal, my country, the party that nowadays rule the country lost the election, it was in second place in the popular vote. But the only way for the party to rule was to colligate to other two parties, and than to get the majority of the parliament. Basiclly, three parties got together, and united they would represent the majority of the popular vote. The only way to rule, it's to have the majority of the popular vote, which translates in a majority in the parliament.

Despite the particular characteristics of the US national political system of 51 states that represent a single nation, for an europpean is very, very difficult to understand that a candidate who had 2 million votes less can win the election. For an europpean, the electoral college decision being more important than the electoral vote it's completely surreal. Because there's countries like Spain (which is composed by autonomous regions), Portugal (which has two autonomous regions) and Germany (which is composed by 16 states) in which the popular vote is the decision mechanism. In Europe, popular vote is the mainstream and usual electoral mechanism, and i can't even think of one country that does not work this way.

The Westminster system allows for a leader that is not directly elected by the people(not for that position). I suppose that would be hard for an American to understand. Perhaps it would be hard for a continental European to understand? Who knows. Power goes to power and on and on and on it goes. We write long threads about it, but with only one thing in common: no real power (except for a tiny little vote on a bit of paper, well whooopey).

Back to the grindstone tomorrow. Most of us tomorrow will: be awakened at ?a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force feed, use the toilet, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so.

We are all very much the same

[Clopin]

I give you an example: in Portugal, my country, the party that nowadays rule the country lost the election, it was in second place in the popular vote. But the only way for the party to rule was to colligate to other two parties, and than to get the majority of the parliament. Basiclly, three parties got together, and united they would represent the majority of the popular vote. The only way to rule, it's to have the majority of the popular vote, which translates in a majority in the parliament.

Despite the particular characteristics of the US national political system of 51 states that represent a single nation, for an europpean is very, very difficult to understand that a candidate who had 2 million votes less can win the election. For an europpean, the electoral college decision being more important than the electoral vote it's completely surreal. Because there's countries like Spain (which is composed by autonomous regions), Portugal (which has two autonomous regions) and Germany (which is composed by 16 states) in which the popular vote is the decision mechanism. In Europe, popular vote is the mainstream and usual electoral mechanism, and i can't even think of one country that does not work this way.

I'll make it real simple for you if it's so hard to understand. There is no single election in the U.S; there are 50 elections which take place at state level. Whoever gets the most state support (which is quantified through electoral college votes) becomes president. Since this is so inconceivable to you, you should probably also look at a parliamentary system, such as OrphanPip described, where there are hundreds of elections for individual MP's who form a government within parliament totally regardless of the overall popular vote of the nation.

[Lendo]

I'll make it real simple for you if it's so hard to understand. There is no single election in the U.S; there are 50 elections which take place at state level. Whoever gets the most state support (which is quantified through electoral college votes) becomes president. Since this is so inconceivable to you, you should probably also look at a parliamentary system, such as OrphanPip described, where there are hundreds of elections for individual MP's who form a government within parliament totally regardless of the overall popular vote of the nation.

I know the system, and i understand how it works perfectly. What i meant was that for an european (notice that i never said that i don't understand it, i was talking about the general perspective in Europe) the fact that the popular vote doesn't decide an election is hard to understand. Because in Europe, more exactly in continental Europe, all the systems are based on the popular vote. The majority decides and rules. Criteria like protecting the representation of smaller regions or states are not considered over the popular vote. And, as i told already, there's countries in Europe that are organized under the multi-region or multi-state basis. Portugal, Spain, France, Germany...

[YesNo]

I am not familiar with how the European Union gets its representatives. I assume there is someone who is at the top of the European Union like Trump is the president of the United States. Does that person get elected by a majority of the votes pulled from all the countries in Europe or by some other means?

[Clopin]

I know the system, and i understand how it works perfectly. What i meant was that for an european (notice that i never said that i don't understand it, i was talking about the general perspective in Europe) the fact that the popular vote doesn't decide an election is hard to understand. Because in Europe, more exactly in continental Europe, all the systems are based on the popular vote. The majority decides and rules. Criteria like protecting the representation of smaller regions or states are not considered over the popular vote. And, as i told already, there's countries in Europe that are organized under the multi-region or multi-state basis. Portugal, Spain, France, Germany...

Uh huh, and America, England, and the rest of the Anglo-commonwealth do things differently. Are Spain, Portugal, Italy, and France better governed and more successful than Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K, by the way?


I know the system, and i understand how it works perfectly.

Sorry, I'm a little limited by not being able to read minds; I have to respond to posts based on what you actually wrote.


I have to say that the electoral college method is one of the things that europeans have more difficulties to understand


the idea of the popular vote being overruled by an electoral college it's behond people's capability of understanding.


for an europpean is very, very difficult to understand that a candidate who had 2 million votes less can win the election.

[Emil Miller]

I am not familiar with how the European Union gets its representatives. I assume there is someone who is at the top of the European Union like Trump is the president of the United States. Does that person get elected by a majority of the votes pulled from all the countries in Europe or by some other means?

European representatives are voted into the European parliament by the populace of each member state but the Commission is appointed by the members and is therefore essentially undemocratic:the President and the other bureaucrats serving for a specified term without universal suffrage.
However, since the European parliament is mainly a cat's paw for German economic dominance, it's Berlin rather than Brussels that pulls the strings and its legitimacy is again called into question.

[Lendo]

There's no reason to compare the US to the EU. The EU is not a country or a state.

But answering the question, the President of the European Comission is elected in a process composed by two different elections: the candidate has to be aproved in the European Council (composed by the head of state or government of all the countries that compose the EU) and in the European Parliament, composed by deputies elected from all the countries of the EU.

And Emil is right at a certain level: the most important countries are to one's who decide things in the EU. Not only Germany, despite the fact that Germany is the most important economic member of the EU. France is also a crucial member of the EU. Not only economicly, but specially militarily. The axe Berlin-Paris is definitely the one who pull the strings in Europe. But, economicly and financially, Germany has gained a position of predominance since the economic and social crisis in France.