Election predictions

Clinton

9 (69.2%)

Trump

4 (30.8%)

Hung college

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The flaw with this, is that more people voted for Clinton than Trump!!

So the "people" wanted Clinton, and the system gave them Trump.

Just an observation, not a criticism of the system...

The problem with long threads is that newcomers do not read previous posts. I and several others have posted on several occasions why the above assertion is false. But I'll repeat it here:

We don't really know what the popular was. Or, to be precise, what it could have been had the campaigns fought for the popular vote, instead of the electoral college one. The current statistic on the popular vote is simply a byproduct of the current game rules.

Election campaigns concentrate time, money and resources toward winning the electoral college. Has the game been to win the popular vote, time, effort, money, and resources would have been deployed differently. Therefore, we do not really know what the popular vote would be in such a case.

It is the same electoral system that served America well for 200+ years. And the same system that delivered Obama's victory, delivered it for Trump too. The same system, the same rules.

And ultimately, it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump, just segmented state by state. It is a United States of America, after all. Federal system, you know.

[Chris Calohan]

Alan Klein: Try this link: Chris' Photos

If that doesn't work, go to www.flickr.com login name is: chrisc_photo, password is: meme60

[RSL]

There were two things that cost her the election: the Deplorables comment was likely the biggest FUBAR (f**ked up beyond all repair) and then the very untimely Coomey email bombshell. I am a bit in the minority in this thinking, but I have this nagging thought that won't go away that says he was quite pissed he didn't have the evidence to indict her for her email server, but he knew he could pretty much derail her run for the White House by releasing the "new" information. Up until that letter, she was virtually a shoo-in. Telling the US electorate two days before the election she was in the clear was like pissing on a forest fire in its effect.

I voted for Hillary not because I loved her, but because I saw Trump as a buffoon. He is a clinical example (still is) of Narcissism with a Borderline Personality Disorder. His plan and strategy was too well aligned with that of Hitler and Mussolini not that I think he was bright enough to have read either manifesto but he did know that to control the media into free attention was free ride #1 and to put the blame of all the blue collar worker's plight on someone else. He blamed the Mexicans and the Islamic's and ranted over and over and over as to how they would ruin America and how they had to go. This, quite effectively took the onus off him to actually show any real plans.

Frankly, I do not think he ever expected to get elected. From the look on his face when he faced the victory crowd, it was evidence he was as stunned as Clinton who felt she had it in the bag...as did I. The Republican party will win the next four years if they can manage to curb him but as with almost all Manic Depressive's, when he goes on a roll, he's as predictable as a drunk in a China shop. He's made promises that will never come to fruition. The wall, at the cost between 40 and 60 billion dollars underestimated by my accounting as I've hiked the hills that follow the Rio Grande and know them to be mostly impenetrable for the purposes of building said wall just isn't financially or constructional feasible. The Mexicans with a GDP of about $7 per capita do not have the funds to pay for it. Remember, despite what Trump told his followers - "they loved me in Mexico, and the President of Mexico loves me," what the President of Mexico actually said, and on public TV was go F**K yourself.

The second which he promises on his first day in office to dismantle Obamacare, has more than just a few problems. One it was a congressional act and only the congress can totally dismantle it, but two, he has no workable plan that will keep 20 million Americans with equitable healthcare. His plan to allow those needing insurance to reach across state lines is being met with much disdain by the insurers across the nation because they realize that huge influxes of new members will just drive their administrative cost so high, no gain and perhaps even loss will occur. In the end, he is going to have to do what Hillary was going to have to do and that is tweak the system to lower costs without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Banning all Muslims coming into the country is going to also have to be modified because of the horrid loss of respect from our overseas neighbors. You can only piss off the rest of the world so much before you start losing allies. The last initial concern for him will come when he puts out large forces of immigration "enforcers" to take people out of their homes and bus them back to Mexico. He thinks they will just hop on that bus willingly and he's as wrong as Hell. They're going to fight and a lot of people are going to get killed on both sides and like the Viet Nam war, this doesn't play well on TV. So, here we have a President who knows doodley squat about foreign policy, really running a military operation, who has very doubtfully ever read, much less comprehend the US Constitution, who is frightfully too cozy with the Russians, potentially deciding the fate of most of the world so perhaps you can understand my quivering fear of the big Buffoon.

Some of you may have felt disenfranchised, but had you taken the time to analyze Donald Trump, even a little, you would have understood why I fear him like no previous President we've ever had. The vast majority of Trump's followers were indeed uneducated, and if they lived in NW FL, I can assure you, to quote a Trumpism, many many many of these beautiful people drove over-sized pickup trucks displaying large Confederate flags, went "mudding' on the weekends and followed the Trump like lemming doing their pilgrimage to the sea, were very much racists and preferred their "wimmen" barefoot and stupid. All I can say to you disenfranchised voters...might want to look both ways before crossing the street next time around. The chicken got lucky.

LMAO "This country is no longer in need of workers." Ha, you get Americans to pick the lettuce, tomatoes, or grapes, etc. They won't do it. Americans are very rarely hired by Cruise Ship lines because they won't work the hours. They feel far to entitled and take great affront at the suggestion they must work to eat. You live in fantasy land, my friend. Without these workers a head of lettuce will cost $6.00. And, to the educated voter who put the Buffoon into office, go online and take a real hard look at his tax plan. You think Hillary was going to stick it to you.....hahahahaha, Trump is going to pretend you are a choirboy. There isn't anything about his Presidency that is going to be pretty and we haven't even touched on the Middle East. "I know more than anyone else including all the generals, how to fix the Middle East," he said repeatedly. I suggest if you really believe this, to make your cliff side reservations early as you follow the rest to the sea. How long can you tread water?

Chris, You need to read this morning's Wall Street Journal. The editorial page explains exactly why the Dems lost and Trump won. The interesting thing is how the Rebubs held the Senate and picked up a bunch of state legislatures on the way. Hillary didn't have much to do with that. Trump's biggest help was Obama. I'm talking about the Friday, November 11th WSJ.

[James Clark]

The problem with long threads is that newcomers do not read previous posts. I and several others have posted on several occasions why the above assertion is false. But I'll repeat it here:

We don't really know what the popular was. Or, to be precise, what it could have been had the campaigns fought for the popular vote, instead of the electoral college one. The current statistic on the popular vote is simply a byproduct of the current game rules.

Election campaigns concentrate time, money and resources toward winning the electoral college. Has the game been to win the popular vote, time, effort, money, and resources would have been deployed differently. Therefore, we do not really know what the popular vote would be in such a case.

It is the same electoral system that served America well for 200+ years. And the same system that delivered Obama's victory, delivered it for Trump too. The same system, the same rules.

And ultimately, it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump, just segmented state by state. It is a United States of America, after all. Federal system, you know.

Yes, you and several others have posted your OPINION on why it's wrong.  But as a matter of statistical fact, it's just not, no matter how much you try to play with "what ifs"  That said, you ARE 100% right that it's irrelevant with regard to who was properly and duly elected.  To say that in the it it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump is just factually and blatantly wrong. It's positively Trumpian in its bald-faced denial of reality, in fact

The point was, and remains, that Trump's promised policies do not align with the ideals of most Americans in many cases.  If he's smart he will recognize that.

[RSL]

Hi James, This is exactly why we have a republic instead of a democracy. The French democracy overwhelmingly voted for the guillotine too.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Russ, for God's sake, why did you feel the need to repost that lengthy diatribe, which is nothing more than regurgitated talking points of the losing side?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yes, you and several others have posted your OPINION on why it's wrong.  But as a matter of statistical fact, it's just not, no matter how much you try to play with "what ifs"  That said, you ARE 100% right that it's irrelevant with regard to who was properly and duly elected.  To say that in the it it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump is just factually and blatantly wrong. It's positively Trumpian in its bald-faced denial of reality, in fact ...

You want a statistical fact? The one that is not coincidental and not a byproduct? How about this: Trump won the majority of the popular vote in the majority of states.

As for facts... facts are almost useless without context and interpretation. Both facts and opinions are needed. Whether you agree with my opinion is a different matter, but I'll keep posting it for others, the open-minded ones, and let them decide if what I pointed out makes sense.

[Chris Calohan]

Russ, for God's sake, why did you feel the need to repost that lengthy diatribe, which is nothing more than regurgitated talking points of the losing side?

The problem with your analysis and Russ's WSJ article, each has many good points, is that in the not too distant future when these guys will awaken knowing they get to keep their guns, they're going to discover they don't have health care nor will they have food stamps, and the disenfranchised are going to start using those precious guns. Talking points of the losing side have a far better than 50/50 chance of coming to fruition while the Trump campaign promises stand very little chance of emerging as the end result. Even "deplorables" have memories.

And so once again, the right side and the wrong side have beaten an already dead horse to a unrecognizable pulp, neither side ever really agreeing and the world goes on,,,,hopefully.

[RSL]

Love to keep going with this delightful post-election exchange, but I'm off to St. Augustine for a few days. Maybe I'll come back with some street shots.

Don't despair, Chris or James. If you look around you might be able to find a "safe space" with a comfort dog and some crayons.

[N80]

LMAO "This country is no longer in need of workers." Ha, you get Americans to pick the lettuce, tomatoes, or grapes, etc. They won't do it.

Americans being unwilling to work is a whole other problem. Lots of Americans remain unemployed. The fact that they will not do the available work is an indictment of the entitlement system. It is also a humanitarian issue that we will allow illegals to work without the benefits we otherwise feel all humans should be entitled to.

[N80]

By the way, N80, the Constitutional Convention was specifically addressing the fact that the previous charter - The Articles of Confederation - allowed too little federal control to be effective in binding the nation together.  I'm on an iPad, so I'll save you a history lecture, but the idea that the founders were bending over backwards to preserve state autonomy in the 1789 document is incorrect.

Please do spare me the lecture and the patronizing. The concession to the institution of slavery is the perfect example. Had it not been codified as legal the southern states would not have joined the union. The story of the Constitution IS the story of the preservation of state's autonomy and limitations of the federal government. You don't have to dig into the history to see this. Just read the Constitution. It is right there in black and white.

[N80]

Yes, you and several others have posted your OPINION on why it's wrong.  But as a matter of statistical fact, it's just not, no matter how much you try to play with "what ifs"  That said, you ARE 100% right that it's irrelevant with regard to who was properly and duly elected.  To say that in the it it was a majority of the popular vote for Trump is just factually and blatantly wrong. It's positively Trumpian in its bald-faced denial of reality, in fact

The point was, and remains, that Trump's promised policies do not align with the ideals of most Americans in many cases.  If he's smart he will recognize that.

It is so funny how you trot out statistics, criticize opinion and then trot out your own opinion (the last sentence) that is not only statistically unsupportable but riddled with qualifiers like "most" and "many".

As we speak the vote tallies continue to roll in and the last I saw it was a virtual tie in regard to the popular vote. Which means you are no more entitled to use "many" and "most" than are those claiming a Trump mandate.

But again, it is not relevant. the mandate is not just in the electoral vote or the popular vote. The mandate is that this nasty little troll of an outsider (plus all the other lies and baggage the liberal media have attached to him) beat the Washington insider along with her huge political machinery which includes the vast majority of the 'free' press in the country (and this is not even a point of debate according to Pew Trust studies right up until election day). Not to mention the Senate and House elections.

This was a mandate against HRC. No doubt. It was a rejection of Obama administration. No doubt. It was NOT a rejection of liberalism or the left. In fact, I feel certain that Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump had HRC and the Democrat Party machinery rejected him under the table. When you look at a lot of these protests, there is a great deal of anger against HRC and her machinery for railroading Sanders.

It is almost comical (if it wasn't so shocking) to see the reeling, seething, violent and hateful response to this election from the liberals. The headlines now are full of attacks, hate and spin. The liberal media has not taken this opportunity to gain insight into their own ideology driven mistakes. Just like the Democrat party the backed the wrong candidate. Again, Bernie would have won. Hell, anyone other than HRC could have and should have beaten Trump. THAT is how bad she was on all levels.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Trump election and Brexit are often compared. So, let's look at the popular vote role in both. In Brexit, the popular vote won with a 4% difference. Here, it "won" (coincidentally and as a byproduct) with a 0.2% difference. In Brexit, the left is crying foul, claiming the popular vote is dangerous and should be ignored. Here, the left is glorifying it and wants the election results overturned. Go figure. In other words, this system or that system, whatever system, who cares, as long as it delivers what I like. And if it doesn't, then we will change the system or vote again and again until it does. News flash: you can surely vote again...in four years.

[Chris Calohan]

Love to keep going with this delightful post-election exchange, but I'm off to St. Augustine for a few days. Maybe I'll come back with some street shots.

Don't despair, Chris or James. If you look around you might be able to find a "safe spot" with a comfort dog and some crayons.

I have a small casita in San Filipe, Baja and plan to spend far more time there than here for the next four years. Besides, I can live there for about 42 cents on the dollar. I'd kick the dog to the curb and melt the crayons on the hood of Trump's limousine. LOLOLOL

[N80]

The problem with your analysis and Russ's WSJ article, each has many good points, is that in the not too distant future when these guys will awaken knowing they get to keep their guns, they're going to discover they don't have health care nor will they have food stamps, and the disenfranchised are going to start using those precious guns.

You clearly have no idea about who owns guns in this country. It is NOT the uninsured disenfranchised food stamp crowd. And those in that segment who do own guns are already using them, daily, and often. Witness Chicago and every other large city in the US. But the majority of guns are owned by working, middle and upper class people. They live predominantly in the south, west and rural areas. They also have superior guns. Lots of ammo. Know how to use them. And don't. These are not the folks who are going to revolt over lack of healthcare and food stamps. They will use them for a far, far different reason. As a collective. As the Constitution envisioned. And only as a last resort.

[myotis]

We don't really know what the popular was. Or, to be precise, what it could have been had the campaigns fought for the popular vote, instead of the electoral college one. The current statistic on the popular vote is simply a byproduct of the current game rules.

Actually, I have read through the thread, and i fully understand the point you make, about how if it had been one person one vote (as in the Brexit Referendum) and the campaigning targeted towards this kind of vote, the vote could well have been different.

BUT, its still difficult to ignore how close the vote was, and I am conscious that even allowing for what you say, that it  still sends the message that just as many people wanted Clinton as wanted Trump. Suggesting the American people are very divided in what they think and want.

Cheers,

Graham

[Alan Klein]

Here's a good explanation and discussion on the Electoral system.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/jarrett-stepman/why-america-uses-electoral-college-not-popular-vote-presidential-election

[Alan Klein]

Alan Klein: Try this link: Chris' Photos

If that doesn't work, go to www.flickr.com login name is: chrisc_photo, password is: meme60

Nice shots.  But was there a link in this forum?  How did others know where it was?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... How did others know where it was?

We don't. Chris often posts in the Critique or Landscape sections of the forum. You might try to venture beyond the Coffee Corner from time to time, you know

P.S. The other forums is where you make friends. The Coffee Corner is where you come to lose them

[Alan Klein]

Actually, I have read through the thread, and i fully understand the point you make, about how if it had been one person one vote (as in the Brexit Referendum) and the campaigning targeted towards this kind of vote, the vote could well have been different.

BUT, its still difficult to ignore how close the vote was, and I am conscious that even allowing for what you say, that it  still sends the message that just as many people wanted Clinton as wanted Trump. Suggesting the American people are very divided in what they think and want.

Cheers,

Graham

This same argument goes on every four years even if the popular vote comports with the electoral vote.  Let's say the popular vote was 51% and 49%.  The losers always say that the winner does not have a mandate because they 49% is so close to half.  Therefore the winner should consider what the losers want.  Of course the winner says, a win is a win, and we intend to push the winner's agenda.  Well that's how it works. 

Keep in mind that the Electoral percentage has not been talked about.  It will probably come out roughly 55% for Trump vs. 45% Clinton.  (300 Trump to 240 Clinton Electoral votes). So if you consider the electoral vote, you may actually get more comfort in knowing that a larger majority did select Trump from a Federal, constitutional and electoral perspective.  Does 55% to 45% make you feel better?