Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[ClareWalks]

8 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

It would be fine if each state had a number of electoral votes in proportion to its population, which I assume was the original setup. But California has 38 million people living in it, and 55 electoral votes, while Montana has 1 million people and 3 electoral votes. They have one electoral vote per 330,000 people, while California has one per 690,000. How is that democratic?

That is the one thing I totally do not get. They should be shifting around the electoral votes division, if necessary, after each US Census.

[Aquarius]

12 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

It would be fine if each state had a number of electoral votes in proportion to its population, which I assume was the original setup. But California has 38 million people living in it, and 55 electoral votes, while Montana has 1 million people and 3 electoral votes. They have one electoral vote per 330,000 people, while California has one per 690,000. How is that democratic?

It was meant to balance the power each state has.  Every state has 3 no matter how small, and then the additional ones are based on population.  So that the smallest states had a voice in the selection of president.  The federal government a representative democracy based on the states. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Aquarius

[Danny Franks]

7 minutes ago, Aquarius said:

It was meant to balance the power each state has.  Every state has 3 no matter how small, and then the additional ones are based on population.  So that the smallest states had a voice in the selection of president.  The federal government a representative democracy based on the states. 

I understand what it was meant to do (according to Alexander Hamilton, it was also meant to prevent demagogues achieving power by fooling people into voting for them, but so far that's not working out too well). But it's no longer representative, because it isn't increasing the number of votes required based on the population. This is like saying, 'you need ten million and one votes to win' when your country has twenty million people. It becomes ridiculous when your population is double, triple, quadruple that.

Right now, the US is telling the more populous states that they aren't more important than the least populous ones. That's a fine argument to make, but it's wrong. Because they are more important. They have more people and generate more money and provide more goods for the country. California pays more to the federal govt than it gets back, but the people there are being relegated to second class status when they are told that their votes are worth only half as much as those of people from Montana, or Maine, or Delaware.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Danny Franks

[Aquarius]

26 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

But it's no longer representative, because it isn't increasing the number of votes required based on the population.

I thought a state gets another electoral vote when it qualifies for an additional Representative based on population.  Is that no longer the case?

There's many, many things that don't work the way they did, or arguably are "supposed to."  For instance, the Presidency itself is not supposed to be the power center of the government the way it is today.  A State is meant to have much more power than it does, making the "evening out" by the automatic three delegates important.  The concept of a "person-vote" and all those being equal is a relatively modern notion, and certainly not the one that the federal government was based on.   I get what you're saying about "second class status" of voters, but the system was designed so that Montana, Maine or Delaware - the states, not voters within - did not get second class status.  Or, lower than second class status, as the very small states would be if they did not get an even start of delegates. 

The party system, the erosion of state power, the modernization of our view of the populace at large (an equal vote for every voter) - all of these things and more make the system archaic and probably ready for an adjustment.  It's no longer working in the way it was intended.  Especially now that we have "swing states" that are given more power and attention based on their electoral votes and voting habits. 

And yes, the electoral college is supposed to save us from ourselves if we fall for the crap handed to us by a demagogue.  Another idea effectively killed by the party system, though.

[BookWoman56]

21 hours ago, slf said:

I would just like to state in this thread because this has come up elsewhere:

HRC won the majority of pledged delegates. Superdelegates did not steal away the nomination for her. It was in fact Sanders who was trying to clinch the superdelegates' votes toward the end, because they were the only way he was going to win. If we did away with superdelegates, HRC still would have been the party nominee.

I've also gotten a little tired of the narrative that the evil DNC stole the nomination from Sanders. Nor do I find it problematic that the DNC did not want him to win the nomination, because he wasn't actually a Democrat. I realize there's no party registration in his home state, but he had self-identified for years as an independent/socialist, so why would anyone assume he was entitled to run as a Democrat, or a Republican, for that matter? I have issues with the party system anyway, but I think actually belonging to the party is a reasonable prerequisite to running for the party nomination. Otherwise, what's to prevent, for example, a popular Republican from running in the Democratic primaries just to mess with the process? In any event, from what I recall during the primary season, Sanders won mostly caucuses, which tend to attract younger people with no family ties to occupy them during evenings and are thus not representative of a state's voters as a whole, while HRC won most of the primaries that were based on actual all-day voting.

As for HRC, I sort of expect her to take the route of staying away from politics per se but focusing on other areas where she can do good, such as with the Clinton Foundation. However, it dismays me that she won the popular vote and  yet because of an outdated electoral college system, will not be POTUS.  And although it pains me to say it, I still have lingering doubts about the veracity of the voting results. I don't think it was coincidence that 10-20 states had their voter databases hacked in the months before the election. If Russia could hack into those databases, what was to prevent them from using the voter info there to request absentee ballots, filling them out to vote for Trump, and then mailing those fraudulent ballots back to the state? In the last couple of days I signed an online petition to have the DoJ audit the election results. Frankly, it floors me that an audit is not automatically done. Even if the results didn't turn out the way I wanted them to, I'd rather know that the person who gets sworn in as POTUS is the person that legitimately won the election. I'd like to think I was just being paranoid, but it still seems so odd to me that all those polls were apparently off, that essentially every swing state went to Trump, and that Trump was so certain he would win despite what the polls were saying. I'm not downplaying the appeal Trump had to unemployed Rust Belt residents, or to some of the other groups that would have voted for anybody spouting the MAGA propaganda or anybody whose name was not HRC, but it's not like the country was in a free-fall recession where people would have been desperate for a change in political party. The whole thing makes me uneasy.

Finally, yes, as a voter in TX, I don't in any way feel that my vote counted, because of the way the electoral college works. If the country is supposed to work on the concept of majority rule, then the person who gets the majority of the popular vote should win the election. Period. Smaller states are protected by having equal representation in the Senate. Certainly the electoral college is not going to prevent us this time from having a con artist put into office, so its existence can no longer be justified.

Edited November 22, 2016 by BookWoman56

[Ohwell]

Even though Sanders isn't a Democrat, doesn't he caucus with them in the Senate?

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

If he caucuses with them and wants to have as much influence as he's chomping at the bits, why doesn't he get off the pot and just join them? Why does he get to keep his identity as an independent but want to interfere in a party he doesn't want to identify with?  He is the definition of an old white entitled man. 

[BookWoman56]

He usually votes for Democratic legislation, etc. I don't know if he caucuses with them, but it's not like there's a Senate caucus for independents/socialists, so if he is going to caucus anywhere, from his perspective it's probably the Dems or nothing. It's a moot point now, anyway. I''m not anti-Sanders. My politics are if anything a little further left than he is. But I am a pragmatist in politics after being disillusioned by what happened to George McGovern. It was then I realized that the country was just not going to embrace a candidate that liberal, no matter how many college students loved him. My vote for HRC was precisely because she was a centrist, had extensive experience navigating the political quagmire, had shown herself willing to be flexible on some positions, and was able to learn from mistakes.

One criticism of HRC that I never really understood was that she was supposedly too "secretive" and private. She lived through the intense circus and spotlight on her marriage while Bill was being impeached. Who the hell wouldn't want to maintain some secrecy and privacy after that? Her public actions as a Senator and SoS are one thing,  but I don't think any politician is required to have his or her personal life be a completely open book. As much as I despise Trump, if he decides to fuck other women besides his wife while he's POTUS, that's none of my damn business unless he's giving away state secrets at the same time.

[slf]

10 hours ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

Why does he get to keep his identity as an independent but want to interfere in a party he doesn't want to identify with?  He is the definition of an old white entitled man. 

Oh yikes, that reminds me of the comments he recently made when a woman asked "I want to be the second Latina senator in American history. Any tips?" And he responded with: "It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process—Latinas, African-Americans, Native Americans—all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen. But it is not good enough for somebody to say, “Hey, I’m a Latina. Vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country and is going to take on big-money interests." And: “It is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I’m a woman. Vote for me,’” he said. “What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry.”

But of course, of course, he also said: “I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from.” 

Ah. And there it is.

The "I'm a woman, vote for me" was absolutely a dig at HRC. Thank God we have a rich old white man to come save us from our petty concerns regarding misogyny and racism.

Edited November 23, 2016 by slf

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

10 minutes ago, slf said:

Oh yikes, that reminds me of the comments he recently made when a woman asked "I want to be the second Latina senator in American history. Any tips?" And he responded with: "It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process—Latinas, African-Americans, Native Americans—all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen. But it is not good enough for somebody to say, “Hey, I’m a Latina. Vote for me.” That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country and is going to take on big-money interests." And: “It is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I’m a woman. Vote for me,’” he said. “What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry.”

But of course, of course, he also said: “I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from.” 

Ah. And there it is.

The "I'm a woman, vote for me" was absolutely a dig at HRC. Thank God we have a rich old white man to come save us from our petty concerns regarding misogyny and racism.

That is precisely why I used "identity" 

I am so annoyed with his stance on this issue. EVERYONE runs on identity. I'd understand if his argument was about inclusiveness which he utterly failed at as he couldn't get those "identity" voters to show up for him during the primaries. 

[Mozelle]

On 11/21/2016 at 0:59 AM, slf said:

I won't rehash my opinions 'cause I've done that in the Democratic Party thread and I know people must be sick of hearing about them, lol, but: agreed, very much so. But I will post this again, from MLK:

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

This, later followed by this:

On 11/21/2016 at 8:42 PM, slf said:

I would just like to state in this thread because this has come up elsewhere:

HRC won the majority of pledged delegates. Superdelegates did not steal away the nomination for her. It was in fact Sanders who was trying to clinch the superdelegates' votes toward the end, because they were the only way he was going to win. If we did away with superdelegates, HRC still would have been the party nominee.

Has me grinding my teeth. (Well, I've been grinding them for the past two weeks.)

I voted for Sanders in the primary. I live in the District, which means by the time our primaries rolled around, I knew that it would be a symbolic vote for him. I don't think the nomination was stolen from him. I also had no problem checking that box for Clinton-Kaine two weeks ago. It may have been of the "Girl, I guess I'm with her" variety, but I still found HRC infinitely more qualified to lead this nation than The Orange One, which is to say I wasn't voting with the thought of HRC being the lesser of two evils. 

This is all preamble to say that Sanders is working my effing nerves now! I've known he's fallible--and one of my concerns even during the primaries was this narrative of working class=*white* working class, full stop--but I was still supportive of his run. This shift now, in the wake of an overarching "Oh noes! It was the white working class who rose up because they felt left behind" rhetoric (never mind that many college-educated, white people voted for Trump...), is making me wonder how much Sanders would have fought for working class people of color.* If he's trying to narrow this thing, post-Trump, down to identity politics being a concern, if he's saying that the working class (read: white working class) felt left out, it's all making me wonder.  Because, clearly he does understand that there are rural, working class people of color (hello, Standing Rock!), but then he keeps on with this rhetoric that sounds like he doesn't get all of these identities can be true at once in a single person.

*Yes, yes. I know he marched during the CRM; I know he handcuffed himself to a young Black woman. I know these things lol.

[ari333]

This is just 2 cents from things I've heard around here.... neighbors etc.  

Some folks voted... no vagina.

Some folks voted anti choice no matter what ; that's all they cared about.

Some folks voted, "HRC will take my guns."

That is all

[slf]

5 minutes ago, ari333 said:

This is just 2 cents from things I've heard around here.... neighbors etc.  

Some folks voted... no vagina.

Some folks voted anti choice no matter what ; that's all they cared about.

Some folks voted, "HRC will take my guns."

That is all

I wish I could be shocked by that but let me tell you about my cousin. Male, early forties, white, straight, middle class. Once, when staying at my mom's house exclaimed, "Your shower head is so low, you gotta be Chinese to use it!" Hooked up with his first wife when he was twenty-eight and she was eighteen. His ex-wife was granted a restraining order against him, which he violated. When said ex-wife's seventeen year old brother tried to grope me in a pool when I was twelve, he refused to say or do anything because he didn't want to make trouble for the guy. He reads conservative fake news and so believes things like Obama did not win the popular vote either election (this was the source of his hatred of the electoral college, of which he has not spoken since his boy Trump was elected).

[ari333]

3 minutes ago, slf said:

I wish I could be shocked by that but let me tell you about my cousin. Male, early forties, white, straight, middle class. Once, when staying at my mom's house exclaimed, "Your shower head is so low, you gotta be Chinese to use it!" Hooked up with his first wife when he was twenty-eight and she was eighteen. His ex-wife was granted a restraining order against him, which he violated. When said ex-wife's seventeen year old brother tried to grope me in a pool when I was twelve, he refused to say or do anything because he didn't want to make trouble for the guy. He reads conservative fake news and so believes things like Obama did not win the popular vote either election (this was the source of his hatred of the electoral college, of which he has not spoken since his boy Trump was elected).

I'm so sorry that happened to you at 12. You are not alone.

[slf]

5 minutes ago, ari333 said:

I'm so sorry that happened to you at 12. You are not alone.

Thank you. I'm not alone, but I wish I was. Watching all those women come forward, telling people about Trump groping them, made me think of that day and I just knew my cousin would vote for Trump. Not because I thought he would doubt the women were telling the truth but because I knew to him it wouldn't matter if they were. I don't think my cousin is alone either.

I'm glad it's Stein calling for the recount and trying to raise the funds. If HRC had done it she would get shredded.

[khyber]

1 hour ago, ari333 said:

This is just 2 cents from things I've heard around here.... neighbors etc.  

Some folks voted... no vagina.

Some folks voted anti choice no matter what ; that's all they cared about.

Some folks voted, "HRC will take my guns."

That is all

My in-laws, all 3.

[ari333]

19 minutes ago, khyber said:

My in-laws, all 3.

Oh dear god! [/Frasier voice]

The holidays are going to blow... hard...

[Danny Franks]

13 hours ago, khyber said:

My in-laws, all 3.

I don't know how you guys do it. If I had a relative, or a friend, who mouthed off about their hateful politics, I'd be done with them. I even stop conversing with my dad whenever he goes on an anti-Muslim rant. He's thoroughly left wing in all his political and social views, except for that one.

[slf]

5 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

I don't know how you guys do it. If I had a relative, or a friend, who mouthed off about their hateful politics, I'd be done with them. I even stop conversing with my dad whenever he goes on an anti-Muslim rant. He's thoroughly left wing in all his political and social views, except for that one.

I don't talk to my cousins anymore, not that it was difficult. My grandmother, on the other hand, could be perfectly lovely until you brought up immigration (the scourge of mankind to hear her talk). She could get really ugly about it. Then like you with your dad I'd just have to stop talking to her, walk away, whatever. It was difficult to separate my love for her (and loyalty; she moved me, my sisters, and my mom into her house when my mom was battling cancer so she could take care of us) from my revulsion for her beliefs.

It's not popular to say it but I do cut off friends (and walk out on dates) that have hateful politics. All over America that's seen as an overreaction to a "disagreement of opinions". I can't stand hearing that. Dehumanizing views aren't just opinions, like preferring Pepsi to Dr. Pepper. 

[Duke Silver]

I've walked away from friends/family as well.  For me, it just gets to a point where shared experiences, and even shared genetics, cannot overcome a total disconnect in core values.  A person is what they do.  I cannot abide racism, especially (for the record, I'm a white, atheist, straight male), though someone cramming religion down my throat will get tuned out forthwith.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Duke Silver

[Danny Franks]

26 minutes ago, slf said:

It's not popular to say it but I do cut off friends (and walk out on dates) that have hateful politics. All over America that's seen as an overreaction to a "disagreement of opinions". I can't stand hearing that. Dehumanizing views aren't just opinions, like preferring Pepsi to Dr. Pepper. 

I do that too. If someone's political views are repellant to me, then I simply don't feel like I need to find some common ground that will allow us to remain friends. I can live with people who feel there needs to be reform of welfare programmes because they're too easy to exploit. That's fine. But if someone actually expresses negative views about minorities, then I'm not hanging around to hear it. It shouldn't be unpopular or controversial to say so.

21 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

I've walked away from friends/family as well.  For me, it just gets to a point where shared experiences, and even shared genetics, cannot overcome a total disconnect in core values.  A person is what they do.  I cannot abide racism, especially (for the record, I'm a white, atheist, straight male), though someone cramming religion down my throat will get tuned out forthwith.

Some of my first cousins are devout Catholics (even the one who got her marriage 'annulled' to avoid divorce, then 'lived in sin' with another guy for years, but that's another story), and they have learned over the years that I'm just not interested in their religion. I appreciate that they just refrain from discussing it with me, other than the odd joke about the altar cracking if I ever set foot in a church. And I think they appreciate that I never make fun of their religious views. There are things that we can all learn to ignore or just compromise on, and I think religion, when viewed the way it should be, is usually a pretty benign thing. It's the militant evangelical types that you have in the US that would drive me up the wall. I don't know why they can't all just chill the fuck out and let other people get on with things.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Danny Franks

[ruby24]

2 hours ago, slf said:

 

It's not popular to say it but I do cut off friends (and walk out on dates) that have hateful politics. All over America that's seen as an overreaction to a "disagreement of opinions". I can't stand hearing that. Dehumanizing views aren't just opinions, like preferring Pepsi to Dr. Pepper. 

I'm 100% with you on this. To me these aren't just "opinions," they're expressions of a person's morality and values. They tell you who these people really are. I think that's important. 

[theredhead77]

2 hours ago, slf said:

It's not popular to say it but I do cut off friends (and walk out on dates) that have hateful politics. All over America that's seen as an overreaction to a "disagreement of opinions". I can't stand hearing that. Dehumanizing views aren't just opinions, like preferring Pepsi to Dr. Pepper. 

 

2 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I do that too. If someone's political views are repellant to me, then I simply don't feel like I need to find some common ground that will allow us to remain friends. I can live with people who feel there needs to be reform of welfare programmes because they're too easy to exploit. That's fine. But if someone actually expresses negative views about minorities, then I'm not hanging around to hear it. It shouldn't be unpopular or controversial to say so.

Add me to that list. My thresh-hold is equality and human rights/dignity. I don't simply walk away because someone is uncomfortable being around people who are gay or trans if they haven't really knowingly been around them  (like my ex from smalltownUSA) but he treated everyone with respect. I do walk away from people who think people who are gay, or trans aren't equal. I don't walk away from people who are pro-life but I have a hard time being friends with people who don't think I should have a right to my body over my because of their religion. Etc....

If these recounts happen and H. Clinton actually wins one or two of these states, giving her the electoral vote what will happen? Does anyone know? Am I getting my hopes up for no reason?

Edited November 24, 2016 by theredhead77

[slf]

6 minutes ago, theredhead77 said:

If these recounts happen and H. Clinton actually wins one or two of these states, giving her the electoral vote what will happen? Does anyone know? Am I getting my hopes up for no reason?

This hasn't happened before so I'm not sure what the protocol is or if there even is one. I'm choosing to look at this as simply an audit. We don't actually know if there was any tampering; it's entirely possible the recount won't result in any change to the final count. Remember, one of the biggest issues not taken into consideration w/r/t voters was the effect gutting the VRA would have:

In 2014, Wisconsin passed a strict photo ID law requiring voters to show specific, restrictive forms of identification at the polls. It is significant that only 27,000 votes currently separate President-elect Donald Trump and Secretary Hillary Clinton when 300,000 registered voters in the state lacked the strict forms of voter ID required. Wisconsin’s voter turnout was at its lowest level in two decades. Voter turnout in Milwaukee, where 70 percent of the state’s African American population lives, decreased by 13 percent; this meant 41,000 fewer votes. Milwaukee Election Commission Executive Director Neil Albrecht reports that the voter ID restrictions depressed turnout, saying “We saw some of the greatest declines in districts we projected would have most trouble with voter ID requirements.”

Michigan is another state that had that problem. To say nothing of how voter suppression affected Native American voters. Some people did choose not to vote this year but some people couldn't.

[windsprints]

She tweeted earlier today about people leaving signs on her street:

 

[ari333]

Those signs are sweet, Can people get that close to her?

[theredhead77]

1 hour ago, ari333 said:

Those signs are sweet, Can people get that close to her?

Who knows how long her street is or what protections / gates are up the road.

[Danny Franks]

Don't former presidents still get a Secret Service detail? I'd guess that Bill's guys are in charge of security at their house.

[BW Manilowe]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

Don't former presidents still get a Secret Service detail? I'd guess that Bill's guys are in charge of security at their house.

Yep, former presidents (& their wives) still get a Secret Service detail upon leaving the office. But somewhere in the last 3 POTUSes (Clinton, Bush 43, & Obama), & I forget which 1, they reduced protection for former POTUSes from lifetime to 10 years (I think it is) after leaving the presidency.

OK it turns out I inadvertently misspoke above. In 1994, they limited protection for former presidents as of January 1, 1997 to 10 years from the original lifetime protection. Then, in 2013, President Obama reversed that change & restored lifetime Secret Service protection to former presidents & their wives, under the Former Presidents Act.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act

And, yeah, since Bill actually reached the Oval Office, & Hillary didn't, I'd guess his detail's in charge of security at their house.

Edited November 25, 2016 by BW Manilowe
To add a comment.

[Jordan27]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 10:45 PM, slf said:

How can you be sure? And in what way are they manufactured?

They all started the next day in only 5 or 6 big cities.  Obviously planned and organized.   Common sense.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Jordan27 said:

They all started the next day in only 5 or 6 big cities.  Obviously planned and organized.   Common sense.

That didn't take much planning at all. A couple of announcements online was all it took since everyone was reacting to a specific thing in cities with a lot of local people eager to march. They were spontaneous requiring only hours of planning.

Edited November 26, 2016 by sistermagpie

[Chicken Wing]

1 hour ago, Jordan27 said:

They all started the next day in only 5 or 6 big cities.  Obviously planned and organized.   Common sense.

We live in the social media age. It takes literally no time at all to put an idea out there and have it spread like wildfire. Donald Trump himself lives by this. It's pretty much how he won the stupid election.

[Padma]

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 7:20 PM, ruby24 said:

It hurts me to post this update constantly, but now they're saying she will wind up with about 65 million votes, on par with Obama in '12, and will win the pop vote by 2.5 million.

That makes me want to cry. The majority is ignored.

It makes me want to cry but also want to cheer.  I don't know anyone personally who feels like I do about this (so for the umpteenth time thank you so much to the people here who are so involved and share so much and refuse to just say "Okay, Trump won. Now, back to normal life at last." No!!!!

Those numbers are a great reminder that his "win" is not normal.  Also, that for all Tubby's endless whining about how he would be a victim of "Crooked Hillary" and the "rigged system", it was HE who benefitted from being crooked and from subverting the will of the American people. First he had the help of Russia (which he publicly even asked for after they hacked the DNC--and, what do you know? They gave it again!  Then, when that failed, he had the help of the FBI director.  Beyond that, who knows? The results may have been legit, but they -do- look strange, in defiance of every poll including Tubby's own.)

These numbers remind us that HIllary WAS the popular choice. Maybe at some point the media and various liberals will think about that more than about "how we lost the election by losing the white working class to Trump". Yes, mistakes were made--as with all elections. But she WON the popular vote--and by over 2 million!!

I love that, too, because Tubby's ego can't handle it. "Well, if I were going for the popular vote, I would have spent more time in California."

HAHAHA.  Yes, Californians hated you 60:30 percent.  But you know what? If we'd been forced to see even MORE of you, that would have been 70: 20 percent.   Tubby will always have that asterisk in history clarifying that he was NOT the popular choice.  I really, really enjoy knowing that--and how it will disturb him for us to keep reminding people of it.

[ruby24]

2 minutes ago, Padma said:

It makes me want to cry but also want to cheer.  I don't know anyone personally who feels like I do about this (so for the umpteenth time thank you so much to the people here who are so involved and share so much and refuse to just say "Okay, Trump won. Now, back to normal life at last." No!!!!

Those numbers are a great reminder that his "win" is not normal.  Also, that for all Tubby's endless whining about how he would be a victim of "Crooked Hillary" and the "rigged system", it was HE who benefitted from being crooked and from subverting the will of the American people. First he had the help of Russia (which he publicly even asked for after they hacked the DNC--and, what do you know? They gave it again!  Then, when that failed, he had the help of the FBI director.  Beyond that, who knows? The results may have been legit, but they -do- look strange, in defiance of every poll including Tubby's own.)

These numbers remind us that HIllary WAS the popular choice. Maybe at some point the media and various liberals will think about that more than about "how we lost the election by losing the white working class to Trump". Yes, mistakes were made--as with all elections. But she WON the popular vote--and by over 2 million!!

I love that, too, because Tubby's ego can't handle it. "Well, if I were going for the popular vote, I would have spent more time in California."

HAHAHA.  Yes, Californians hated you 60:30 percent.  But you know what? If we'd been forced to see even MORE of you, that would have been 70: 20 percent.   Tubby will always have that asterisk in history clarifying that he was NOT the popular choice.  I really, really enjoy knowing that--and how it will disturb him for us to keep reminding people of it.

But it shouldn't be this way. I see those numbers and I think what kind of democracy are we if we allow this to happen? To go against the will of the voters in such a dramatic way?

You know what? I believe that if something like this had happened at ANY time in the first half of the 20th century, something probably would have been done about the electoral college. Because we actually used to amend the constitution back then, before it became this thing that for some reason is untouchable now (which it's not even supposed to be- the amendment process exists for a reason). But between 1888, when so many people couldn't even vote at all, and 2000, the person who won the popular vote always won anyway, so it was a moot point.

But I don't think anyone would agree that if there's a split THIS dramatic, the biggest in history, that this result is just. It simply isn't. The people chose her, not him. Most americans do not want this.

[Jolee]

On 11/22/2016 at 11:03 AM, Danny Franks said:

It would be fine if each state had a number of electoral votes in proportion to its population, which I assume was the original setup. But California has 38 million people living in it, and 55 electoral votes, while Montana has 1 million people and 3 electoral votes. They have one electoral vote per 330,000 people, while California has one per 690,000. How is that democratic?

Electoral Votes are decided by how Representatives a State has representing it in the House of Representatives.

Every State is automatically given 3 ( DC also has 3, though they are not represented in the House or Senate)

[kokapetl]

Isn't the number of electoral votes for each state the sum of that state's federal legislators? 

[Chicken Wing]

It's the sum of the number of senators plus the number of representatives in the House. Every state has two senators, but the number of representatives is proportionate to its population. Small states like Wyoming and the Dakotas have just one representative each, so three electoral votes. California has 53 representatives, so 55 electoral votes. The number of representatives nationwide is fixed into law at 435, so each state can't just add or delete its number of reps without apportioning the difference in another state -- the total still has equal 435. Adding the 100 senators (2 x 50 states) plus 3 electors for D.C. equals 538.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[windsprints]

Clinton campaign: We are taking part in the recount

[Padma]

5 minutes ago, windsprints said:

Clinton campaign: We are taking part in the recount

Thank you for this and the other very helpful links. I liked this part, "Wisconsin Green Party co-chairman George Martin said that the party was seeking a "reconciliation of paper records" which would take it a step farther."

That is excellent, as one form of suppression is the invalidation of largely minority ballots.  I did not like the wimpy response from the Clinton campaign, but am glad that they will also be participating in overseeing the integrity of the recounts.

This is so important. 

[molshoop]

This news should take the recount effort to 7million by tomorrow.  Hillary becoming

president is improbable, but as long as it isn't impossible and Trump hasn't been sworn in,

no one should give up.

[stormy]

re: tubby's statement about the recount.  Stein is just filling her coffers with the money she raised.  Well I guess he would know about making money off innocent people.

[NewDigs]

30 minutes ago, stormy said:

re: tubby's statement about the recount.  Stein is just filling her coffers with the money she raised.  Well I guess he would know about making money off innocent people.

In his mind he's probably seeing a missed opportunity. Asshole. 

I am thrilled with this latest recount news! Longshot or not it's an opportunity to really look over this patchwork of voting systems we have. And Whoopee! to the Clinton camp for adding their voices.

This whole process has been devastating and practically debilitating. It's nice to see a glimmer of light.

And it's really nice to have you wonderful people with whom to both cheer and commiserate. Hubby and I are 2 specks of bright blue in a bright neon red county, in Florida. Ya' pay for your sunshine in more ways than one.

[Duke Silver]

32 minutes ago, stormy said:

re: tubby's statement about the recount.  Stein is just filling her coffers with the money she raised.  Well I guess he would know about making money off innocent people.

Yet another instance of projection by him.  I swear, Masha Gessen is correct: at least in a deflective kind of way, Trump always tells us what he's gonna do.  The list is getting too long to compile at this point.  I posted about this pre-election day in another forum here; it's only gotten more ridiculous since then.

[Spartan Girl]

I don't know if this recount is a good thing or a bad thing, seeing as how it's probably not going to change anything.

But on the slim chance that this is the surprise happy ending to this shit-ass year...what have we got to lose?

[theredhead77]

Heh. NBC Nightly News just did a segment on the recount and it was ended with Trump claiming the whole system is rigged and Clinton is now leading by more than 2 million votes. Kudos for getting that number out there and reminding everyone that Trump was calling the system rigged.

Edited November 27, 2016 by theredhead77
recount is not recap.

[Padma]

Let's guess how long before Trump starts his own fundraising to "fight the Democrats challenging the will of the people in Wisconsin!"

Where there's money to be made, can Tubby be far behind?  (I'm sure those Cuban hotels took a step forward today too. That's what I got out of his tweet. "Castro's dead! Woo-hoo! Now those Miami Cubans won't mind when I get the government's permission to set up a few Trump Internationals there to cash in on the growing tourist trade!!! Money to be made!!!"*

*And, yes, I know Castro's been out of govt since 2008, but he's always a symbol. Now that Obama has loosened things up diplomatically, it's the perfect opportunity for Tubby's new hotel chain there! (And don't even think about a conflict of interest!  To quote Tubby--and Richard Nixon--"if the president does it, it isn't illegal!" There. Done!)

[Constantinople]

Time: Hillary Clinton Now Leads Donald Trump by Over 2.5 Million Votes

For all the good it does.

[Ceindreadh]

4 hours ago, Constantinople said:

Time: Hillary Clinton Now Leads Donald Trump by Over 2.5 Million Votes

For all the good it does.

It probably pisses off Trump every time he's reminded of it, so that's something. 

[ruby24]

Someone should fly this on a banner around Trump Tower for two hours a day, every single day. And wherever he goes. He's a minority president! The people chose Hillary! Stuff like that.

Edited December 1, 2016 by ruby24

[slf]

HRC won nearly two-thirds of the economy:

"But there's another divide exposed by the election, which researchers at the Brookings Institution recently discovered as they sifted the election returns. It has no bearing on the election outcome, but it tells us something important about the state of the country and its politics moving forward.

The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity last year.

Clinton, in other words, carried nearly two-thirds of the American economy.

Here's how the researchers, at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, visualized that. You can see immediately what's going on: With the exceptions of the Phoenix and Fort Worth areas, and a big chunk of Long Island, Clinton won every large-sized economic county in the country.

This appears to be unprecedented, in the era of modern economic statistics, for a losing presidential candidate."