Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    10 Nov '16 03:191 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    With regard to the comments about Hillary Clinton losing the election supposedly because
    she's extremely unpopular with an extremely high unfavorability rating, I would point out:

    1) Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. She lost the electoral vote.
    2) Donald Trump had a worse unfavorability rating than Hillary Clinton.

    In fact, Hillary Clinton di ...[text shortened]... Trump.
    She lost because her popularity was distributed less favorably among the various states.
    She lost because she could not hold together the Obama coalition and/or bring new voters in to support her. In virtually all the critical swing states she lost, Trump's vote totals this year were under Obama's 2012 numbers. It is reasonable to postulate that someone like Sanders with a much higher favorability rating in general and popularity among young voters in particular could have done better and doing just a bit better would have won the election.

    Amazingly, she got less of the Hispanic vote this year than Obama did in 2012 (65% v. 71😵 even in the face of Trump's offensive comments towards that group. Overall, HRC got 6 million less votes than Obama in 2012 enabling Trump who got more than a million votes less than Romney in 2012 to win.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Nov '16 03:221 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    She lost because she could not hold together the Obama coalition and/or bring new voters in to support her. In virtually all the critical swing states she lost, Trump's vote totals this year were under Obama's 2012 numbers. It is reasonable to postulate that someone like Sanders with a much higher favorability rating and popularity among young voters cou ...[text shortened]... bama did in 2012 (65% v. 71😵 even in the face of Trump's offensive comments towards that group.
    I note that my post made no mention at all of Bernie Sanders.
    Is No1Marauder attempting to argue that Hillary Clinton's less popular than Donald Trump?

    In countries without an electoral college, Hillary Clinton would have won the election.
  3. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9781
    10 Nov '16 05:201 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    With regard to the comments about Hillary Clinton losing the election supposedly because
    she's extremely unpopular with an extremely high unfavorability rating, I would point out:

    1) Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. She lost the electoral vote.
    2) Donald Trump had a worse unfavorability rating than Hillary Clinton.

    In fact, Hillary Clinton di ...[text shortened]... Trump.
    She lost because her popularity was distributed less favorably among the various states.
    Keep in mind that many of Hillary's voters were not voting *for* her; they voting against Trump. In other words, many voters didn't pick Hillary because they liked her, but because she was the best way to stop Trump.

    The popular vote is far from any indication as to how popular she actually was.
  4. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82681
    10 Nov '16 08:29
    Originally posted by vivify
    Keep in mind that many of Hillary's voters were not voting *for* her; they voting against Trump. In other words, many voters didn't pick Hillary because they liked her, but because she was the best way to stop Trump.

    The popular vote is far from any indication as to how popular she actually was.
    mmmm.... You are probably correct. In terms of overall popularity about 47.7% voted Hillary against 47.5% for Trump. Voter turnout which has been on the decline saw around 48% of all eligible voters turn out, so Hillary with 0.2% more out of 48% of the total is not that big of a deal.

    But on the other hand, how well she was liked also depends on where you look. Urban vs rural, educated vs non-educated, modern mixed economies driven by finance, high tech and service industries vs economies riding the back of farming/resource and energy mining/production.

    As has been observed, America is no longer one two-party nation, but rather two one party nations, which by the vitriol generated in this election is probably destined only to be driven further and further apart.

    I started my own spreadsheet and did some analysis.

    On the one hand California, Blue State, 55 Electoral Votes.
    Clinton 5,488,261 votes vs Trump 2,969,532 votes.
    Clinton nett 2,518,729 votes, winning 45,795 nett popular votes for each electoral college vote.

    Now lets look at a loose collection of states that form that red North to South backbone of the nation along Route 83.

    11 Red States. 56 Electoral Votes up for grabs. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Missouri and Arkansas. And the results, drum roll please.....
    Trump 6,027,402 votes vs Clinton 3,395,753 votes.
    Trump nett, 2,631,649 votes winning 46,993 nett popular votes for each electoral college vote.

    Trump actually won more votes for each electoral college vote in this comparison. Does that make him more popular, or does his popularity just seem greater because he can blaze a trail through these low density areas in the same way a popular country artist can and draw the same truckload of people to his rallies?

    In the rural sprawl Trump has been the hottest ticket in town. In downtown LA politics is a sideshow. Draw your own conclusions.....
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Nov '16 09:30
    Originally posted by kmax87
    As has been observed, America is no longer one two-party nation, but rather two one party nations, which by the vitriol generated in this election is probably destined only to be driven further and further apart.
    I think that is inaccurate. The majority of people who voted (only half the populace) only voted along party lines because of a lack of choice. I suspect democrat's have a wide range of views of which Clinton is at one end. Politics require here to lean as far right as possible without going further right than the opposition. Its called Hotelling's Law:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law

    In addition although may people have been very anti Trump or anti Clinton, there have been very few pro Trump or pro Clinton voices suggesting people are much less one part and a lot more anti-one party.
  6. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    10 Nov '16 09:48
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    She lost because she could not hold together the Obama coalition and/or bring new voters in to support her. In virtually all the critical swing states she lost, Trump's vote totals this year were under Obama's 2012 numbers. It is reasonable to postulate that someone like Sanders with a much higher favorability rating in general and popularity among young ...[text shortened]... Obama in 2012 enabling Trump who got more than a million votes less than Romney in 2012 to win.
    You can't discount the third party/other impact, either.
    ~2M in the 2012 election compared to ~6M this time.
    How many of those votes would have gone to either is difficult to say; most folks I know considered their ballots cast for third party candidates a rejection vote.
  7. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82681
    10 Nov '16 12:121 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think that is inaccurate. The majority of people who voted (only half the populace) only voted along party lines because of a lack of choice. I suspect democrat's have a wide range of views of which Clinton is at one end. Politics require here to lean as far right as possible without going further right than the opposition. Its called Hotelling's Law:
    ...[text shortened]... mp or pro Clinton voices suggesting people are much less one part and a lot more anti-one party.
    Since 1932, voter turnout as a proportion of voting eligible population has sat around 55%. Initial reports pegged 2016 to draw less than 50% of the voting eligible population but as the results have come in it looks like 55% of the VEP came out to vote. But saying only half the population came out to vote suggests something entirely different to an observed 84yr trend.

    I think your characterization that people only voted along party lines, in the absence of choice, is suspect. It presupposes that given a choice they would have abandoned party lines with significant numbers swinging over to the other party.
    Sort of Reagan Democrats vs Clinton Republicans 2.0.

    While its tempting to dismiss any notion that deep ideological differences exist that increasingly divide people into partisan camps, the Trump rallies demonstrated the extent to which a rural nation exists as a distinct separate nation, with its own views and norms that go largely unreported by the mainstream media. Nothing exemplifies this disconnect more than the notion that there were few pro Trump voices. This while he hopped around the nation from one adoring crowd to another in the manner of a superstar. The extent to which pundits and polls missed Trump's phenomenon only underlines the huge disconnect between the urban mainstream and the rural upstream.

    From the wiki on Hotelling's Law:-
    An extension of the principle into other environments of rational choice such as election "markets" can explain the common complaint that, for instance, the presidential candidates of the two American political parties are "practically the same". Once each candidate is confirmed during primaries, they are usually established within their own partisan camps. The remaining undecided electorate resides in the middle of the political spectrum, and there is a tendency for the candidates to "rush for the middle" in order to appeal to this crucial bloc. Like the paradigmatic example, the assumption is that people will choose the least distant option, (in this case, the distance is ideological) and that the most votes can be had by being directly in the center.

    Applying Hotelling's Law to American voters suggests that far from being the least worst option, both candidates simply represented the least distant option to carry the hopes, dreams and aspirations of "their people".
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Nov '16 21:541 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    Keep in mind that many of Hillary's voters were not voting *for* her; they voting against Trump.
    In other words, many voters didn't pick Hillary because they liked her, but because she was the best way to stop Trump.

    The popular vote is far from any indication as to how popular she actually was.
    In another recent thread, "The End of 2016 Campaign: A Closer Look", Vivify has shown
    his bias against Hillary Clinton. Vivify was denounced by No1Marauder, Twhitehead,
    and Zahlanzi for making unfair accusations against Hillary Clinton or Chelsea Clinton.

    "The popular vote is *far from any indication* as to how popular she actually was."
    --Vivify

    So Vivify apparently wants *not* to count votes and to measure popularity (which he idolizes) by what?
    By the loudest sound level of people screaming their hatred of Hillary Clinton?
    Even on 'American Idol' (pop culture television), popularity is measured by votes
    rather than by how loudly the audience can scream.
  9. Standard memberlemon lime
    ookookachu
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    10 Nov '16 23:20
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    With regard to the comments about Hillary Clinton losing the election supposedly because
    she's extremely unpopular with an extremely high unfavorability rating, I would point out:

    1) Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. She lost the electoral vote.
    2) Donald Trump had a worse unfavorability rating than Hillary Clinton.

    In fact, Hillary Clinton di ...[text shortened]... Trump.
    She lost because her popularity was distributed less favorably among the various states.
    She lost because her popularity was distributed less favorably among the various states.

    Hillary Clinton: "Note to self. Next time distribute my popularity more favorably among the various states. Send operatives to find D64 and offer her a position to help run my campaign next time... if there is a next time."
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Nov '16 23:231 edit
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    [b]She lost because her popularity was distributed less favorably among the various states.

    Hillary Clinton: "Note to self. Next time distribute my popularity more favorably among the various states.
    Send operatives to find D64 and offer her a position to help run my campaign next time... if there is a next time."[/b]
    Lemon Lime apparently fails to comprehend that my comment about Hillary Clinton's votes being
    'distributed less favorably among the various states' was directed at the electoral college system.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52866
    10 Nov '16 23:59
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Lemon Lime apparently fails to comprehend that my comment about Hillary Clinton's votes being
    'distributed less favorably among the various states' was directed at the electoral college system.
    It seems to me too many presidential elections have been decided by electoral college over popular vote. To win the popular vote yet still lose the election is a dead giveaway of effective but despicable gerrymandering. It ceases to be a democracy.
  12. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    767
    11 Nov '16 00:02
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It seems to me too many presidential elections have been decided by electoral college over popular vote. To win the popular vote yet still lose the election is a dead giveaway of effective but despicable gerrymandering. It ceases to be a democracy.
    Sonhouse we finally agree on something. Things are pretty dicey with our democracy where voter fraud has gone rampant. If they can get a handle on that, it would be nice just to have a popular vote and be done with it.
  13. Standard memberlemon lime
    ookookachu
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    11 Nov '16 00:10
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Lemon Lime apparently fails to comprehend that my comment about Hillary Clinton's votes being
    'distributed less favorably among the various states' was directed at the electoral college system.
    🙄
    ( my initial reaction )

    I'm guessing few are laughing at SNL right now, but I'm confident they will all manage to muster their courage and find their lost sense of humour again.


    By the way, this business of telling people they don't comprehend... does that actually work? What percentage iyo do you think might believe they do not comprehend simply based on you saying so? Is this something you say to bolster confidence in yourself, or do you really believe you are the 'smartest person in the room'?
  14. Standard memberlemon lime
    ookookachu
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    11 Nov '16 00:372 edits
    All of this recent talk about educated vs non-educated has gotten me to thinking (gasp). What our country needs right now are government funded re-education camps. You know, for people like me, who failed to learn what I'm supposed to believe even after years of having it pounded into me... it obviously didn't sink in the first time. Re-education camps are not unprecedented, and tend to have higher success rates than other more conventional forms of education...






    Yeah, in a pig's eye !! 😠
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    11 Nov '16 01:332 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It seems to me too many presidential elections have been decided by electoral college over popular vote.
    To win the popular vote yet still lose the election is a dead giveaway of effective but despicable gerrymandering.
    It ceases to be a democracy.
    In two out of the past five elections, the winner of the popular vote has lost in the electoral college.
    2000: Al Gore, George W Bush
    2016: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump
Back to Top