Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Does Clinton's Popular Vote Victory Reduce Trump's Mandate?
YES. Trump's vote count is too low to be a mandate for sweeping change. 70 27.89%
NO. Trump won, and that's reason enough for a mandate for sweeping change. 125 49.80%
DOESN'T MATTER. The mandate concept is too vague to mean anything. 56 22.31%
Voters: 251. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Southern Nevada
6,855 posts, read 3,442,260 times
Reputation: 10535

Advertisements

The term "mandate" is one of the most misused terms there is. By definition it is "the authority to carry out a policy or course of action".

Just by winning the election, Trump now has the authority to implement his plan and it doesn't matter what Hillary, or the liberals, or anyone else thinks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
3,040 posts, read 5,025,900 times
Reputation: 3423
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Of course it means something, it means that overall, more people voted for Clinton than for Trump, it does not change the outcome of the election and I never said it did. But you just don't want to hear it because you support Trump it doesn't support your narrative.
Your right, it doesn't change a thing seeing how California is a winner take all state, so Hillary got 55 electoral votes. However, if the vote was proportioned via congressional districts then Hillary would have received 50 electoral votes and Trump 5 electoral votes. Winner takes all doesn't reflect the overall vote of the people in the state, it is still skewed toward the large metro areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:32 AM
 
Location: NYC
20,548 posts, read 17,868,918 times
Reputation: 25616
Go look at what kind of political system is running countries with high populations. That will be the result if we allow high population states and cities running the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,938 posts, read 19,614,488 times
Reputation: 9679
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
yes, the vote of people should matter more than the none existent vote for grass.
last I check PEOPLE in the other 49 states that YOU CALL GRASS voted

she got 48%, trump 47%, and 5%to the 'others'


and the FACT is that Hillary only got 48% of the vote...which means 52% voted AGAINST her

the amount of votes doesn't matter

winning the states is what matters

Trump won 30 states....Hillary won 20 states plus DC

let's look at some of those states Hillary won


look at Nevada...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 17 counties...Hillary won only 2....trump took 15 counties

look at Colorado ...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 64 counties...Hillary won only 23..... trump took 41 counties

look at Oregon ...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 36 counties...Hillary won only 8..... trump took 28 counties

look at Washington ...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 39 counties...Hillary won only 12..... trump took 27 counties

look at New Mexico...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 33 counties...Hillary won only 14..... trump took 19 counties

look at Minnesota ...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 87 counties...Hillary won only 9..... trump took 78 counties

look at VERY BLUE New York...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates.... but...out of 62 counties... Hillary won only 16..... trump took 46 counties

look at VERY BLUE Maryland...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates.... but...out of 24 counties... Hillary won only 7..... trump took 17 counties

look at Virginia...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates.... but...out of 133 counties... Hillary won only 40..... trump took 93 counties


look at Florida (trump won)....9 million pieces of grass voted...and of that 48.6% said trump over Hillary




Clinton lost because she is a proven liar
Candidate Hillary..."I'm for women".........................the real hillary........." the rapist was lured by the 15 yr old".... "all these tramps seduced my husband"


candidate Hillary..."I'm for minorities and blacks".......the real Hillary......"he's a n-word"


candidate Hillary...."I'm against the TTP"..........the real Hillary " I helped negotiate TTP, and Nafta was/is great"


candidate Hillary "woman should be paid the same".......the real Hillary 'everyone of my female staff is paid far less than my male staff'


Hillary "what difference does it make" . "lets move on from the past"........ I am sure ambassador Stevens and the others appreciate that hillary says what difference does it make


she proved that she is the MOST TWO-FACED POLITICAL CANDIDATE IN THE LAST 50 years
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,832 posts, read 26,588,423 times
Reputation: 34099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj View Post
Your right, it doesn't change a thing seeing how California is a winner take all state, so Hillary got 55 electoral votes. However, if the vote was proportioned via congressional districts then Hillary would have received 50 electoral votes and Trump 5 electoral votes. Winner takes all doesn't reflect the overall vote of the people in the state, it is still skewed toward the large metro areas.
You are correct, however if California had the same proportion of electoral votes per person as Wyoming it would have 200 electoral votes, so the Electoral college definitely skews toward small states, in fact that's why it was adopted.

According to the last census (in 2010), Wyoming, the nation's lowest population state, has just over 560,000 people. Those people get three electoral votes, or one per 186,000 people. California, our most populous state, has more than 37 million people. Those Californians have 55 electoral votes, or one per 670,000 people. Comparatively, people in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as people in California
How the Electoral College Rigged the Election for Trump - Rolling Stone
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:50 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,393,776 times
Reputation: 8958
Why does it matter? The election is over. Trump won in a landslide. Get over it! Who gives a damn what the results are in CA, probably the most liberal state in the union. They also have huge problems because of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,832 posts, read 26,588,423 times
Reputation: 34099
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
last I check PEOPLE in the other 49 states that YOU CALL GRASS voted she got 48%, trump 47%, and 5%to the 'others'
and the FACT is that Hillary only got 48% of the vote...which means 52% voted AGAINST her
What strange logic, using YOUR math 53.6% voted against Trump

According to figures released by The Associated Press on Wednesday, Clinton received 64,874,143 votes, while Trump received 62,516,883 votes -- a difference of 2,357,260. Converted into percentages, Clinton has won 48.1 percent of the vote so far, while Trump's share of the vote so far is 46.4 percent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:57 AM
 
59,555 posts, read 27,735,906 times
Reputation: 14419
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobisinthehouse View Post
That is better then I thought would happen in CAL for Trump.

What amazes me the most is that Florida voters, came out in huge numbers to vote for either Hilllary/Trump.

Florida was in 1st place with 9.091,260
California was 2nd place with 8,611,031

Florida Population is 20,271,272.
California Population is 39,358,742

Both presidential candidates stayed out of California. I believe if Trump went to California much more often he could have won the state.

2016 Election Results: President Live Map by State, Real-Time Voting Updates - POLITICO
This is why I don't like winner take all electoral votes states.

The electoral votes should be distributed according to the vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,938 posts, read 19,614,488 times
Reputation: 9679
Quote:
Originally Posted by peequi View Post
Thanks for sharing those numbers, very fascinating. FL is such an important state, I remember always hearing that but I realize it now. Huge electoral votes and a population that is more likely to vote and split right down the middle from Red to Blue.

My state, WA, is so boring. Guaranteed to go blue.

yes but,
look at Washington ...Hillary won the state (popular vote) and got the electoral delegates....but...out of 39 counties...Hillary won only 12..... trump took 27 counties
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,832 posts, read 26,588,423 times
Reputation: 34099
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Why does it matter? The election is over. Trump won in a landslide. Get over it! Who gives a damn what the results are in CA, probably the most liberal state in the union. They also have huge problems because of it.
Not exactly a landslide...
"...Trump didn’t win the electoral college in a landslide — not even close. He won 57% of electoral votes, but that’s well below average for winning candidates. His 306 electoral votes are comparable to the 303 John F. Kennedy won in 1960. That kind of election is generally called a squeaker, not a landslide."

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top