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.
Trump won the electoral college. The narrative since Clinton lost is that she won the popular election. If you look at her lead, it's solely because of California. Trump won the combined popular vote in the other 49 states. Her lead in California is huge. One reason is that California is so far Left, republicans simply don't vote. Another is the polls had Clinton winning without California. And then there is the time difference. In the past there were elections called before the polls closed in California. A national lead based solely on the votes of California isn't impressive given all those factors.
Break it down further: Clinton only won the national vote because of the votes from eight counties in California. The reason we have an EC is as important today as it was 200+ years ago.
The popular vote is irrelevant and furthermore the constant whining from her supporters is pathetic ignorance. She lost.
Voters not only elected Trump, they gave Trump Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. The voters gave Trump a mandate in the clearest possible terms.
geezus...Clinton won the popular vote in 20 states, Trump won more counties. But when you resort to something bizarre claiming that she only won in 5 states or that she only carried a few counties it's just crazy an it makes no more sense than if I were to say that if all the Counties in California were the same size as Loving County Tx (pop 81) then there would be 482,926 counties in California and Clinton would have won 299,414 of them.
Trump won, he won by the rules that are in place. No one here is claiming anything otherwise, but to listen to some of you go through these arcane machinations to try to "prove" that Clinton did not have a larger popular vote is just plan bizarre.
I consider a 'mandate' to be where the nominee 'wins' by such a large, overwhelming margin, that members of the House (elected every two years) and those Senators up for re-election in the next election cycle, feel that they must pass the newly-elected president's agenda, or else (they think) feel the wrath of voters in said upcoming election (two years is a short period, after all).
Obviously, Mr. Trump's winning the E.C. by 36 votes is not an overwhelming margin. He also lost the popular vote (I consider the California factor argument silly; they are still voters, and Californians vote for Democrats in every election, at least for the past two decades).
It is why I think you will find plenty of Republicans that will be willing to defy Mr. Trump. Contrary to popular belief, many Republicans do not want to 'cozy up' to the Russian leader. Many Republicans are appalled (perhaps secretly) of the theft of DNC and Podesta emails (especially now with the news that it appears the Republicans also had stolen emails, to perhaps be used in future).
In short, many of his own Party will not consider Mr. Trump as having a 'mandate' from the public.
Of course, some (including I) take some pleasure in this. The 'birthers', which of course included Mr. Trump, have long tried to 'delegitimize' Mr. Obama's presidency with the idiocy (for no other word fits) that he was not born in the US of A and hence not eligible to be President.
Now, Mr. Trump will face the fact (and knowledge) that many will consider his presidency as not being totally legitimate since he lost the popular vote (spin it as you will, he lost the popular vote), even though he won the electoral college vote (which I have long recognized as being the true vote that counts).
Hence, while the reasonable, logical side of my brain will admit "Mr. Trump won the Presidency", the other side will delight in claiming "He has no mandate!", which statement is guaranteed to get the low-educated upset.
I will add: If Mr. Trump (whom I feel, at bottom, is a somewhat reasonable man) truly thought that he won an 'overwhelming' victory, he would keep his promise to 'lock her up'. Of course, he jettisoned that campaign promise within days of his election, and at a recent 'victory' stop even suggested that his supporters stop such chanting.
Usually in elections it is said the a landslide victory is needed to serve as a mandate for huge, sweeping changes in laws and programs. Trump won in the Electoral College with a good margin but most would not call it a landslide. Hillary Clinton is winning the national popular vote by the largest margin in U.S. history:
Clinton lead = 1,158,809 (source: Cook Political Report)
I'm weighing in on this once again to say, NO, Hell No!
The nationwide popular vote is meaningless, because that is not how we choose a president. We are 50 sovereign states, and each state holds an election, and the results choose the winner in that state by popular vote. Simply put, Trump won more states. That's all that matters.
I don't want California, Oregon, Washington and New York being the decider of the President, with the rest of America being disenfranchised, their votes not counting. That is what would happen with a direct election by popular vote. That is why the Framers wisely created the Electoral College, and this system has worked well for our entire history.
I consider a 'mandate' to be where the nominee 'wins' by such a large, overwhelming margin, that members of the House (elected every two years) and those Senators up for re-election in the next election cycle, feel that they must pass the newly-elected president's agenda, or else (they think) feel the wrath of voters in said upcoming election (two years is a short period, after all).
Obviously, Mr. Trump's winning the E.C. by 36 votes is not an overwhelming margin. He also lost the popular vote (I consider the California factor argument silly; they are still voters, and Californians vote for Democrats in every election, at least for the past two decades).
It is why I think you will find plenty of Republicans that will be willing to defy Mr. Trump. Contrary to popular belief, many Republicans do not want to 'cozy up' to the Russian leader. Many Republicans are appalled (perhaps secretly) of the theft of DNC and Podesta emails (especially now with the news that it appears the Republicans also had stolen emails, to perhaps be used in future).
In short, many of his own Party will not consider Mr. Trump as having a 'mandate' from the public.
Of course, some (including I) take some pleasure in this. The 'birthers', which of course included Mr. Trump, have long tried to 'delegitimize' Mr. Obama's presidency with the idiocy (for no other word fits) that he was not born in the US of A and hence not eligible to be President.
Now, Mr. Trump will face the fact (and knowledge) that many will consider his presidency as not being totally legitimate since he lost the popular vote (spin it as you will, he lost the popular vote), even though he won the electoral college vote (which I have long recognized as being the true vote that counts).
Hence, while the reasonable, logical side of my brain will admit "Mr. Trump won the Presidency", the other side will delight in claiming "He has no mandate!", which statement is guaranteed to get the low-educated upset.
I will add: If Mr. Trump (whom I feel, at bottom, is a somewhat reasonable man) truly thought that he won an 'overwhelming' victory, he would keep his promise to 'lock her up'. Of course, he jettisoned that campaign promise within days of his election, and at a recent 'victory' stop even suggested that his supporters stop such chanting.
Very well said, and while politicians can claim they have a mandate all they want, their ability to push through unpopular policy very much depends on the public's perception of whether the POTUS has a mandate and in Trump's case the public resoundingly denies that he does:Poll: 29 percent of Americans say Trump has a mandate to carry out agenda - POLITICO
IMO humility gets politicians much farther than braggadocio; but I don't think Trump is capable of humbling himself to the American people and asking for their cooperation
I consider a 'mandate' to be where the nominee 'wins' by such a large, overwhelming margin, that members of the House (elected every two years) and those Senators up for re-election in the next election cycle, feel that they must pass the newly-elected president's agenda, or else (they think) feel the wrath of voters in said upcoming election (two years is a short period, after all).
Obviously, Mr. Trump's winning the E.C. by 36 votes is not an overwhelming margin. He also lost the popular vote (I consider the California factor argument silly; they are still voters, and Californians vote for Democrats in every election, at least for the past two decades).
It is why I think you will find plenty of Republicans that will be willing to defy Mr. Trump. Contrary to popular belief, many Republicans do not want to 'cozy up' to the Russian leader. Many Republicans are appalled (perhaps secretly) of the theft of DNC and Podesta emails (especially now with the news that it appears the Republicans also had stolen emails, to perhaps be used in future).
In short, many of his own Party will not consider Mr. Trump as having a 'mandate' from the public.
Of course, some (including I) take some pleasure in this. The 'birthers', which of course included Mr. Trump, have long tried to 'delegitimize' Mr. Obama's presidency with the idiocy (for no other word fits) that he was not born in the US of A and hence not eligible to be President.
Now, Mr. Trump will face the fact (and knowledge) that many will consider his presidency as not being totally legitimate since he lost the popular vote (spin it as you will, he lost the popular vote), even though he won the electoral college vote (which I have long recognized as being the true vote that counts).
Hence, while the reasonable, logical side of my brain will admit "Mr. Trump won the Presidency", the other side will delight in claiming "He has no mandate!", which statement is guaranteed to get the low-educated upset.
I will add: If Mr. Trump (whom I feel, at bottom, is a somewhat reasonable man) truly thought that he won an 'overwhelming' victory, he would keep his promise to 'lock her up'. Of course, he jettisoned that campaign promise within days of his election, and at a recent 'victory' stop even suggested that his supporters stop such chanting.
so Trump can't do anything as president? He has to cater to the Democrats now? Sorry not happening
so Trump can't do anything as president? He has to cater to the Democrats now? Sorry not happening
not at all...he will defer to the Republican congress to make decisions, but at some point they all face re-election and they will advocate legislation that makes their constituents happy, and not all of them are in deep red states.
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.
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.
