Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
QuickHead555

Michigan called for Donald Trump on 11/28/16

Recommended Posts

Michigan has just certified it's election results, and the news outlets have just declared Trump the winner of the state. He won by 11,000 votes, or 0.3% of the votes. Making him the first republican since George H W Bush to win Michigan.

 

FINAL RESULTS:

DONALD TRUMP: 2,279,805

HILLARY CLINTON: 2,268,193

GARY JOHNSON: 173,057

JILL STEIN: 50,700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, QuickHead555 said:

Michigan has just certified it's election results, and the news outlets have just declared Trump the winner of the state. He won by 11,000 votes, or 0.3% of the votes. Making him the first republican since George H W Bush to win Michigan.

 

FINAL RESULTS:

DONALD TRUMP: 2,279,805

HILLARY CLINTON: 2,268,193

GARY JOHNSON: 173,057

JILL STEIN: 50,700

It doesn't really matter. The electoral college is still a flawed system, as is the bottle-necking primaries forcing only two candidates per election who end up with any real chance of winning and are often disappointing nominees in the end, and the de facto enforcement and entrenchment of a two-party system because of the "one candidate MUST win an absolute majority of EV's or the outgoing House decides clause," and private donors and special interest lobby groups having more say in the course of an election and more real, de facto, sway over what elected candidates will end up doing, and the skewing by the US media (which always ends up meaning only a Republican or Democrat even get enough coverage to remotely have a chance of winning) are all issues of the broken US electoral system that haven't been fixed, and likely, but unfortunately, won't... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Patine said:

It doesn't really matter. The electoral college is still a flawed system, as is the bottle-necking primaries forcing only two candidates per election who end up with any real chance of winning and are often disappointing nominees in the end, and the de facto enforcement and entrenchment of a two-party system because of the "one candidate MUST win an absolute majority of EV's or the outgoing House decides clause," and private donors and special interest lobby groups having more say in the course of an election and more real, de facto, sway over what elected candidates will end up doing, and the skewing by the US media (which always ends up meaning only a Republican or Democrat even get enough coverage to remotely have a chance of winning) are all issues of the broken US electoral system that haven't been fixed, and likely, but unfortunately, won't... :(

The primaries do not have anything to do with the electoral college.  They are associated to the parties.  If there were decent candidates that ran as independents or third party, then maybe the 2 party system would be broken, but that is not the case.  Rose Perot was the last independent to ran as the people's candidate, but he shot himself in the foot by dropping out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

The primaries do not have anything to do with the electoral college.  They are associated to the parties.  If there were decent candidates that ran as independents or third party, then maybe the 2 party system would be broken, but that is not the case.  Rose Perot was the last independent to ran as the people's candidate, but he shot himself in the foot by dropping out.

What about the disproportionate power of donors and lobby groups over the actual voters. Even though there was a Supreme Court ruling on the issue, it had the feeling, a suspicious, though I won't even begin to claim to know enough information to make an accusation or statement with any authority, but that ruling suspiciously smacked of the possibility of some form of corruption of one or more justices, especially because the results took the ceiling off how much money such groups could freely spend, with no accountability, to sway elections in a disproportionate manner, but, again, I don't know enough to firmly make such an accusation. However, campaign financing reform I believe IS an issue, and declaring it protected by "freedom of speech," which is an iffy and tangentially-defensible argument, at best, and thus closing the case, is a cheap tactic indeed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

It doesn't really matter. The electoral college is still a flawed system, as is the bottle-necking primaries forcing only two candidates per election who end up with any real chance of winning and are often disappointing nominees in the end, and the de facto enforcement and entrenchment of a two-party system because of the "one candidate MUST win an absolute majority of EV's or the outgoing House decides clause," and private donors and special interest lobby groups having more say in the course of an election and more real, de facto, sway over what elected candidates will end up doing, and the skewing by the US media (which always ends up meaning only a Republican or Democrat even get enough coverage to remotely have a chance of winning) are all issues of the broken US electoral system that haven't been fixed, and likely, but unfortunately, won't... :(

If there wasn't an electoral college, Trump would have campaigned in California, New York, and Florida, and would have won easier and by a bigger margin. Without an electoral college, states like California decide everything, and the candidates would be bought out easier by the larger states, and become their puppets, by promising them entitlements so they could clinch as many votes there as they can.

I agree it's a flawed system, but there's no better alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

If there wasn't an electoral college, Trump would have campaigned in California, New York, and Florida, and would have won easier and by a bigger margin.

Republicans keep saying this but there's absolutely no evidence to back it up.  No matter how much he campaigned in New York or California, he (would) never had a chance at winning those states.  Could he have won Florida more easily?  Maybe.  But this talk about Trump somehow winning or even narrowing the lead a significant amount in California and New York is nonsense.  Just because he campaigns and meets some Californians and New Yorkers doesn't just make them forget the way he's acted this whole election and cause them to completely disregard all of their political beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Republicans keep saying this but there's absolutely no evidence to back it up.  No matter how much he campaigned in New York or California, he (would) never had a chance at winning those states.  Could he have won Florida more easily?  Maybe.  But this talk about Trump somehow winning or even narrowing the lead a significant amount in California and New York is nonsense.  Just because he campaigns and meets some Californians and New Yorkers doesn't just make them forget the way he's acted this whole election and cause them to completely disregard all of their political beliefs.

Of course he wouldn't have won the states, but he would have gotten a bigger lead doing so than campaigning in Wyoming and South Dakota, for example. Moderates made up 37% of the Californian electorate, according to CNN exit polls, and Trump could have swayed over them easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

 

I agree it's a flawed system, but there's no better alternative.

That's a pretty absolutist and hugely presumptuous statement. You're basically saying, flat out, that not only all proposed alternatives, but all possible or potential that could be developed in the future, sight unseen, by default, are automatically alternative to the current system you admit yourself is flawed. That ALMOST reeks of nihilistic, or at least fatalistic, resignation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

If there wasn't an electoral college, Trump would have campaigned in California, New York, and Florida, and would have won easier and by a bigger margin. Without an electoral college, states like California decide everything, and the candidates would be bought out easier by the larger states, and become their puppets, by promising them entitlements so they could clinch as many votes there as they can.

I agree it's a flawed system, but there's no better alternative.

For reference, even if you won 100% of the population in the top 100 cities (by pop.), that would only equal 37%.

 

PV would force candidates to campaign everywhere, rather than in a bunch of close states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jnewt said:

Republicans keep saying this but there's absolutely no evidence to back it up.  No matter how much he campaigned in New York or California, he (would) never had a chance at winning those states.  Could he have won Florida more easily?  Maybe.  But this talk about Trump somehow winning or even narrowing the lead a significant amount in California and New York is nonsense.  Just because he campaigns and meets some Californians and New Yorkers doesn't just make them forget the way he's acted this whole election and cause them to completely disregard all of their political beliefs.

George W. Bush won 44% of California.  There are plenty of votes in California for Republicans to harvest if they decided to campaign there for the national popular vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The electoral college keeps us from tyranny of the majority. If 1 party were to just cater to one region and win in a landslide while losing every where else by a small to moderate margin we would be slaves to that region. The electoral college encourages coalition building and Trump's coalition of blue collar workers and traditional Old Guards conservatives was better that Hillary's of White liberals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Patine said:

What about the disproportionate power of donors and lobby groups over the actual voters. Even though there was a Supreme Court ruling on the issue, it had the feeling, a suspicious, though I won't even begin to claim to know enough information to make an accusation or statement with any authority, but that ruling suspiciously smacked of the possibility of some form of corruption of one or more justices, especially because the results took the ceiling off how much money such groups could freely spend, with no accountability, to sway elections in a disproportionate manner, but, again, I don't know enough to firmly make such an accusation. However, campaign financing reform I believe IS an issue, and declaring it protected by "freedom of speech," which is an iffy and tangentially-defensible argument, at best, and thus closing the case, is a cheap tactic indeed...

If you are referencing Citizens United I would suggest you heck your facts on that. That ruling had to do with a private company funding a movie exposing Clinton Corruption. Now we see why the Democratic Party, In the pocket of the Clintons mind you, opposes such a simple and utterly commonsense ruling on the first Amendment of Our Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

If you are referencing Citizens United I would suggest you heck your facts on that. That ruling had to do with a private company funding a movie exposing Clinton Corruption. Now we see why the Democratic Party, In the pocket of the Clintons mind you, opposes such a simple and utterly commonsense ruling on the first Amendment of Our Constitution.

It does show a certain degree of naivety to believe that ANY US Supreme Court will ONLY be restricted to the subject of the case in question and not be exploited ruthlessly by ANYONE who thinks they can benefit somehow from the decision made, regardless of the ethics of such exploitation or even if they are within the actual spirit of the ruling. You must admit, given past precedent, such tightly-focused, contained, and kept-to-the-spirit applications of such rulings are next to non-existent nowadays...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether we like it or not, outside groups spending on the election is free speech and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment.  But, these outside groups have to report to the FEC, so they are not unaccountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2016 at 6:11 PM, Patine said:

It does show a certain degree of naivety to believe that ANY US Supreme Court will ONLY be restricted to the subject of the case in question and not be exploited ruthlessly by ANYONE who thinks they can benefit somehow from the decision made, regardless of the ethics of such exploitation or even if they are within the actual spirit of the ruling. You must admit, given past precedent, such tightly-focused, contained, and kept-to-the-spirit applications of such rulings are next to non-existent nowadays...

I am not saying it hasn't been used for other purposes but the original ruling was the right and just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually not surprised that Trump won MI, when Bernie upset her in the primary, it should have been a sign of her weakness in the state among the WWC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2016 at 8:29 AM, Jayavarman said:

George W. Bush won 44% of California.  There are plenty of votes in California for Republicans to harvest if they decided to campaign there for the national popular vote.

California never going to republican again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2016 at 11:20 PM, jnewt said:

Republicans keep saying this but there's absolutely no evidence to back it up.  No matter how much he campaigned in New York or California, he (would) never had a chance at winning those states.  Could he have won Florida more easily?  Maybe.  But this talk about Trump somehow winning or even narrowing the lead a significant amount in California and New York is nonsense.  Just because he campaigns and meets some Californians and New Yorkers doesn't just make them forget the way he's acted this whole election and cause them to completely disregard all of their political beliefs.

in this alternate world trends would be alternative from owns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

in this alternate world trends would be alternative from owns.

Well, thank-you, Professor Hawkings, but I believe the difference in such a case would not be so wildly, randomly off as you might be implying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2016 at 6:10 PM, Presidentinsertname said:

California never going to republican again.

Irrelevant.  The discussion concerned the national popular vote, not any state's electoral votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnnyK said:

They want jobs!

For future reference, it is typically considered very rude to quote someone and then edit their quote. You changed the quote to include derogatory names for the other candidates, and while it's (somewhat) acceptable to call them that in your own post, it's not typically allowed on this forum to put those words into someone else's mouth.

Again, I'm not trying to be purposely nitpicky or anything of the like, but I've seen some of the forum members get very upset about others doing this and figured I'd let you know :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnnyK said:

I didn't edit anybody's quote?

Do you have a program that changes certain names to something else.  I know that @Reagan04 had problem with that (changing Trump to Drumpf).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...