2016: Historical Wave Election

[BlindBoo]

.
2016: Historical Wave Election




The only American election that compares to the ass kicking the Democrats suffered in the 2016 election is the election of 1920 when the Republicans took over all branches of government with huge majorities in both the House and Senate.

Check it out here ↴
Wave election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.

The Republican's lost seats in the Senate and the House. They held onto a very slim majority in the Senate. The election was Hillary's to lose. She did by ignoring the white middle class and focusing almost exclusively on minority rights.

and by ignoring states she thought she had in the bag

And by not asking Bernie to be her VP. That would have brought in the excitement she lacked.

 

[Auld Phart]

.
2016: Historical Wave Election




The only American election that compares to the ass kicking the Democrats suffered in the 2016 election is the election of 1920 when the Republicans took over all branches of government with huge majorities in both the House and Senate.

Check it out here ↴
Wave election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.

The Republican's lost seats in the Senate and the House. They held onto a very slim majority in the Senate. The election was Hillary's to lose. She did by ignoring the white middle class and focusing almost exclusively on minority rights.

and by ignoring states she thought she had in the bag

And by not asking Bernie to be her VP. That would have brought in the excitement she lacked.

Possibly, but I don't think either thought it would be a good fit

 

[BlindBoo]

.
2016: Historical Wave Election




The only American election that compares to the ass kicking the Democrats suffered in the 2016 election is the election of 1920 when the Republicans took over all branches of government with huge majorities in both the House and Senate.

Check it out here ↴
Wave election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.

The Republican's lost seats in the Senate and the House. They held onto a very slim majority in the Senate. The election was Hillary's to lose. She did by ignoring the white middle class and focusing almost exclusively on minority rights.

and by ignoring states she thought she had in the bag

And by not asking Bernie to be her VP. That would have brought in the excitement she lacked.

Possibly, but I don't think either thought it would be a good fit

One thing I think we can agree on. "White Votes Matter"

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.
2016: Historical Wave Election




The only American election that compares to the ass kicking the Democrats suffered in the 2016 election is the election of 1920 when the Republicans took over all branches of government with huge majorities in both the House and Senate.

Check it out here ↴
Wave election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.

The Republican's lost seats in the Senate and the House. They held onto a very slim majority in the Senate. The election was Hillary's to lose. She did by ignoring the white middle class and focusing almost exclusively on minority rights.

and by ignoring states she thought she had in the bag

And by not asking Bernie to be her VP. That would have brought in the excitement she lacked.

As close as it was in some of the swing states, I think you're probably right.

 

[Auld Phart]

.
2016: Historical Wave Election




The only American election that compares to the ass kicking the Democrats suffered in the 2016 election is the election of 1920 when the Republicans took over all branches of government with huge majorities in both the House and Senate.

Check it out here ↴
Wave election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.

The Republican's lost seats in the Senate and the House. They held onto a very slim majority in the Senate. The election was Hillary's to lose. She did by ignoring the white middle class and focusing almost exclusively on minority rights.

and by ignoring states she thought she had in the bag

And by not asking Bernie to be her VP. That would have brought in the excitement she lacked.

Possibly, but I don't think either thought it would be a good fit

One thing I think we can agree on. "White Votes Matter"

Can we?

I was brought up every vote matters, still believe it

 

[peach174]

Given that the Republicans lost seats in both the Senate and House as well as the popular vote, I wouldn't call this a wave election.

AMEN to that!

they and media, are trying to spin it that way, but reality says otherwise

Dems lost blue states , all of the south and gained control of all three branches. FACT!

they didn't gain control of congress or senate...they HAD CONTROL before the election and LOST seats, in both, still leaving them in control only with less representatives and less senators

You have to look at the big picture and then put it all together, starting in 2010.
The Dems just lost some blue counties to red.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Republican's lost seats in the Senate and the House. They held onto a very slim majority in the Senate. The election was Hillary's to lose. She did by ignoring the white middle class and focusing almost exclusively on minority rights.

and by ignoring states she thought she had in the bag

And by not asking Bernie to be her VP. That would have brought in the excitement she lacked.

Possibly, but I don't think either thought it would be a good fit

One thing I think we can agree on. "White Votes Matter"

Can we?

I was brought up every vote matters, still believe it

I'm in Texas. My vote didn't. In the states that mattered, Hillary lost the white voters Obama received.

Demographics.

Whites (including Hispanics who identify as white) constitute the majority, with a total of about 246,660,710, or 77.35% of the population as of 2014.

 

[martybegan]

Well only time will tell for certain.
There is just too much disinformation out there to know for certain.
I hope that they can get the curruption out of it. I dont see them wanting to get rid of the E. C. too many have not been taught about it, let alone understand why its so important to keep it.

Like he said if the E.C. was gone he would have campaigned in different States.

I dont want the EC gone either, I just want it to work the way it was intended by Madison and Hamilton who designed it wanted and initially worked....the two parties have manipulated it over the centuries so that it secures a two party system....

States are given 1 electoral vote for each congressional district, and then 2 elector votes for their two senators, which gives the smaller states their advantage over the largest states because they only get 2 electors for their senators as well.....that is how it was designed..... Electors did not and were NOT suppose to collude with the other electors in their state, but were suppose to vote individually for their district....

That would have to be changed by each State, as States set up how they select electors.

As far as I know only Maine and Nebraska go with the 2 senator EV's to the State winner and 1 EV to each district winner concept.

Of course, if all States went to that you would have the whole gerrymandering argument taken to a whole new level.

good point on the gerrymandering! But it too, distorts the citizen's vote in a way it was never meant to be by our founders....and secures a two party system.

Getting rid of a two party system would require constitutional amendments to change voting from top to bottom.

I am in favor of States using the Nebraska/Maine method, but something would have to be done to normalize congressional districts via a combination of closest match to equal population per district, and use of natural/man made barriers combined with least perimeter/area ratio to prevent winding, ridiculous districts.

It would not involve a constitutional amendment to make it like Maine and Nebraska have it...it only takes the State to do it themselves like Maine did and Nebraska did.... Each State has manipulated their EV votes with legislation over the years to secure the two party system, and made them, winner take all...they can just as easily, legislate it to where it goes back to congressional district, as it was suppose to be and initially was.... from my understanding of it....?

I can be done of course, but i doubt the larger, one party States would do so willingly. Why would NY Dems or California Dems even consider it?

Actually Texas would be more likely due to implied upcoming demographic shifts.

 

[Auld Phart]

and by ignoring states she thought she had in the bag

And by not asking Bernie to be her VP. That would have brought in the excitement she lacked.

Possibly, but I don't think either thought it would be a good fit

One thing I think we can agree on. "White Votes Matter"

Can we?

I was brought up every vote matters, still believe it

I'm in Texas. My vote didn't. In the states that mattered, Hillary lost the white voters Obama received.

Demographics.

Whites (including Hispanics who identify as white) constitute the majority, with a total of about 246,660,710, or 77.35% of the population as of 2014.

and Obama speculated on that, from his own experience
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/obama-where-democrats-went-wrong-211426348.html

 

[Care4all]

I dont want the EC gone either, I just want it to work the way it was intended by Madison and Hamilton who designed it wanted and initially worked....the two parties have manipulated it over the centuries so that it secures a two party system....

States are given 1 electoral vote for each congressional district, and then 2 elector votes for their two senators, which gives the smaller states their advantage over the largest states because they only get 2 electors for their senators as well.....that is how it was designed..... Electors did not and were NOT suppose to collude with the other electors in their state, but were suppose to vote individually for their district....

That would have to be changed by each State, as States set up how they select electors.

As far as I know only Maine and Nebraska go with the 2 senator EV's to the State winner and 1 EV to each district winner concept.

Of course, if all States went to that you would have the whole gerrymandering argument taken to a whole new level.

good point on the gerrymandering! But it too, distorts the citizen's vote in a way it was never meant to be by our founders....and secures a two party system.

Getting rid of a two party system would require constitutional amendments to change voting from top to bottom.

I am in favor of States using the Nebraska/Maine method, but something would have to be done to normalize congressional districts via a combination of closest match to equal population per district, and use of natural/man made barriers combined with least perimeter/area ratio to prevent winding, ridiculous districts.

It would not involve a constitutional amendment to make it like Maine and Nebraska have it...it only takes the State to do it themselves like Maine did and Nebraska did.... Each State has manipulated their EV votes with legislation over the years to secure the two party system, and made them, winner take all...they can just as easily, legislate it to where it goes back to congressional district, as it was suppose to be and initially was.... from my understanding of it....?

I can be done of course, but i doubt the larger, one party States would do so willingly. Why would NY Dems or California Dems even consider it?

Actually Texas would be more likely due to implied upcoming demographic shifts.

Because for the first time ever, their citizens would be represented in a Presidential election....it more than likely wouldn't be 'called' early, and before their polls close... the citizens would want it.

 

[martybegan]

That would have to be changed by each State, as States set up how they select electors.

As far as I know only Maine and Nebraska go with the 2 senator EV's to the State winner and 1 EV to each district winner concept.

Of course, if all States went to that you would have the whole gerrymandering argument taken to a whole new level.

good point on the gerrymandering! But it too, distorts the citizen's vote in a way it was never meant to be by our founders....and secures a two party system.

Getting rid of a two party system would require constitutional amendments to change voting from top to bottom.

I am in favor of States using the Nebraska/Maine method, but something would have to be done to normalize congressional districts via a combination of closest match to equal population per district, and use of natural/man made barriers combined with least perimeter/area ratio to prevent winding, ridiculous districts.

It would not involve a constitutional amendment to make it like Maine and Nebraska have it...it only takes the State to do it themselves like Maine did and Nebraska did.... Each State has manipulated their EV votes with legislation over the years to secure the two party system, and made them, winner take all...they can just as easily, legislate it to where it goes back to congressional district, as it was suppose to be and initially was.... from my understanding of it....?

I can be done of course, but i doubt the larger, one party States would do so willingly. Why would NY Dems or California Dems even consider it?

Actually Texas would be more likely due to implied upcoming demographic shifts.

Because for the first time ever, their citizens would be represented in a Presidential election....it more than likely wouldn't be 'called' early, and before their polls close... the citizens would want it.

In NY it becomes painfully obvious its not about what the citizens want, its what 3 guys in Albany want. NY's system basically puts power into the Assembly Speaker, The Senate Leader, and the Governor. The best example of this is MMA finally being allowed in NY only AFTER Sheldon Silver was tossed out via corruption convictions.

So if 2 of 3 remain democrats, why would they EVER allow the upstate EV's (and Staten island/Suffolk) to escape the downstate blue wave?

 

[Mac1958]

and all without winning the popular vote

Psst ----- there is no such thing as the "popular vote".

The term "popular vote" is used to describe the actual vote count.

For 2016, as of today:

Clinton - 61,782,016
Trump - 60,834,437

I assumed everyone knew this, but I was clearly wrong.
.

 

[Rustic]

and all without winning the popular vote

Look at the map, see all the red. The blue spots are tiny. We should pass out the vote based on acreage owed and be done with it.

Damn what is wrong with google, how come I can't pull up a 2016 election map?????? they keep going back to 2012 or 2008.

I need to find a new search engine.
Liberals hiding things on me.

Blue berries in a sea of red

 

[Care4all]

good point on the gerrymandering! But it too, distorts the citizen's vote in a way it was never meant to be by our founders....and secures a two party system.

Getting rid of a two party system would require constitutional amendments to change voting from top to bottom.

I am in favor of States using the Nebraska/Maine method, but something would have to be done to normalize congressional districts via a combination of closest match to equal population per district, and use of natural/man made barriers combined with least perimeter/area ratio to prevent winding, ridiculous districts.

It would not involve a constitutional amendment to make it like Maine and Nebraska have it...it only takes the State to do it themselves like Maine did and Nebraska did.... Each State has manipulated their EV votes with legislation over the years to secure the two party system, and made them, winner take all...they can just as easily, legislate it to where it goes back to congressional district, as it was suppose to be and initially was.... from my understanding of it....?

I can be done of course, but i doubt the larger, one party States would do so willingly. Why would NY Dems or California Dems even consider it?

Actually Texas would be more likely due to implied upcoming demographic shifts.

Because for the first time ever, their citizens would be represented in a Presidential election....it more than likely wouldn't be 'called' early, and before their polls close... the citizens would want it.

In NY it becomes painfully obvious its not about what the citizens want, its what 3 guys in Albany want. NY's system basically puts power into the Assembly Speaker, The Senate Leader, and the Governor. The best example of this is MMA finally being allowed in NY only AFTER Sheldon Silver was tossed out via corruption convictions.

So if 2 of 3 remain democrats, why would they EVER allow the upstate EV's (and Staten island/Suffolk) to escape the downstate blue wave?

regardless, they would get the 2 electors representing senators, voting for the majority vote of the state, and if every state did it this way, I don't see why they would be butt hurt.... a democrat would definitely lose some electoral votes to the Republican candidate or third party candidate for certain in NY State, but the democratic candidate would gain some in other States...

 

[martybegan]

Getting rid of a two party system would require constitutional amendments to change voting from top to bottom.

I am in favor of States using the Nebraska/Maine method, but something would have to be done to normalize congressional districts via a combination of closest match to equal population per district, and use of natural/man made barriers combined with least perimeter/area ratio to prevent winding, ridiculous districts.

It would not involve a constitutional amendment to make it like Maine and Nebraska have it...it only takes the State to do it themselves like Maine did and Nebraska did.... Each State has manipulated their EV votes with legislation over the years to secure the two party system, and made them, winner take all...they can just as easily, legislate it to where it goes back to congressional district, as it was suppose to be and initially was.... from my understanding of it....?

I can be done of course, but i doubt the larger, one party States would do so willingly. Why would NY Dems or California Dems even consider it?

Actually Texas would be more likely due to implied upcoming demographic shifts.

Because for the first time ever, their citizens would be represented in a Presidential election....it more than likely wouldn't be 'called' early, and before their polls close... the citizens would want it.

In NY it becomes painfully obvious its not about what the citizens want, its what 3 guys in Albany want. NY's system basically puts power into the Assembly Speaker, The Senate Leader, and the Governor. The best example of this is MMA finally being allowed in NY only AFTER Sheldon Silver was tossed out via corruption convictions.

So if 2 of 3 remain democrats, why would they EVER allow the upstate EV's (and Staten island/Suffolk) to escape the downstate blue wave?

regardless, they would get the 2 electors representing senators, voting for the majority vote of the state, and if every state did it this way, I don't see why they would be butt hurt.... a democrat would definitely lose some electoral votes to the Republican candidate or third party candidate for certain in NY State, but the democratic candidate would gain some in other States...

You are thinking like a rational person, and not a partisan hack in a State that is safely one color for every presidential election.

Why settle for 1/2 the EV's or 2/3's when you can have them all?

 

[peach174]

and all without winning the popular vote

Psst ----- there is no such thing as the "popular vote".

The term "popular vote" is used to describe the actual vote count.

For 2016, as of today:

Clinton - 61,782,016
Trump - 60,834,437

I assumed everyone knew this, but I was clearly wrong.
.

Thats exactly what the Dems did in the 70's of their monority of ideology.
Its how we as a collectve nation are able to change the ideologies of congress if we dont like it.
Remember our Revolutionary War, that was started by only a third of the population.

 

[Care4all]

It would not involve a constitutional amendment to make it like Maine and Nebraska have it...it only takes the State to do it themselves like Maine did and Nebraska did.... Each State has manipulated their EV votes with legislation over the years to secure the two party system, and made them, winner take all...they can just as easily, legislate it to where it goes back to congressional district, as it was suppose to be and initially was.... from my understanding of it....?

I can be done of course, but i doubt the larger, one party States would do so willingly. Why would NY Dems or California Dems even consider it?

Actually Texas would be more likely due to implied upcoming demographic shifts.

Because for the first time ever, their citizens would be represented in a Presidential election....it more than likely wouldn't be 'called' early, and before their polls close... the citizens would want it.

In NY it becomes painfully obvious its not about what the citizens want, its what 3 guys in Albany want. NY's system basically puts power into the Assembly Speaker, The Senate Leader, and the Governor. The best example of this is MMA finally being allowed in NY only AFTER Sheldon Silver was tossed out via corruption convictions.

So if 2 of 3 remain democrats, why would they EVER allow the upstate EV's (and Staten island/Suffolk) to escape the downstate blue wave?

regardless, they would get the 2 electors representing senators, voting for the majority vote of the state, and if every state did it this way, I don't see why they would be butt hurt.... a democrat would definitely lose some electoral votes to the Republican candidate or third party candidate for certain in NY State, but the democratic candidate would gain some in other States...

You are thinking like a rational person, and not a partisan hack in a State that is safely one color for every presidential election.

Why settle for 1/2 the EV's or 2/3's when you can have them all?

the way it is set up now, defeats the whole purpose of setting up the EV in the first place... and these larger states like NY could go without a visit from either candidate if the EV's are a winner takes all guarantee, as they are now... EV's were meant to get candidates to need the EV Vote in BOTH smaller AND larger population states.... and ALL States involved and a part of the process and voice in electing our President....

IT'S NOT WORKING as the founders planned because State PARTIES have manipulated it in to the President being chosen before a good deal if not half of the states have even completed their vote...

I just can't knock the feeling and thinking that this is just plain WRONG.

 

[martybegan]

I can be done of course, but i doubt the larger, one party States would do so willingly. Why would NY Dems or California Dems even consider it?

Actually Texas would be more likely due to implied upcoming demographic shifts.

Because for the first time ever, their citizens would be represented in a Presidential election....it more than likely wouldn't be 'called' early, and before their polls close... the citizens would want it.

In NY it becomes painfully obvious its not about what the citizens want, its what 3 guys in Albany want. NY's system basically puts power into the Assembly Speaker, The Senate Leader, and the Governor. The best example of this is MMA finally being allowed in NY only AFTER Sheldon Silver was tossed out via corruption convictions.

So if 2 of 3 remain democrats, why would they EVER allow the upstate EV's (and Staten island/Suffolk) to escape the downstate blue wave?

regardless, they would get the 2 electors representing senators, voting for the majority vote of the state, and if every state did it this way, I don't see why they would be butt hurt.... a democrat would definitely lose some electoral votes to the Republican candidate or third party candidate for certain in NY State, but the democratic candidate would gain some in other States...

You are thinking like a rational person, and not a partisan hack in a State that is safely one color for every presidential election.

Why settle for 1/2 the EV's or 2/3's when you can have them all?

the way it is set up now, defeats the whole purpose of setting up the EV in the first place... and these larger states like NY could go without a visit from either candidate if the EV's are a winner takes all guarantee, as they are now... EV's were meant to get candidates to need the EV Vote in BOTH smaller AND larger population states.... and ALL States involved and a part of the process and voice in electing our President....

IT'S NOT WORKING as the founders planned because State PARTIES have manipulated it in to the President being chosen before a good deal if not half of the states have even voted...

I just can't knock the feeling and thinking that this is just plain WRONG.

I agree it is wrong, however I don't see the individual State parties giving up their lock on EV's from the other side willingly.

California actually has a better shot at it than NY due to their popular referendum process.

 

[Care4all]

Because for the first time ever, their citizens would be represented in a Presidential election....it more than likely wouldn't be 'called' early, and before their polls close... the citizens would want it.

In NY it becomes painfully obvious its not about what the citizens want, its what 3 guys in Albany want. NY's system basically puts power into the Assembly Speaker, The Senate Leader, and the Governor. The best example of this is MMA finally being allowed in NY only AFTER Sheldon Silver was tossed out via corruption convictions.

So if 2 of 3 remain democrats, why would they EVER allow the upstate EV's (and Staten island/Suffolk) to escape the downstate blue wave?

regardless, they would get the 2 electors representing senators, voting for the majority vote of the state, and if every state did it this way, I don't see why they would be butt hurt.... a democrat would definitely lose some electoral votes to the Republican candidate or third party candidate for certain in NY State, but the democratic candidate would gain some in other States...

You are thinking like a rational person, and not a partisan hack in a State that is safely one color for every presidential election.

Why settle for 1/2 the EV's or 2/3's when you can have them all?

the way it is set up now, defeats the whole purpose of setting up the EV in the first place... and these larger states like NY could go without a visit from either candidate if the EV's are a winner takes all guarantee, as they are now... EV's were meant to get candidates to need the EV Vote in BOTH smaller AND larger population states.... and ALL States involved and a part of the process and voice in electing our President....

IT'S NOT WORKING as the founders planned because State PARTIES have manipulated it in to the President being chosen before a good deal if not half of the states have even voted...

I just can't knock the feeling and thinking that this is just plain WRONG.

I agree it is wrong, however I don't see the individual State parties giving up their lock on EV's from the other side willingly.

California actually has a better shot at it than NY due to their popular referendum process.

I believe that is how we got it here, through referendum vote....

doesn't new york have that process?

 

[martybegan]

In NY it becomes painfully obvious its not about what the citizens want, its what 3 guys in Albany want. NY's system basically puts power into the Assembly Speaker, The Senate Leader, and the Governor. The best example of this is MMA finally being allowed in NY only AFTER Sheldon Silver was tossed out via corruption convictions.

So if 2 of 3 remain democrats, why would they EVER allow the upstate EV's (and Staten island/Suffolk) to escape the downstate blue wave?

regardless, they would get the 2 electors representing senators, voting for the majority vote of the state, and if every state did it this way, I don't see why they would be butt hurt.... a democrat would definitely lose some electoral votes to the Republican candidate or third party candidate for certain in NY State, but the democratic candidate would gain some in other States...

You are thinking like a rational person, and not a partisan hack in a State that is safely one color for every presidential election.

Why settle for 1/2 the EV's or 2/3's when you can have them all?

the way it is set up now, defeats the whole purpose of setting up the EV in the first place... and these larger states like NY could go without a visit from either candidate if the EV's are a winner takes all guarantee, as they are now... EV's were meant to get candidates to need the EV Vote in BOTH smaller AND larger population states.... and ALL States involved and a part of the process and voice in electing our President....

IT'S NOT WORKING as the founders planned because State PARTIES have manipulated it in to the President being chosen before a good deal if not half of the states have even voted...

I just can't knock the feeling and thinking that this is just plain WRONG.

I agree it is wrong, however I don't see the individual State parties giving up their lock on EV's from the other side willingly.

California actually has a better shot at it than NY due to their popular referendum process.

I believe that is how we got it here, through referendum vote....

doesn't new york have that process?

Not quite:

From ballotpedia:

According to the New York Constitution, a majority vote is required in two successive sessions of the New York State Legislature in order to qualify a measure for the statewide ballot.

So only measures with the approval of the very legislators you are trying to get around (twice!) can become a statewide referendum.