This is why the electoral college is a good thing. So that big cities with high populations, usually liberal (see: San Fran, Chicago, NYC), don't have so much sway that they can dictate the way of life for the rest of us that live in the suburbs or rural areas.
The majority of Americans as far as population goes who live in these progressive cities have been disenfranchised. Their progressive states are getting dragged into this mess by the rural voters in states and cities. Our voices are not heard due to places that tend to actively disenfranchise certain groups, treat education as a luxury and the first budget item to be cut, and contain people who often claim to be religious but these places went all in on a New York Billionaire to represent them this guy who has been married three times, has had affairs, sexually assaults people, and can't tell you his favorite Bible passage because he hasn't read it.
It's worth noting that Hillary is still projected to win the popular vote. If you want to "blame" anything for her loss, it's the electoral college.
This is why the electoral college is a good thing. So that big cities with high populations, usually liberal (see: San Fran, Chicago, NYC), don't have so much sway that they can dictate the way of life for the rest of us that live in the suburbs or rural areas.
That is the argument for the electoral college. The counterargument, of course, is that because of the electoral college, instead we have suburban and rural areas dictating the way of life for the people who live in those urban areas.
Democracy is supposed to protect the minority, yes, but when the majority (or plurality in this case) is ignored, that's a sign of a flawed system. There's also the fact that the electoral college makes some voters (those who live in Montana, for instance) more powerful than others (those who live in Washington DC), and bloats the importance of swing states where the margin is as little as a few hundred votes, in comparison to states where the margin is millions.
In this election the popular vote is close. In 2000, it wasn't close. And by the time all the absentee ballots are counted, this election might not end up being close in the popular vote either.
This is why the electoral college is a good thing. So that big cities with high populations, usually liberal (see: San Fran, Chicago, NYC), don't have so much sway that they can dictate the way of life for the rest of us that live in the suburbs or rural areas.
That's why abolishing the electoral college would be a good thing. So that suburbs or rural areas, usually conservative, don't have so much sway that they can dictate the way of life for the rest of us that live in big cities with high populations.
Incidentally, small states already have a powerful check on the federal government. Each state has two senators who can block nationwide legislation if it hurts their interests, even if they only represent a small fraction of another state's population. In fact, the Senate is the stronger of the two chambers of Congress, and North Dakota has just as much power in the Senate as my home state of Texas. Rural states already have a huge advantage to compensate for their lower population.
The electoral college's original purpose was to prevent demagogues from coming to power, because the President was supposed to be chosen by elite electors rather than the general public. When the Founding Fathers were figuring out how to create a stable democratic system, one of their primary concerns was limiting the power of demagogues.
And that's what makes me so smug. The media might as well have done Hillary's campaigning for her while desperately throwing anything and everything they could at Trump, and nothing stuck. Its a gigantic "screw you" to the media and I will happily drown in their salty, corrupt tears.
"Throwing anything and everything" = "reporting on things he said and did".
This is why the electoral college is a good thing. So that big cities with high populations, usually liberal (see: San Fran, Chicago, NYC), don't have so much sway that they can dictate the way of life for the rest of us that live in the suburbs or rural areas.
Why is it a good thing that you who live in the suburbs or rural areas can dictate the way of life for the larger amount of people that live in big cities with high populations? Why are you worth more than them?
The Electoral College is nothing by a remnant of an antiquated age devised by slave holders to provide concessions to states with a large slave population. It's subverted the actual will of the voters in 2 of the last 5 elections. The results were a DISASTER last time, this time they will be nothing short of cataclysmic. It's quite a thing to watch your country self-immolate in real-time. This is all on the people who voted for Trump. You own this, and when it all starts to burn, don't look to me or those who voted against this monster or assign blame to us. You broke it, you bought it.
The breakdown of the Senate gives the Republicans only a very slim majority; any nominee presented must have Democrat support in order to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. That being said, moving forward into the near future the Court is not going to restrict gun rights or abortion rights so the two primary issues are as secure as they are right now.
So how does the appointment of a judge for the Supreme Court work?
Is the majority of the Senate not sufficient? Yes the Republicans only hold a very slim majority there, but it's a majority still. Can the Democrats still block a judge from being appointed even if all Republicans vote for him?
Also I wasn't talking about "near future". That's exactly what I meant with "decades". Gun or abortion rights may very well be an issue in the coming decades.
The Senate has a procedure called a "filibuster". This is when a senator uses his time to talk to block a vote. It used to be that they actually had to talk continuously for the whole time (see the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), but now they just have to declare their intent to filibuster. Ending a filibuster needs 60 votes, so if the Democrats filibuster the vote on a nominee, the Republicans would need 9 Dems to vote their way.
When Anthony Scalia died, the Pubs refused to even hold a vote on Obama's nominee. During the campaign, Mitch McConnell stated that the Senate wouldn't approve any of Clinton's nominees, so there's a lot of bad blood over this issue. The Dems will almost certainly use the filibuster to try to force Trump to nominate judges who aren't hard-right ideologues.
If you think the Republican majority in the Senate isn't going to abolish the filibuster at first chance you know nothing about Republicans and how they operate. They are a radical, right-wing, fascist party. They will get rid of it. It isn't even a question.
I agree the media owns a large part of the blame. On one hand their breathless coverage of the email server that amounted to nothing helped Trump. On the other whenever Trump would do something deplorable they would allow his surrogates to explain away things. They should have rolled the tape here he is saying that horrible thing, there is no other side. In the interest of balance they gave credibility to the guilianies, christies, and conways who would deny the sky is blue even when Trump just said it's blue.
Oh yeah and then Cologne happened... And suddenly refugees were no God-sent gift any longer. The media finally shut up about their blind praise.
Ah, yes, because when a miniscule percentage of the huge refugee population in Germany commit a crime, it reflects upon them all (this is true even though lots of the people involved weren't refugees).
Of course, when a group of Germans in reaction started murdering random refugees that weren't shown to be guilty of anything, I should draw no conclusions about the character of Germans.
Whatever could be the difference, I wonder?
(Other things that definitely do not reflect on Germans: The fact the sexual assaults were not treated seriously by police at the time they happened, that Germany had higher rates of sexual assault and rape than the EU average before the refugees came there, that having sex with someone who said "No" was not rape by law in Germany until 2016. It is only when a member of a powerless minority does a bad thing that this shows how dangerous and terrible the group is.)
The breakdown of the Senate gives the Republicans only a very slim majority; any nominee presented must have Democrat support in order to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. That being said, moving forward into the near future the Court is not going to restrict gun rights or abortion rights so the two primary issues are as secure as they are right now.
So how does the appointment of a judge for the Supreme Court work?
Is the majority of the Senate not sufficient? Yes the Republicans only hold a very slim majority there, but it's a majority still. Can the Democrats still block a judge from being appointed even if all Republicans vote for him?
Also I wasn't talking about "near future". That's exactly what I meant with "decades". Gun or abortion rights may very well be an issue in the coming decades.
The Senate has a procedure called a "filibuster". This is when a senator uses his time to talk to block a vote. It used to be that they actually had to talk continuously for the whole time (see the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), but now they just have to declare their intent to filibuster. Ending a filibuster needs 60 votes, so if the Democrats filibuster the vote on a nominee, the Republicans would need 9 Dems to vote their way.
When Anthony Scalia died, the Pubs refused to even hold a vote on Obama's nominee. During the campaign, Mitch McConnell stated that the Senate wouldn't approve any of Clinton's nominees, so there's a lot of bad blood over this issue. The Dems will almost certainly use the filibuster to try to force Trump to nominate judges who aren't hard-right ideologues.
If you think the Republican majority in the Senate isn't going to abolish the filibuster at first chance you know nothing about Republicans and how they operate. They are a radical, right-wing, fascist party. They will get rid of it. It isn't even a question.
Pretty sure they need 60 votes for that too. After all, they didn't do it all this time they controlled the Senate. They're also smart enough to know that no majority lasts forever. If they do away with the "filibuster lite", then they won't be able to use it when they're the minority party. Historically, the President's party loses seats in the mid-terms, so the Senate Pubs only have two more years on top.
One question I'm wondering right now is: Did Trump voters vote for him despite all the (horrible) things he said or because of them?
I would guess both.
To a lot of voters he was the "fuck you" candidate. To many others he was the "great white hope". I think the part racism played in played in electing Trump has been downplayed. I don't think the left or the media want to admit just how strong racism still is in America.
If people voted for Trump in order to protest elites whom voters believed did not respect them... then they have just given the elites even more reason not to respect them.
@Shandyr: True. But that's not the point I was addressing.
People have said that they voted for Trump specifically to serve as a "wake-up call" to the media and/or to U.S. elites and politicians. The idea was that (1) these people aren't taking us seriously, (2) they're not listening to us, (3) they dismiss us as bigots, and therefore (4) we're going to make them take us seriously by voting for their worst nightmare. To show them they can't dismiss us anymore.
But if people in the media--or U.S. elites, or politicians--have not respected average Americans, and regarded them as ignorant or racist country bumpkins, this vote is only going to reinforce that perception.
Trump's election will strengthen, not weaken, elitism in the American media.
The majority of Americans as far as population goes who live in these progressive cities have been disenfranchised. Their progressive states are getting dragged into this mess by the rural voters in states and cities.
The non-urban voters felt similarly in the last two elections--the people in the large cities disenfranchised everyone else. So do we keep the current system, which could be argued to disenfranchise people in urban centers, or do we go with "popular vote wins", which will disenfranchise non-urban citizens? Is there a way to bridge the gap between the two, such as splitting the electoral votes? For example, Pennsylvania currently has 20 electoral votes and the popular vote split was something like 49.7% Trump 48% Clinton, meaning they both get 10 electoral votes? How would that be any different than popular vote, though?
Truthfully, popular vote would be just fine *if* Congress would quite conceding power to the Executive Branch, such as in the case of President being able to unilaterally declare military action under the authority in the Patriot Act and NDAA. The power of "Commander in Chief" does not mean "I get to field soldiers wherever I want, when I want, and how I want"--at that point you might as well stop using "President" and revert to "Caesar".
I cannot reiterate this often enough--if you don't like Trump then you don't like Trump but people must quit envisioning end-of-the-world scenarios because those are not going to happen. They didn't happen in 2004, or 2008, or 2012, and they won't happen now.
220 weeks until we get a new president. That's not so bad. Ugh. Christie, Giuliani, Palin, and Gingrich and Trump going to be running the show until then but yeah just 220 weeks two days 11 hours 37 minutes left.
The breakdown of the Senate gives the Republicans only a very slim majority; any nominee presented must have Democrat support in order to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. That being said, moving forward into the near future the Court is not going to restrict gun rights or abortion rights so the two primary issues are as secure as they are right now.
So how does the appointment of a judge for the Supreme Court work?
Is the majority of the Senate not sufficient? Yes the Republicans only hold a very slim majority there, but it's a majority still. Can the Democrats still block a judge from being appointed even if all Republicans vote for him?
Also I wasn't talking about "near future". That's exactly what I meant with "decades". Gun or abortion rights may very well be an issue in the coming decades.
The Senate has a procedure called a "filibuster". This is when a senator uses his time to talk to block a vote. It used to be that they actually had to talk continuously for the whole time (see the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), but now they just have to declare their intent to filibuster. Ending a filibuster needs 60 votes, so if the Democrats filibuster the vote on a nominee, the Republicans would need 9 Dems to vote their way.
When Anthony Scalia died, the Pubs refused to even hold a vote on Obama's nominee. During the campaign, Mitch McConnell stated that the Senate wouldn't approve any of Clinton's nominees, so there's a lot of bad blood over this issue. The Dems will almost certainly use the filibuster to try to force Trump to nominate judges who aren't hard-right ideologues.
If you think the Republican majority in the Senate isn't going to abolish the filibuster at first chance you know nothing about Republicans and how they operate. They are a radical, right-wing, fascist party. They will get rid of it. It isn't even a question.
Pretty sure they need 60 votes for that too. After all, they didn't do it all this time they controlled the Senate. They're also smart enough to know that no majority lasts forever. If they do away with the "filibuster lite", then they won't be able to use it when they're the minority party. Historically, the President's party loses seats in the mid-terms, so the Senate Pubs only have two more years on top.
No, they don't. It's a traditional rule that has no force of law. The Majority leader can change it. And they don't give a fuck about the future. They are about amassing power and shoving it down your throat. This is their moment, and if you don't realize what's coming, you have no concept of of the past 30 years of US politics whatsoever.
@Shandyr I don't browse that site and I certainly didn't take any cues from anyone. I came up with that assessment on my own.
@jjstraka34 *sigh* Your assessment of the situation is what I mean by "people need to quit envisioning doom-and-gloom scenarios". Yes, the Senate may set its own rules; that has always been the case. If the Republicans have been amassing power for the last 30 years, as you claim, then how could Obama ever have been elected President once, much less twice? Did the Republicans say "we need someone on the other side who will motivate the base, so let's voluntarily give up the White House for 8 years"? I doubt that. The Democrats didn't shove anything down anyone's throat in 2009 when they had a majority in both Houses of Congress; similarly, the Republicans won't do such things now.
I suspect what makes this loss more bitter for some is that fact that they were blinded by all the confirmation bias to which they had been exposed over the previous 6 months--"All the polls predict a Clinton victory" and so on. There are probably people who thought "I don't need to vote--she's got it wrapped up". Clearly, that was a mistake. Never assume that your candidate is going to win without your support. In my case, I can never assume that my candidate is going to win even with my support. *laugh*
Now is the time for Democrats who wish to push back to begin working towards trying to regain seats in the Senate and House. No, don't campaign yet--please--but start laying the foundation for grass-roots, get-out-the-vote, hooray-for-our-guy campaigning. Oh, and quit listening to social media.
But in the German media the refugees are either saints or criminals. There is no middle ground. And that's what I hate media for. .
You should consider switching to a different newspaper. There are a lot of bad example, but picking those and say "they are all the same" is bs.
We have the luxury that you can print, say, write. blog nearly anything. Of course that leads to some shitty news too (BILD... ) but people prefer sensational headlines over dry facts. News have to earn a revenue, so the popular choice isnt always the best.
Check Dradio, they don't have to sell anything to get paid. The news are pretty solid, mostly. (They even excused themself after reporting a bit biased, pro west, on the Ukraine conflict)
Comments
Democracy is supposed to protect the minority, yes, but when the majority (or plurality in this case) is ignored, that's a sign of a flawed system. There's also the fact that the electoral college makes some voters (those who live in Montana, for instance) more powerful than others (those who live in Washington DC), and bloats the importance of swing states where the margin is as little as a few hundred votes, in comparison to states where the margin is millions.
In this election the popular vote is close. In 2000, it wasn't close. And by the time all the absentee ballots are counted, this election might not end up being close in the popular vote either.
Incidentally, small states already have a powerful check on the federal government. Each state has two senators who can block nationwide legislation if it hurts their interests, even if they only represent a small fraction of another state's population. In fact, the Senate is the stronger of the two chambers of Congress, and North Dakota has just as much power in the Senate as my home state of Texas. Rural states already have a huge advantage to compensate for their lower population.
The electoral college's original purpose was to prevent demagogues from coming to power, because the President was supposed to be chosen by elite electors rather than the general public. When the Founding Fathers were figuring out how to create a stable democratic system, one of their primary concerns was limiting the power of demagogues.
Of course, when a group of Germans in reaction started murdering random refugees that weren't shown to be guilty of anything, I should draw no conclusions about the character of Germans.
Whatever could be the difference, I wonder?
(Other things that definitely do not reflect on Germans: The fact the sexual assaults were not treated seriously by police at the time they happened, that Germany had higher rates of sexual assault and rape than the EU average before the refugees came there, that having sex with someone who said "No" was not rape by law in Germany until 2016. It is only when a member of a powerless minority does a bad thing that this shows how dangerous and terrible the group is.)
People have said that they voted for Trump specifically to serve as a "wake-up call" to the media and/or to U.S. elites and politicians. The idea was that (1) these people aren't taking us seriously, (2) they're not listening to us, (3) they dismiss us as bigots, and therefore (4) we're going to make them take us seriously by voting for their worst nightmare. To show them they can't dismiss us anymore.
But if people in the media--or U.S. elites, or politicians--have not respected average Americans, and regarded them as ignorant or racist country bumpkins, this vote is only going to reinforce that perception.
Trump's election will strengthen, not weaken, elitism in the American media.
Truthfully, popular vote would be just fine *if* Congress would quite conceding power to the Executive Branch, such as in the case of President being able to unilaterally declare military action under the authority in the Patriot Act and NDAA. The power of "Commander in Chief" does not mean "I get to field soldiers wherever I want, when I want, and how I want"--at that point you might as well stop using "President" and revert to "Caesar".
I cannot reiterate this often enough--if you don't like Trump then you don't like Trump but people must quit envisioning end-of-the-world scenarios because those are not going to happen. They didn't happen in 2004, or 2008, or 2012, and they won't happen now.
Trump will be a one-termer.
@jjstraka34 *sigh* Your assessment of the situation is what I mean by "people need to quit envisioning doom-and-gloom scenarios". Yes, the Senate may set its own rules; that has always been the case. If the Republicans have been amassing power for the last 30 years, as you claim, then how could Obama ever have been elected President once, much less twice? Did the Republicans say "we need someone on the other side who will motivate the base, so let's voluntarily give up the White House for 8 years"? I doubt that. The Democrats didn't shove anything down anyone's throat in 2009 when they had a majority in both Houses of Congress; similarly, the Republicans won't do such things now.
I suspect what makes this loss more bitter for some is that fact that they were blinded by all the confirmation bias to which they had been exposed over the previous 6 months--"All the polls predict a Clinton victory" and so on. There are probably people who thought "I don't need to vote--she's got it wrapped up". Clearly, that was a mistake. Never assume that your candidate is going to win without your support. In my case, I can never assume that my candidate is going to win even with my support. *laugh*
Now is the time for Democrats who wish to push back to begin working towards trying to regain seats in the Senate and House. No, don't campaign yet--please--but start laying the foundation for grass-roots, get-out-the-vote, hooray-for-our-guy campaigning. Oh, and quit listening to social media.
For anyone who missed it, here was Trump's victory speech:
There are a lot of bad example, but picking those and say "they are all the same" is bs.
We have the luxury that you can print, say, write. blog nearly anything. Of course that leads to some shitty news too (BILD... ) but people prefer sensational headlines over dry facts. News have to earn a revenue, so the popular choice isnt always the best.
Check Dradio, they don't have to sell anything to get paid. The news are pretty solid, mostly. (They even excused themself after reporting a bit biased, pro west, on the Ukraine conflict)
The sentiment is:
If your not Lawful Good, you are Chaotic Evil.