General Politics Discussion (II) [ARCHIVED] • Page 5

So the biggest national protest of all time is what that'll be.

 

You would think the president-elect would have more important things to do than take a victory lap but then again you would think Donald Trump wouldn't have a prayer of being president so what the fuck do I know

 

Okay, so I'm sure many of you have seen this map shared around already.

I looked at it closely and it has really bugged me for one major reason. People are using it in the context of this election. But if you look at state by state results, it umm... isn't accurate at all. Looking at the past few elections, I'm not even sure which election it is representing. It really just appears to be a map of the US with random counties filled in via microsoft paint. A simple google search of the election results shows that far more of those counties should be blue. Sure, there still ends up being more grey counties than blue, but this type of misrepresentation is irritating as hell. If you have to manipulate information to get your point across, your argument is flawed. (EDIT: Okay, I probably should have realized that this is just highlighting major urban areas across the country, but I would be willing to bet most people sharing this assume it's about the most recent election).

Second, people using it as a defense for the electoral college has me thinking. Don't we already have a system that enables individual congressional districts to be represented at the national level? I believe it's call the house of representatives, correct? And two the lesser extent the senate has two members to represent each state. The president is not supposed to represent any one state, but rather the entire nation. Therefore would it not naturally make sense for the president to be decided on by the majority of the people? I get the argument that each state need to be represented in national politics to prevent decisions being made by the more populous states, but again we have the legislative branch for just that purpose.

Sorry, I know there's more important issues to be discussed in here, but this has really bugged me.

 

The only president I want because of nepotism is Jaden Smith

 

The latest CGP Grey video addresses this as well.

 

is that from Bernie or from a Bernie-related group?

Cause my experience is that Bernie was a whole lot better than many of the groups that supported him.

 

Yeah I hope he does do this tour so people can protest the shit out of him all around the country

 

I think about this more than I should. I read too many political spy novels as a kid apparently.

 

That's the video that got me thinking about this. He talks about needing to decide if we want a government representing the states or the people. Whereas it seems if we just get rid of the electoral college, we already have a system that does both with the legislative and executive branch.

 

If Trump comes to Buffalo on a victory tour (he shouldn't, we didn't vote for him) y'all can meet me on Pearl Street for the march.

 

The place that had a "kill the Muslim" lap attraction outside Ralph Wilson didn't vote for him? I'm a little surprised.

 

My post was sarcasm, Our Revolution is basically Bernie's campaign turned into a political action committee to fight for the same policies, but it isn't explicitly tied to Bernie nor is Bernie working for it because he can't legally.

 

Rather than a racial intersectionality, Trump built a cross-class alliance.

 

I agree. I think there are ways to tweak it that still give small states power. While also being representative of the people. I think you nailed it.

 

I don't see that in the numbers. Working class minorities voted for Clinton. The cross over in class was just white people. Clinton's intersectionality was just poorly segmented by geography.

 

I agree with both of you, I understand it but I totally also see many ways it could be better.

 

Honestly, Silver deserves to take a "victory" lap even if he doesn't want to. He and 538 took so much abuse from the left this election for "overrating" Trump's chances and they were right. Clinton was the favorite but Trump had plenty of paths to victory (as we've seen). The tweet from him that really put things in perspective for me was when he compared Trumps chances (at that point somewhere in the Teens) to a game of Russian Roullete. You have a 1 in 6 (16.7%) chance of getting shot. You taking that chance? You happy with those odds? No? Then don't write off Trump.

I've listened to their podcasts since the election and you can tell Nate and Harry just want to scream at times. They knew, they tried to warn us, and they got nothing but grief for it. Would it have changed the outcome at all if the other models hadn't show Clinton at 90%+? Probably not, but maybe people go vote more, maybe the campaign allocates its money differently, the media CERTAINLY would have covered the race differently.

 

wellllllll fuck

 

Exactly. It was the intersection of working class and upper class white people

 

It's gonna be Clinton +1 to +2 by the end.

 

Erie county was closer than I would have liked but no he lost by 5 points

 

i love this

 

Yep. Yep. Yep.

I took shit of saying it was close in the last thread. Got Upshot quoted at me all the time for it.

I wonder how many people read the NYT. Saw that model %. And were like "oh this is in the bag" nbd. Enough? Maybe. The margin was fucking closer than anyone is talking about in these states. Less than 100k people decided this election.

 

I don't understand people who claim to be champions of capitalism and then vote against FTAs like the TPP. Going against free trade seems to contradict a belief in the free market.