SURVEY: Did the US elect the right person as President?

[abrahamzvi]

On 11/13/2016 at 0:22 PM, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Who gives  tinker about HRC, she is over and out now.  What occurred is the way America has voted democratically for decades and no matter how much people bleat and cry it ain't going to change a thing.  Get over it and get on with it.

You are right. Donald Trump is the President Elect having been democratically elected and he should be accepted as such by ALL. However, The system - EC - should be changed for future elections. The last tally of the popular votes, it is practically at the end, gives HRC a plurality of nearly 2 Million votes. I think you will agree with me, being a Trump supporter or otherwise, that a system producing a plurality of votes of nearly 2 million  for one candidate and a majority of 30 in the EC for the other is not democratic and should be altered.

[Jingthing]

I am unhappy trump won and heartened that Hillary won the popular vote as that's an indication that at least the people aren't as down the crapper as electing a mentally unstable know nothing no experience demagogue would otherwise indicate.

But I don't think any energy should be wasted on fighting to reverse the electoral college. It's not going to win, there are good arguments for keeping it, and the opposition to trumpism has many much more URGENT matters to work on. 

[tropo]

1 minute ago, abrahamzvi said:

You are right. Donald Trump is the President Elect having been democratically elected and he should be accepted as such by ALL. However, The system - EC - should be changed for future elections. The last tally of the popular votes, it is practically at the end, gives HRC a plurality of nearly 2 Million votes. I think you will agree with me, being a Trump supporter or otherwise, that a system producing a plurality of votes of nearly 2 million  for one candidate and a majority of 30 in the EC for the other is not democratic and should be altered.

 

 

Trump would have won either way. Had he been campaigning for the popular vote he would have easily picked up millions of votes in California, New York and other solid blue states where he didn't spend much time.

 

Just the GOP supporters that didn't vote could have given him the popular vote win.

 

 

 

 

[Publicus]

 

The experimental scientific polling surveys did well. One identified the Trump groundswell as it occurred, to include because of the Comey Coup letters.

 

The Los Angeles Times-University of Southern California experimental scientific poll was especially accurate. It had found all along Trump was slightly ahead right up to election day.

 

The scientific survey identified 3000 representative voters it polled continually, repeatedly, only those likely voters. It was a national poll that included all likely voter demographics, to include the historically 3-1 Republican Ma and Pa Kettle vote. The Kettles were the single and easily identifiable demographic that made the difference in this election, given especially their participation was up 10%.

 

The margin of error was entirely negligible. Welcome to the future of scientific public opinion survey research. The future btw is now.

 

Few predicted Donald Trump’s presidential election. A team from the University of Southern California did.

 

While  closely followed polling averages gave Clinton a 3.2-point edge and  preelection forecasts showed her as a heavy favorite, a team at the University of Southern California led by professor Arie Kapteyn had managed to design a poll that proved to be one of the great contrarian forecasts in the modern history of U.S. elections. As of Tuesday morning, it showed Donald Trump leading by a little more than 3 percentage points. 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-11/how-the-usc-dornsife-la-times-poll-saw-trump-s-win-coming

 

Tuesday morning, November 8, 2016.

 

 

About the "Daybreak" LAT-USC experimental survey that polled the 3000 online each sunrise....

 

The USC/L.A. Times poll saw what other surveys missed: A wave of Trump support

 

The more crucial point was that the poll correctly detected Trump’s appeal to a key bloc of voters: conservative whites who had sat out the 2012 election but intended to vote this year. That group strongly favored Trump, the poll found.

 

The poll’s ability to pick up those voters, Kapteyn said, stemmed from its approach, which differs notably from the one used by most major surveys.

 

The 2016 USC Dornsife/LA Times Election Poll

://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-latimes-poll-20161108-story.html

 

 

Also, for anyone who wants the total scheme of the LAT-USC poll...

 

http://news.usc.edu/109339/why-the-usc-dornsifel-a-times-presidential-poll-is-unlike-other-polls/

 

Ma and Pa Kettle.

[charmonman]

29 minutes ago, tropo said:

 

Trump would have won either way. Had he been campaigning for the popular vote he would have easily picked up millions of votes in California, New York and other solid blue states where he didn't spend much time.

 

Just the GOP supporters that didn't vote could have given him the popular vote win.

 

 

 

 

You could just as easily speculate that Clinton would have picked up millions in Texas and other states had it not been a foregone conclusion that they would go solid red Republican, and where she didn't go.

[Boon Mee]

Well, according to the results of the survey of peeps aboard here thus far, the answer is an overwhelming YES! 

[jaidam]

Love the breaking story of how Donald and his family just gave the press hounds the slip and went for a family dinner at his favourite steakhouse, where he recieved a standing ovation from the regular joes dining there. Meanwhile the press gang were left spitting feathers and looking like right charlies. Trump, canny as a fox, and getting the job done with a minimum of the BS and grandstanding we have become accustomed to over the last(painfull) 8 years.

 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, jaidam said:

Love the breaking story of how Donald and his family just gave the press hounds the slip and went for a family dinner at his favourite steakhouse, where he recieved a standing ovation from the regular joes dining there. Meanwhile the press gang were left spitting feathers and looking like right charlies. Trump, canny as a fox, and getting the job done with a minimum of the BS and grandstanding we have become accustomed to over the last(painfull) 8 years.

 

Regular Joes at a Manhattan steak restaurant. Sure thing, dude. 

[Publicus]

 

After which Trump went home to Faulty Tower.

 

[abrahamzvi]

On 11/13/2016 at 0:22 PM, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Who gives  tinker about HRC, she is over and out now.  What occurred is the way America has voted democratically for decades and no matter how much people bleat and cry it ain't going to change a thing.  Get over it and get on with it.

Possibly you are right in assuming thatTrump would have won the popular vote. The point I am trying to make is thAT THE EC SYSTEM IS UNDEMOCRATIC IRRESPECTIVE WHO WON OR LOST. IN THE NEXT ELECTION OR IN 8 0R 16 YEARS, THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE MAY WIN THE PLURALITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE BUT LOSE THE EC MAJORITY AND IT IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT MATTERS. THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE SUCH THAT A PRESIDENT OF ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE ELECTED BY A MAJORITY OF ALL AMERICANS!

[Publicus]

19 minutes ago, jaidam said:

Love the breaking story of how Donald and his family just gave the press hounds the slip and went for a family dinner at his favourite steakhouse, where he recieved a standing ovation from the regular joes dining there. Meanwhile the press gang were left spitting feathers and looking like right charlies. Trump, canny as a fox, and getting the job done with a minimum of the BS and grandstanding we have become accustomed to over the last(painfull) 8 years.

 

 

 

where he recieved a standing ovation from the regular joes dining there.

 

Sounds more like the bar scene from Star Wars.

[tropo]

1 hour ago, charmonman said:

You could just as easily speculate that Clinton would have picked up millions in Texas and other states had it not been a foregone conclusion that they would go solid red Republican, and where she didn't go.

 

Texas and Florida were close, therefore Clinton put in a lot of effort there. California and New York were impossible dreams for Trump to win, therefore little campaigning effort was made. They are 1st and 3rd in population rank, and also the states where Hillary won by huge margins, which was expected.

 

Trump was campaigning to win the electoral college and all strategies were based on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tropo]

1 hour ago, abrahamzvi said:

Possibly you are right in assuming thatTrump would have won the popular vote. The point I am trying to make is thAT THE EC SYSTEM IS UNDEMOCRATIC IRRESPECTIVE WHO WON OR LOST. IN THE NEXT ELECTION OR IN 8 0R 16 YEARS, THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE MAY WIN THE PLURALITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE BUT LOSE THE EC MAJORITY AND IT IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT MATTERS. THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE SUCH THAT A PRESIDENT OF ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE ELECTED BY A MAJORITY OF ALL AMERICANS!

 

 

Everyone knows that the winner of the electoral college can lose the popular vote. It happened just 16 years ago. They've had 16 years to do something about it. No point crying about it now. 

 

I doubt anyone is going to try to fix it because it won't get rid of Trump.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by tropo

[NovaBlue05]

4 hours ago, tropo said:

Non-US citizens can see it more objectively, unlike many Clinton cry babies on here.

 

 

That must be why they are voting "Yes" at a higher %

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, tropo said:

I don't think so. Trump supporters were more subdued and, thanks to polls and the media, were not overconfident about a win. Most everyone considered a Trump victory a long shot.

 

It was the over confidence of Clinton supporters that makes it so painful for them.

True. I thought that Trump would never overcome the Billy tape, and I expected him to lose.

I doubt that I would inhabit these threads to the extent I have had he lost. The crowing of the Clintonites would have chased me away. Much more fun being the crower.

I don't get why the Clintonites continue to tell us the same stuff they did before the election, He won, period. Writing a load of sour grapes isn't going to change it one iota.

He is going to be president, he is going to do whatever he is going to do, and won't do whatever he won't do, employ the people he is going to employ, no matter how much the snowflakes wail about it. That they think it gives them license to break things says much about Clinton supporters.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, tropo said:

Everyone knows that the winner of the electoral college can lose the popular vote. It happened just 16 years ago. They've had 16 years to do something about it. No point crying about it now. 

 

I doubt anyone is going to try to fix it because it won't get rid of Trump.

 

True. it is only an issue when the opponent wins. Had it been Trump more popular and she won with the EC there would be no complaining on their side at all.

Gore was more popular than Bush, but I don't remember the Gore supporters rioting. I guess young people are far more spoiled now than then.

[NovaBlue05]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I am unhappy trump won and heartened that Hillary won the popular vote as that's an indication that at least the people aren't as down the crapper as electing a mentally unstable know nothing no experience demagogue would otherwise indicate.

But I don't think any energy should be wasted on fighting to reverse the electoral college. It's not going to win, there are good arguments for keeping it, and the opposition to trumpism has many much more URGENT matters to work on. 

 

 

Less than a million more "popular" votes in a pool of almost 123 million total cast for the two is likely within the margin of error.  A tie for all practical purposes. But, if it gives comfort to some, then wave the flag.  Now, if she enjoyed the same popular vote lead  that Trump does here on the TVF survey, then I would say she was robbed

Edited November 16, 2016 by NovaBlue05

[tropo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

True. it is only an issue when the opponent wins. Had it been Trump more popular and she won with the EC there would be no complaining on their side at all.

Gore was more popular than Bush, but I don't remember the Gore supporters rioting. I guess young people are far more spoiled now than then.

 

All the Trump supporters I know thought he was going to lose. It would have been no surprise to anyone. I watched the first 9 states being called, turned off the TV, feeling confident Clinton would win. It was a sweet victory indeed.

[Usernames]

3 hours ago, tropo said:

Texas and Florida were close, therefore Clinton put in a lot of effort there. California and New York were impossible dreams for Trump to win, therefore little campaigning effort was made. They are 1st and 3rd in population rank, and also the states where Hillary won by huge margins, which was expected.

 

Trump was campaigning to win the electoral college and all strategies were based on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glad to see that somebody is smart enough to understand this. Don't forget Illinois, too.

[tropo]

41 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

Glad to see that somebody is smart enough to understand this. Don't forget Illinois, too.

 

 

 

It's interesting to note that the winner has lost the popular vote 5 times. 3 of those were in the 1800's (1824, 1876, 1888) and then it was 112 years before it happened again in 2000.

 

My theory is that advanced computer technology allowing complex statistical analysis will make close contests more common going forward.

 

Trump really trumped Clinton here. He managed this spectacular win on half her budget, more intelligent campaigning and 10 times her energy. Clinton is just stale and worn out.

Edited November 16, 2016 by tropo

[Gary A]

My view is that the remaining rabid democrats are disgusting and have no respect for the USA and no respect for the president elect. You losers should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

With my final statement to them, I see no reason to further dispute their stupid hateful bile filled statements. 

[Jingthing]

Just woke up from a nightmare.

 

Turns out ... SHE WON!

 

 

[NovaBlue05]

48 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Just woke up from a nightmare.

 

Turns out ... SHE WON!

 

 

 

To quote Bluto's sage advice in the movie Animal House....."My advice to you is....start drinking heavily.."

[mrdome]

The voting results say it all about what kind of people hang out at TV and not so much about how "the world"feels about the election results.

[Publicus]

8 hours ago, tropo said:

Texas and Florida were close, therefore Clinton put in a lot of effort there. California and New York were impossible dreams for Trump to win, therefore little campaigning effort was made. They are 1st and 3rd in population rank, and also the states where Hillary won by huge margins, which was expected.

 

Trump was campaigning to win the electoral college and all strategies were based on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump's election is another weird one. He'll go down in history in more ways than one. Of the several bizarre elections of Potus, the only one of 'em Trump might be doing better against is John Quincy Adams...

 

In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House. (The populist Jackson got his day four years later when he won the first of his two terms.)

 

In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Democrat Samuel J. Tilden.

 

In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Democrat Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes. (Cleveland went on to be elected to two terms, separately rather than consecutively.)

 

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

 

Update, Nov. 11: As of today, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote for the 2016 presidential election, while Donald Trump won the electoral college. However, states are still counting votes. We will update this story once the results are official.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/ 

 

 

We all of course remember good ole Rutheford B. Hayes, it's just that all we remember about him is his name. Meanwhile...

 

A million-plus votes for HRC over Trump and still counting means Trump has no popular mandate. Zero popular mandate. Zilch popular mandate. Ooogats popular mandate. Suck it up over there.

 

To all the griping winners who try to dismiss the Popular Vote of the voting population of the USA who in fact did vote, I remind you that no matter how you slice it it's still baloney. 

[Ulysses G.]

40 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

A million-plus votes for HRC over Trump and still counting means Trump has no popular mandate. Zero popular mandate. Zilch popular mandate. Ooogats popular mandate. Suck it up over there.

 

 

He has the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and an electoral mandate.  He will be just fine.

[tropo]

7 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He has the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and an electoral mandate.  He will be just fine.

 

 

LOL> What are these guys thinking? He can do what he wants.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37992573

 

What if Trump does this:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fall-of-the-house-of-obama-is-coming-and-its-his-own-fault/2016/11/14/d0151cac-aa7d-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html

 

"If Trump really wants to shake up Washington, he should issue a single executive order on Day One repealing all of Obama’s executive orders. Then, he could go back and decide which, if any, to reinstate."

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.

 

[NovaBlue05]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He has the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and an electoral mandate.  He will be just fine.

 

On Capitol Hill, that's the big trifecta. 

 

No Constitutional or useful political definition of "mandate" anyway. Just a term the media came up with long ago to make it sound like their candidate of choice has overwhelming support when in fact they actually got  about half the voters to vote for them.

 

Only Michigan yet to post that will give Trump 306 EV.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

 

122.6M votes cast for the two with Clinton holding a razor thin 948K vote difference. A statistical tie.

[Boon Mee]

Wow!  it's up to 36.83 for Yes, non citizen.