The Many Faces of US Politics...

[screenexile]

The Democrats are losing their $hit over the result, still unable to understand why they lost.

Instead of dusting themselves off and addressing the reasons they lost, they are doubling down on the rhetoric (which is quite ironic) and doing exactly what they predictd Trump would do if he lost.

Trump is a fvcking idiot and I (probably) wouldnt vote for him in a month of Sundays, but he won fair and square.

Hillary is a liar, a crook and a hypocrite

The main stream media promoted the "clown" candidates on the Republican ticket (at the behest of the DNC) because seemingly Hillary would have had a really hard time beating either Jeb Bush or Kasich.

They are the reason we are dealing with this mess and to me it looks like they are doubling down

Well given that you apparently understand, why don't you lay it out?

You're always on about it, but very unforthcoming with specifics.

And Stein (the person YOU voted for) is the one organizing the recount. NOT the Democrats.

And, in case you haven't been paying attention, Trump is one of the biggest liars and hypocrites ever to run for the office, and by his business practices, a very capable crook too.

It was a "protest" vote for Stein...the other 3 candidates had disqualified themselves in my view, so it was either leave it blank or fill in a name. I dont live in a swing state so my vote doesnt really count

The main reason I didnt "protest" vote for Trump is that in the event he lost the electoral college and won the popular vote, (which was being floated as a real possibility) I didnt want To give him any legitimacy to contest the result.

I dont and never have disputed one word you said about Trump. The problem is everything you said about him can be equally applied to Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton

So Hillary can legitimately contest the result then?! Good!!

To be fair to Hillary she's done Trump on this recount thing. She's not contesting the legitimacy of the result and hasn't made a statement to that effect but as an interested party she's sending a representative.

Trump decides that instead of saying nothing and let things run their course he will double down and say Virginia/California and NH were subject to voter fraud thus giving more legitimacy to a recount! He might be a good campaigner but I think he has a lot to learn as a political operative!!

She will never be President, she accepted defeat and prior to the election she went on record as saying a candidate needs to accept the will of the people, Hypocrite!

She will get a bullet if she gets this result turned over, so will many ordinary people, I hate to think what would happen if the kn**ker gets this result changed!

Has anyone said she is contesting the result? Stein has asked for the recount as an audit to make sure nothing untoward went on . . . if something did happen that was incorrect is it not better for everyone that it's found out?

Nobody really thinks that all 3 states will swing in her favour not even her I'm guessing but if Stein's driving the train why not hop on the back to see what happens? There is nothing to be lost from these recounts!

[Declan]

Hard to argue against an audit/recount if the president-elect asserts, without any evidence, that were millions of illegal votes

[seafoid]

Trump barely won. He has a fairly weak mandate.

[stew]

Trump barely won. He has a fairly weak mandate.

He has, after all the only thing he has is the Presidency, the senate, congress and the Supreme court!

[whitey]

Trump barely won. He has a fairly weak mandate.

He has, after all the only thing he has is the Presidency, the senate, congress and the Supreme court!

And 31 governorships (versus 18 Dem & 1 Ind).

Her lead in the popular vote is mainly down to the state of CA where she beat Trump by 3.4 M votes. This stat alone explains the rationale behind the electoral college


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

[screenexile]

Trump barely won. He has a fairly weak mandate.

He has, after all the only thing he has is the Presidency, the senate, congress and the Supreme court!

And 31 governorships (versus 18 Dem & 1 Ind).

Her lead in the popular vote is mainly down to the state of CA where she beat Trump by 3.4 M votes. This stat alone explains the rationale behind the electoral college


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

So more Americans voted for Hillary then?!!!

Just making sure that's established . . .

[J70]

Trump barely won. He has a fairly weak mandate.

He has, after all the only thing he has is the Presidency, the senate, congress and the Supreme court!

And 31 governorships (versus 18 Dem & 1 Ind).

Her lead in the popular vote is mainly down to the state of CA where she beat Trump by 3.4 M votes. This stat alone explains the rationale behind the electoral college


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

So more Americans voted for Hillary then?!!!

Just making sure that's established . . .

More voted for Democratic senators too.

But the system is set up to ensure rural states carry a higher weighting and aren't marginalized by the more populous states.

Don't know what the House numbers are this time, but in 2012, Democrats lost the House despite receiving 1 million more votes. In that case, gerrymandering is the issue.

[whitey]

Trump barely won. He has a fairly weak mandate.

He has, after all the only thing he has is the Presidency, the senate, congress and the Supreme court!

And 31 governorships (versus 18 Dem & 1 Ind).

Her lead in the popular vote is mainly down to the state of CA where she beat Trump by 3.4 M votes. This stat alone explains the rationale behind the electoral college


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

So more Americans voted for Hillary then?!!!

Just making sure that's established . . .

Correct....but the winner of the election is determined by the winner of the electoral college vote.

$2 and a victory in the popular vote will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts

[stew]

Trump barely won. He has a fairly weak mandate.

He has, after all the only thing he has is the Presidency, the senate, congress and the Supreme court!

And 31 governorships (versus 18 Dem & 1 Ind).

Her lead in the popular vote is mainly down to the state of CA where she beat Trump by 3.4 M votes. This stat alone explains the rationale behind the electoral college


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

So more Americans voted for Hillary then?!!!

Just making sure that's established . . .

It was never in doubt kid.

Not a hill of beans does it make, she lost!

[Kickham csc]

Trump barely won. He has a fairly weak mandate.

He has, after all the only thing he has is the Presidency, the senate, congress and the Supreme court!

And 31 governorships (versus 18 Dem & 1 Ind).

Her lead in the popular vote is mainly down to the state of CA where she beat Trump by 3.4 M votes. This stat alone explains the rationale behind the electoral college


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

So more Americans voted for Hillary then?!!!

Just making sure that's established . . .

More voted for Democratic senators too.

But the system is set up to ensure rural states carry a higher weighting and aren't marginalized by the more populous states.

Don't know what the House numbers are this time, but in 2012, Democrats lost the House despite receiving 1 million more votes. In that case, gerrymandering is the issue.

I think the popular vote 'v' college vote is BS. It wasn't the objective of the game. It's like saying Mayo won the "popular vote" All Ireland final as they scored 15 times against Dublin's 11. But unfortunately, 2 of Dublin's scores were goals, and they won by the electoral "college vote" by a point. Doesn't matter how many more times Mayo scored, they still lost by a point according to the rules of the game.

From a us point of view, if the election was won via popular vote, Trump would have campaigned more in NY and California, and Clinton would probably campaigned more in Texas etc.
We don't know who would have won, but we know that the vote totals would be completely different.

So the fact that Hillary won the popular vote means absolutely nothing to me.

I also think the electoral college systems works, otherwise, NY and California would dominate the debate too much which would destabilize the country

[whitey]

Trump barely won. He has a fairly weak mandate.

He has, after all the only thing he has is the Presidency, the senate, congress and the Supreme court!

And 31 governorships (versus 18 Dem & 1 Ind).

Her lead in the popular vote is mainly down to the state of CA where she beat Trump by 3.4 M votes. This stat alone explains the rationale behind the electoral college


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

So more Americans voted for Hillary then?!!!

Just making sure that's established . . .

More voted for Democratic senators too.

But the system is set up to ensure rural states carry a higher weighting and aren't marginalized by the more populous states.

Don't know what the House numbers are this time, but in 2012, Democrats lost the House despite receiving 1 million more votes. In that case, gerrymandering is the issue.

Great story......if it was actually true

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-08/why-democrats-can-t-blame-gerrymandering

"Gerrymandering, by conventional measures, has cost Democrats only a handful of seats, not close to enough for them to have taken a House majority in 2012, when Democratic candidates received more total votes than Republicans. Instead, what's hurting Democrats is "clumping" -- Democrats are increasingly rolling up huge margins in small geographic areas."

[muppet]

So far only Stein and Trump are questioning the authentic of the results.

Of course it all is Hillary's fault.

[sid waddell]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/politics/steve-bannon-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Ms. Jones, the film colleague, said that in their years working together, Mr. Bannon occasionally talked about the genetic superiority of some people and once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.

"I said, 'That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,'" Ms. Jones recalled. "He said, 'Maybe that's not such a bad thing.'

[stew]

So far only Stein and Trump are questioning the authentic of the results.

Of course it all is Hillary's fault.

In possibility she is pulling the strings?

[seafoid]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/politics/steve-bannon-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Ms. Jones, the film colleague, said that in their years working together, Mr. Bannon occasionally talked about the genetic superiority of some people and once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.

"I said, 'That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,'" Ms. Jones recalled. "He said, 'Maybe that's not such a bad thing.'

The whites are going to lose their majority
Who the f**k would want to be in a majority with the evangelicals anyway?