The Many Faces of US Politics...

[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.

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."

So, as discussed in one of the two articles your linked article discusses, its irrelevant that, in the example of Pennsylvania, that the Dems and Obama, having won in 2012 by a larger margin than in 2008, only won 5 of PA's 18 House seats, compared to 12 of 19 in 2008? The redistricting in 2011 had no effect? Does PA alone account for the "handful of seats"?
The congressional layout of a city like Austin, carved up like a pie so that parts of liberal urban areas are just about bested by suburban conservative areas, with another snaking across Texas to a liberal section of San Antonio to squeeze as many Dems as possible into one district, does not matter? Its reckoned that in Texas, the 2012 redistricting squeezed two extra seats out of the state for the GOP. How many times have those "little" margins been repeated across the country?

Sure, some of the margin is down to how the US population is segregating themselves by political outlook, with liberals more dominant in cities, but its ridiculous to overlook the advantage the GOP gave themselves with all those state wins in 2010 leading to their control of redistricting. If it didn't matter, why do we get those ridiculous, meandering, snake-like districts which try to squeeze blocks of voters, distant from one another, into single districts?

But, assuming you are right and gerrymandering is irrelevant, do you see any problem with the GOP dominating government control and representation despite frequently receiving a significantly lower proportion of the vote? Would you be happy if the shoe was on the other foot?

[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 . . .

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."

So, as discussed in one of the two articles your linked article discusses, its irrelevant that, in the example of Pennsylvania, that the Dems and Obama, having won in 2012 by a larger margin than in 2008, only won 5 of PA's 18 House seats, compared to 12 of 19 in 2008? The redistricting in 2011 had no effect? Does PA alone account for the "handful of seats"?
The congressional layout of a city like Austin, carved up like a pie so that parts of liberal urban areas are just about bested by suburban conservative areas, with another snaking across Texas to a liberal section of San Antonio to squeeze as many Dems as possible into one district, does not matter? Its reckoned that in Texas, the 2012 redistricting squeezed two extra seats out of the state for the GOP. How many times have those "little" margins been repeated across the country?

Sure, some of the margin is down to how the US population is segregating themselves by political outlook, with liberals more dominant in cities, but its ridiculous to overlook the advantage the GOP gave themselves with all those state wins in 2010 leading to their control of redistricting. If it didn't matter, why do we get those ridiculous, meandering, snake-like districts which try to squeeze blocks of voters, distant from one another, into single districts?

But, assuming you are right and gerrymandering is irrelevant, do you see any problem with the GOP dominating government control and representation despite frequently receiving a significantly lower proportion of the vote? Would you be happy if the shoe was on the other foot?

For me I would rather Clinton won in a clean election than Trump in a dirty one, problem is nowadays no one seems capable of accepting a defeat!

[J70]

I more or less agree with that stew. Stein's recount is not going to reveal anything untoward, but it's a logical endpoint to all the rhetoric about voter fraud and voting machines and real concerns about hacking. Honestly, it's probably just the beginning and something we should get used to, especially in a land as paranoid and into conspiracies as the US.

[sid waddell]

The whites are going to lose their majority

This won't be a bad thing.

[seafoid]

I more or less agree with that stew. Stein's recount is not going to reveal anything untoward, but it's a logical endpoint to all the rhetoric about voter fraud and voting machines and real concerns about hacking. Honestly, it's probably just the beginning and something we should get used to, especially in a land as paranoid and into conspiracies as the US.

the US is a complete mess and totally polarised

[seafoid]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/28/trump-furious-over-kellyanne-conway-comments-on-sunday-shows-about-romney-sources.html

[BarryBreensBandage]

I don't know if anyone on here is one of the 3.5 million who have watched this documentary - if so it would be good to hear any comments on:

From JFK to 911 - Everything is a Rich Man's Trick

3.5 hrs long but worth it imo. Good viewing for the sceptics, definitely food for thought. Well put together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM&t=551s

[seafoid]

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/some-u-s-soldiers-share-extremely-blunt-thoughts-on-co-1789228136

[seafoid]

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/27/trump-realism-vs-moral-politics-choice-we-face/

Following Trump's first on-the-record meeting with journalists after the election, The New York Times editorial board was most struck by "how thinly thought through many of the president-elect's stances actually are." Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggested that this lack of expertise creates an opportunity for good people with knowledge to influence Trump: "They need to dive in now and try to pull him toward the center." Fellow columnist Frank Bruni went so far as to suggest a radical sort of cooperation based on Trump's apparently bottomless need for adoration: "Is our best hope for the best Trump to be so fantastically adulatory when he's reasonable that he's motivated to stay on that course, lest the adulation wane?"

Trump is not only vain and incompetent but also, many people have suggested, uninterested in the daily business of governing. In any case, the transition has fallen far behind schedule. Normally, at this time in the cycle, the president-elect's picks for top posts would already be in the agencies they plan to run, getting carefully prepared briefings from senior staff and taking stock. This is apparently not happening. When Trump haphazardly met the leader of Japan last week at Trump's own offices in New York, his transition team had yet to even contact the State Department .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D2qcbu26gs

[screenexile]

Ah lads he's retweeting 16 year olds . . .

He says there were millions of illegal votes and then expects CNN to come up with proof that there were no illegal votes?!! This is going to be a long 4 years!!

[sid waddell]

Steve Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary.

"Drain that swamp!"

Who's in the pocket of Goldman Sachs again? 

[seafoid]

Steve Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary.

"Drain that swamp!"

Who's in the pocket of Goldman Sachs again? 

Biggest fraud in the history of the US
Watch the last ad again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8

Trump will remove Financial regulation and the economy will have the biggest crash in the history of the US

Goldman hasn't been able to generate a 10% rate of return for 2 years.

[Jell 0 Biafra]

Steve Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary.

"Drain that swamp!"

Who's in the pocket of Goldman Sachs again? 

You've just misinterpreted him.  He's talking about literally draining an actual swamp that happens to be in DC.  Nothing metaphorical about it at all.

[DrinkingHarp]

Trump will be draining the the wallets of everyone who voted for him from the middle class and low end income earners instead of "Draining the Swamp". The only people who will benefit are the top 10% and corporations (since the Repubs had corps approved as the equivalent as people).

So far, his appointed postitions reek of social, economical and financial arrogance that the repubs have been pushing since the 70's.

This man is heading the country into an abyss that will take 20+ years to rectify.

I hope he does well for the sake of the citizens but that seems unreasonable.

[J70]

Trump will be draining the the wallets of everyone who voted for him from the middle class and low end income earners instead of "Draining the Swamp". The only people who will benefit are the top 10% and corporations (since the Repubs had corps approved as the equivalent as people).

So far, his appointed postitions reek of social, economical and financial arrogance that the repubs have been pushing since the 70's.

This man is heading the country into an abyss that will take 20+ years to rectify.

I hope he does well for the sake of the citizens but that seems unreasonable.

I think whitey is being proved correct so far with his Dr. Evil henchmen cabinet comparison.