Galt's Gulch

Will it never end?

Posted by Robairete 7 years, 5 months ago to Politics
43 comments | Share | Flag

The part of this petition that stands out to me is "We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton."
SOURCE URL: https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19?recruiter=692572

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by mminnick 7 years, 5 months ago
    consider this also. Hillary wone California by over 2 M votes, NY by a large margin and Ill by a large margin. Her actual lead in the popular vole is not just slightly over 300K. Trum has won 30 staes 31 if Michigan holds up. Hillary will wiln 21 if Hew Hampshire hold up.
    What happened to her 3M plus lead from The really big states? It vanished in the other states. The electoral college is there for one stated reason. To prevent the larger states from totally dominating the elections and controlling the smaller states. The same reason there is a Senate and a House of Representatives To provide balance between the larger and smaller states..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
      In a "popular vote" election, Trump would have campaigned hard in California and New York and would likely have won the nationwide popular vote also.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by mminnick 7 years, 5 months ago
        He certainly would have cut the margins down, I agree. Given the numbers reported, he would not have had to cut them too much. Increase is count by 400K would have been relative easy if it were all popular vote.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ Suzanne43 7 years, 5 months ago
          I agree. Then there are the illegals who voted for Clinton. I understand that their vote was huge. But don't get your hopes up that the media will bring this out.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JuliBMe 7 years, 5 months ago
            Yes, this is what removes all doubt that federalism is the way to go. If we were a mob-ocracy, excuse me, democracy, Clinton's cheat machine would have worked. In an electoral vote, it is much harder to cheat.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 5 months ago
        Not necessarily. You spend money where it makes sense. California and New York are so full of Progressives that they are pretty much lost causes at this point. And they continue to structure their laws so as to impel their opponents to leave. What I hope is that their own economic problems bite them harder than a San Andreas boogie. Let their own actions and policies come back to be their own demise.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
          Under a popular vote system, it would make sense to spend money in California to reduce the opponent's margin. It''s likely that many would-be Trump voters in California and New York didn't bother to vote because it was a foregone conclusion that their state would go to Hillary. The national polls were much closer, and votes in "blue" states would have counted as much as votes in "red" states.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 5 months ago
            Marketing is all about targeting those people who are willing to listen to your message. If you can spend $50 million in California and only get 1 million voters but spend that same $50 million in a dozen other states and net 5 million voters, which one is the savvy person going to do?

            What you really run into is a combination of the law of diminishing returns with the minimum necessary investment to enter the market. I think it would be interesting to investigate, but I suspect that the initial required investment for a non-Democrat is very high in California and that one hits a diminishing return rather rapidly, whereas the initial requirement for Utah would be very low for a non-Democrat and the diminishing return point very high. That's why you have ground games in each state (which Trump didn't have prior to Reince Preibus) - to help assess the financial costs of getting buy-in from voters. I found this interesting (http://adage.com/article/campaign-tra...) though I would like to see an end-game analysis.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago
              If Trump had campaigned in California in a nationwide popular-vote election, he would have been targeting independents and Democrats in addition to Republicans. Same with New York. Campaign strategies would have been entirely different for both camps. I think that Trump left more popular votes on the table than Clinton did, which turned out to be a smart strategy given the electoral college rules.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 5 months ago
                Targeting means to zero in on and focus on a specific group with a specific message. You can't target three ideologically distinct groups (conservatives, progressives, and libertarians) with the same message. And trying to promote multiple messages at the same time severely dilutes your brand. This is Marketing 201. It may sound good, but it never works - it just wastes a lot of money.

                One of the reasons the Democrats have done so well in the past 50 years is because they have focused on the specific message of Progressivism. They took this up a notch when they ditched all the Blue Dog Democrats after Reagan. Their core supporters are hard-core. Then they add in some hand-outs to attract a few more. They don't try to cater to libertarians or attract Republicans at all. No mixed messages. That's a lesson the Republicans should learn, because it's (IMO) one of the primary reasons they fail in so many big elections. They try to appeal to everyone the Democrats don't. And as a result, they turn off a lot of people. It's also the reason why you don't see infighting in the Democratic Party that you see amongst Republicans. There's a huge difference between a Texas Republican and a Massachusetts Republican. Among the Democrats, there really isn't that much difference.

                Look at this years election results. Trump won, yes, but he did so with a voter turnout that was decidedly down from the 2012 election despite population growth. Yes, Democrats turned out far less than Republicans, but both groups were down in comparison to 2012. Trump wasn't winning over Democrats - they were disgusted with the shenanigans in the Democratic Party and with Hillary as the nominee so they just stayed home or voted third party. Trump attracted independents, but a lot of core conservatives who normally vote Republican voted third party instead. If the same voter demographics as 2012 had voted this year, we'd be staring at President-Elect Hillary Clinton.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 5 months ago
      Me dino has an idea. Let California be a separate country and let Clinton run what's left of its economy into the ground as its president.
      Buh-bye. Have fun with that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 7 years, 5 months ago
      For some reason liberals don't believe in States. It may be because they want a single dictator. It may be because States have to balance the budget and only the Federal government can spend money without concern for economics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
    I think its ironic that Hillary thought that it would be the electoral college that would propel her to victory. She is so arrogant and crooked that its cool that the very thing she thought would seal her win is the thing that gave the election to Trump.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 5 months ago
    Whichever way the popular vote ended up, the difference was under 200,000 votes out of 120 million cast, which constitutes about 0.12%. That's well within the noise level, and if the contest was being decided by popular vote, would require a recount. That recount would take months, involve thousands of counters, hundreds of observers from both parties, and millions of dollars that cash strapped states could ill afford. Undoubtedly there would be evidence of fraudulent votes individually and collectively, with attempts to find "missing votes" for Hillary, which would likely descend into numerous lawsuits. I think our electoral college method has a lot going for it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Witt84z 7 years, 5 months ago
    My theory is that the people who support this petition are completely selfish. They want what they want and the consequences be damned.

    In all the protests and crying by the Hillary voters, I detect great immaturity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 5 months ago
      What makes you think that they have selves? I would hope that the cult of selflessness would finally be driven out, that the 'me-ism' of the more recent past has been finally crushed and an era of rational selfishness will arise.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 5 months ago
    As Obama said, "elections have consequences, and I won". Trump should just get on with doing what he promised and ignore this nonsense. Its time to just get on with life and let him have his chance to help us all to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 7 years, 5 months ago
    Will it ever end? No, and I'm sure they'll come up with some more pure nonsense. Last night (Saturday) on Justice that psycho, “Coocoo” (?? looks and acts like Rosie O with as big a mouth) shows specifically what’s wrong with their DNA. They just can’t admit to any truth and have always tried to flip the lies and truths about everything negative. Last night she blamed the Trump Supporters for the demonstrations and riots going on. There is something in their DNA that makes them actually believe whatever spews from their mouths. I just hope that most of them actually do leave the country.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 7 years, 5 months ago
    of course not. slick willie left office in the year 2000 and he is still kicking around, so will Hillary. and they just picked up another mouth we need not hear any more but will. 0 bought a 5.5 million dollar house in d.c. going back to Chicago is too dangerous. so his last flight on A-1 will from dulles to Reagan airports versus kenya
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo