The Democrats’ 2016 mistake

Posted by $ nickursis 9 years, 3 months ago to Government
38 comments | Share | Flag

Read this if you care about where we are going, because it does provide a chilling prediction of something I can point to in fact: We will soon have a country that will predominately elect Progressive Democrats. I cite Oregon as an example: You can run a criminal candidate (like the beast, but our was John Kitzhaber), who then immediately resigns to avoid prosecution (which worked) and then the unelected candidate sails into office with only 3 counties voting her in. The beast won Oregon because 3 counties went her way. 90% of the state voting for Trump. If you look at the voting map of Oregon, it should scare you, because soon, as soon as they wake up, they will take and seize power for good, as they gather more and more special interests groups. This guy has it right, when they get their act together, they will be able to consistently win, with it being a 52-48 vote and it will steadily tilt in their direction as more of the uneducated masses graduate High School and drink the Koolaid. The rural voters saved the day, because the cities failed to show up, maybe because they assumed she would win, but the system will still slowly turn to where you will be unable to assemble enough people with the ability to think things through, see beyond the smoke, and realize they have been had.Trump only won by a hair in some states, had they really gotten their vote out, he would have lost. As long as they use the populated areas to their advantage, a smaller (in area) group will start dictating to the larger (in area) part of the country, what kind of crazy stuff will happen, and then expect the larger part to pay for it. Like free college, paying off student loans, etc, they will be on the great giveaway in 4 years.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Had that been true in Oregon, then he would have gotten 2 of 4 or1 of 4 depending on the numbers. That seems to be a fairer way to distribute votes and smooth out the large area/people impact.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The group think is exactly what I saw going, with no concern for facts or reality. It is a very powerful weapon as the Obamanation proved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    CBJ, I am not arguing your points, they seem valid, however:
    "It assumes, too, that younger voters don’t grow more ideologically diverse as they age. According to an analysis by the Democratic group Third Way, Gen Xers — my generation — grew markedly more conservative in the decade between 2000 and 2011. There’s not much reason to think millennials will remain stuck where they are, either."

    This statement carries a double edged sword, the change in philosophy stems, IMHO, for the reality check that happens when you have to go to work, look at your paycheck, and see 30-40% gone to the state for all the happy crap. My concern is that The Beast counted on things she did not have a right to count on, but that the NEXT one will. The manipulative nature of Bernie should scare everyone, he had a Trump like appeal, and had he not been sabotaged by his own party, might have won. Both Hillary and Bernie engaged in one upmanship in promising the moon and beyond to the snowflakes, and only when Bernie went away tdid Hillary retire to her cave and think great thoughts on how great she is. That will not be the case next time, and they will have 4 more years of new snowflakes flopping around ready to feed at the trough. That may kill off any chances unless a lot of improvements are seen in the next 4 years. The power of corruption and the free giveaway is strong, especially to people to untrained in critical thought to ask how are you going to pay for all this. The greatest improvement could be to have a civics class that teaches TANSTAAFL and what it really means, that might help stem their influence. Thanks for the reply.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I was thinking that the states could designated a % of the electoral votes to metropolitan areas and the others to the rest of the state. This would make it difficult to gerrymander as FFA stated and it would force candidates to work smaller more rural areas. For example, Wisconsin had 10 votes and if no more than half we awarded to the the cities that account for 1/2 the population it would make it more difficult for the metropolitan areas to dictate the election.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Two states parcel the electoral votes based on congressional district - Maine and Nebraska.it usually goes 2 for the winner of the stae and 1 for each congressional district. If youlookk at the mape Trump one a disctrict in Main so get one vote from there and Clinton get 3. In Nebraska, trupm won all the discticts and the state. so got all of theirs. I may be mistaken about Nebraska but not main. There was much talk early on in the election coverage abut how trump could get to the needed 270 and the separate congressional districts were discussed at length.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The other alternative, which I prefer, is to follow Maine's example and allocate 2 votes to the state winner and one for each congressional district. This would mean that every state had "swing" districts and the candidates couldn't ignore any state as they currently do California and New York.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    While I agree that Trump's strategy would have been different in a popular vote election, I said nothing about the electoral college not existing. My speculation was specifically a modified method of assigning electoral college votes which still protects the small states and maintains one reason for Trump's strategy. The way it is done now is decided in each state, not federally, and I can't see either party pushing for the change I suggested on a national basis. Smaller population states would not be likely to go along and it would take a constitutional amendment to do away with the electoral college.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think we can assume that the outcome of the popular vote would have been the same if the Electoral College did not exist. For example, in a popular vote election Trump would have campaigned hard in California and New York and likely would have significantly reduced Hillary's margins in those states. The campaign strategies of both candidates would have been very different overall, and might have led to a Trump victory anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 3 months ago
    I read the article and it appears to undercut your prediction that "We will soon have a country that will predominately elect Progressive Democrats."

    Two quotes from the article:

    "But that’s making another dubious assumption — that because any bloc of voters is reliably in one camp today, they’ll still be there 10 years from now. "

    "It assumes, too, that younger voters don’t grow more ideologically diverse as they age."

    Obama lost 5% of the African-American vote in 2008 and 7% in 2012. By contrast, Hillary lost 12% of the African-American vote in 2016.while running against the alleged racist Donald Trump. A similar phenomenon played out with progressives' other "core constituencies".

    The actual lesson here is that demography is not destiny. The progressives' political base is slowly waking up and turning on its leaders. It's not time to throw in the towel yet.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 3 months ago
    The practice of winner-take-all awarding electoral votes within a state partially causes this to happen. On the other hand, that practice also gave Trump a sizable win due to the electoral vote of many small states. If all electoral votes were awarded based on percentage of popular vote Hitlery might be president elect. The "solution" might be to award the first 2 electoral votes in each state to the candidate with the most popular vote in that state, and to split the rest of the electoral votes in each state based on percentages of popular vote in that state. This would would have awarded one electoral vote to 3rd party candidate McMullin in Utah and the rest split between Trump and Hitlery. Trump would have won 58 (or 60 if Michigan settles for Trump) electoral votes to Hitlery's 40 electoral votes of the initial base 2 per state. Then the rest would have gone approximately Hitlery 220, Trump 217, McMullin 1 based upon popular vote. Trump still would have won with about 275 (or 277) to Hitlery's 260 electoral votes.

    I agree with your basic comment though. As long as the young are brainwashed in statist biased schools they will vote more for socialism and the American experiment will end in failure due to domestic enemies.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo