Hillary blames FBI Director Comey for her loss

[Ron Ecker]

If Vince Foster was among the dead people who voted, I'm sure he voted for Trump.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

If Vince Foster was among the dead people who voted, I'm sure he voted for Trump.

And don't forget about Ambassador Stevens, Ron.

(Who was it who said there's a sucker born every minute?)

[Roger DeLaria]

 

[Ron Ecker]

30 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And don't forget about Ambassador Stevens, Ron.

(Who was it who said there's a sucker born every minute?)

I thought that Stevens was murdered by terrorists. If the Clintons did it, they went to an awful lot of trouble.

PS That saying is attributed to P.T. Barnum, though there's no evidence that he actually said that. Which just proves that there's a sucker born every minute.

 

[Glenn Nall]

President Obama, in reference to Clinton winning the popular vote by about 700,000 votes (not '11 million' or whatever numbers i've read in here):  "Those who didn't vote for him have to recognize that that's how democracy works, that's how democracy operates."

[Glenn Nall]

3 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I thought that Stevens was murdered by terrorists. If the Clintons did it, they went to an awful lot of trouble.

PS That saying is attributed to P.T. Barnum, though there's no evidence that he actually said that. Which just proves that there's a sucker born every minute.

 

very good, Ron.

[Glenn Nall]

44 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

If Vince Foster was among the dead people who voted, I'm sure he voted for Trump.

 

 

it is a guarantee.

[Glenn Nall]

9 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

there's a few schools of thought on that. The primary reason, in my humble opinion, the electoral college gave the southern states (after the civil war) equal footing in presidential elections. 

exactly. that's the reason this process is used.

but not just "the southern states." otherwise the "popular votes" in Iowa and Wyoming - and Wisconsin - would count for nothing.

makes sense when you're not caught up in blame and excuse.

[Roger DeLaria]

Otherwise you would have the concentrated population centers on the East and West Coasts deciding for the rest of the country, and the other states would get thrown under the bus.

[Glenn Nall]

1 minute ago, Roger DeLaria said:

Otherwise you would have the concentrated population centers on the East and West Coasts deciding for the rest of the country, and the other states would get thrown under the bus.

which is exactly what "many" would love to see, it seems.

it might be served to point out that 6 million fewer people voted this election - 4 million of them Obama voters.

who can we blame for that?

[James DiEugenio]

This makes little sense.  Why?  Because the top three states by population are California, Texas and Florida.  In the south and west.  

Which is why the electoral college is obsolete. 

 

Dan, the Bradley Effect is not just a theory.  I live in California (though not for much longer) and I was as shocked as everyone else when Bradley lost and the Republican analysts were proved correct.  And this coincides with what Nate Silver wrote about and the Trump analysts talked about.  There was  lots of unrest and insecurity about the economy and about immigration, and jobs being heisted.  I have little doubt that Roger Stone had a hand in molding this mosaic together for Trump.

But numbers cannon be denied.  Those figures are stunning, 26% Latino vote for Trump?  53% female white vote for the groper in chief, and "Grab them by the p-----ies."  Who could have predicted that?  And HRC being a white woman, the first to run for president.  In none of the interviews I saw of the latter in focus groups did any woman even mention the Comey emails issue.  They all said that they were worried about jobs and the economy.  And I have to say that Trump did a very nice job in haranguing that issue. But OTOH, the Clintons obliged him with NAFTA,CAFTA and TPP.

As for Tommy and Sandy and "KIllary", look, HRC should have never been Secretary of State.  It was a horrendous choice by Obama.  This is the woman who voted for the Iraq War, a really stupid choice.  She then urged a policy in the Middle East that is pretty much what the neocons wanted with PNAC--endless unrest in order to force American involvement. Any Democrat who consults with a jerk like Kissinger is simply inexcusable.  And if you want to defend something like that, then be my guest.

This weekend  at Lancer, I will be talking in depth about JFK's Middle  East policy, which most people are unaware of.  It was completely overturned by LBJ and Nixon and Kissinger, and that resulted in the mess we have now.  And HRC is part of that mess. The other issue I will discuss is the Rockefeller globalization campaign which JFK would have no part of.  That campaign was finalized by Bill Clinton.

Trump had two issues he could run to the left of HRC, jobs and outsourcing, and the Middle East,  and he used them to good effect.  But it was the Clintons who opened the door for him.  Good riddance they are both gone.

Edited November 15, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This makes little sense.  Why?  Because the top three states by population are California, Texas and Florida.  In the south and west.  

Which is why the electoral college is obsolete. 

regardless of the geographic location of the large populace East or South, is it then fair that the small populations' votes are made obsolete? This is exactly what would happen if we counted votes one for one.

Does the winner of the World Series win because of total number of runs or because of a standardized number games won? There's a reason...

 

 

 

[Glenn Nall]

for what it's worth, Hillary just won New Hampshire (yes, they're still counting votes, which to me is a much worse problem than why Hillary and Al didn't win the presidency).

so there's FOUR more electoral votes for her. whew.

[Roger DeLaria]

16 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

regardless of the geographic location of the large populace East or South, is it then fair that the small populations' votes are made obsolete? This is exactly what would happen if we counted votes one for one.

Does the winner of the World Series win because of total number of runs or because of a standardized number games won? There's a reason...

 

 

 

Exactly, Glenn. Whether West and South or East, makes zero difference, the effect is the same. Factions and tyranny of the majority.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

[James DiEugenio]

Glenn:

You and Roger were talking about concentrations in the northeast.  That kind of hegemony really does not exist anymore.  The Rust Belt is shrinking and the sun belt is growing.

Secondly, the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic. Because it is anti one man one vote.  No matter how many people are in a state, it will get at least  three electoral votes. Good example : Wyoming.

When one compares those three votes with California's 55, and then compare the populations, you will see that the proportions are not balanced.  Therefore, Wyoming is being given more sway in the Electoral College than its population merits.  Which means California is being short changed.  There is a serious legal challenge inherent in this, since we are supposed to follow the one man one vote rule.

Edited November 15, 2016 by James DiEugenio