Election Day and Results

[Ooh-Rah]

However, it does mean that the Trump administration must be cognizant of the fact that they do not have a "mandate" from the American people, and need to act accordingly.

Deathy, I agree and disagree with your post -

Agree that Hilary won the popular vote, why is that even up for debate? Trump won.

Disagree that Trump administration did not receive a 'mandate'.

Now I am more than willing to be educated, but my understanding of a presidential election mandate has always been a straight ticket win of the presidency, the house and senate. Which happened here -

Am I incorrect in my definition ?

 

[Salt USMC]

Deathy, I agree and disagree with your post -

Agree that Hilary won the popular vote, why is that even up for debate? Trump won.

Disagree that Trump administration did not receive a 'mandate'. Now I am more than willing to be educated here, but my understanding of a presidential election mandate has always been the side that won the election, also wins the house and senate. Which happened here -

Am I incorrect in my definition ?

Well you're correct that Trump won. That's not in dispute. But when people talk about a "mandate" (notice the scare quotes here) vis a vis national elections, it's usually to refer to a succesful re-election bid, or an overwhelming electoral victory. E.g. Reagan had the people's mandate in 1980 and 1984, as Obama did in 2008 and 2012, and GWB did in 2004 (though not in 2000). Both President's inital victories were by overwhelming popular and electoral majorities, which clearly indicated that the will of the people was behind them. That's the meaning of a "mandate". Trump does not have it, even though he won the election.

A president with a clear mandate is free to pursue every objective that was promised during the campaign, as it's clear that electoral momentum is behind them. A president without a mandate needs to be more careful in what objectives they choose to go after.

 

[amlove21]

Deathy, I agree and disagree with your post -

Agree that Hilary won the popular vote, why is that even up for debate? Trump won.

Disagree that Trump administration did not receive a 'mandate'.

Now I am more than willing to be educated, but my understanding of a presidential election mandate has always been a straight ticket win of the presidency, the house and senate. Which happened here -

Am I incorrect in my definition ?

I see this one from both sides.

@Ooh-Rah , I agree that the PE is the PE, and that the 'mandate' is implied in that election. Yes, PE Trump won and has an implied mandate from the American people.

I think what @Deathy McDeath was saying was, "Despite electoral college decision, and in light of the popular vote, the majority of the people that voted voted for the opposing view. Therefore, PE Trump does not have the support of the majority of the country and needs to act accordingly."

I could be way off base, but I agree with both sides to a point.

 

[DA SWO]

Most of the uncounted vote is coming from California. It's pretty safe to say that not only will Clinton still win the popular vote once all the votes are counted, but her lead will likely increase.

Does that change the outcome? No. However, it does mean that the Trump administration must be cognizant of the fact that they do not have a "mandate" from the American people, and need to act accordingly.

Disagree, his mandate is no different then those who proceeded him, he ran on a platform and needs to stick as close to it as he can. That's his mandate.

 

[nobodythank you]

Ok, fair enough.

Can you please tell me what he is "supposed" to say? In your own words? Accepting the fact that at this point, with the popular vote that has been counted, Trump has lost to Clinton? If this isn't true, feel free to post your own source with a count that differs.

From my optic, you're being ultra sensitive about a pretty simple premise- no, not 100% of the votes have been counted. But, speaking for the votes that have, Clinton is winning the popular vote unless you can prove otherwise. Can you?

It's inflammatory to tell you the facts? Jesus, maybe you need to find a safe space.

We have all talked about this. Do you think your comment would have stood without your final passive aggressive "sorry"?

What about this conversation needs you to be a dick to get your point across?

Whoa Whoa Whoa, You mean like how you can be a dick as well? The sorry was nothing more than a turn of phrase meant in jest. Like many of the board members here do with each other through their side jabs. I guess the fault is mine because I got too chummy with you. My bad.

Since you want to play the provide sources game (yet you have failed your own test); CNN, NYT, IBT, Politico, even FOX show differing popular vote counts ranging from 300k to over a mil. With certain states doing recounts, some not finished counting, and further issues involving illegals voting. Now I will grant you the alleged 3mil illegals voting might be a stretch, but given how the ENTIRE media was absolutely wrong about Trump and his campaign, and several outlets were proven to and have admitted to colluding to help HRC win, is it any wonder some of us doubt news from the same sources that admitted they were not just wrong, but purposely tried to influence the election? Can you blame some of us for wanting an official final tally before proclaiming "AMERICA DOESN'T WANT YOU!!!!" You have yet to provide any facts. Even if HRC won the popular vote, it doesn't mean the people wanted her. If you look at the county wide election map it shows that "America" did not want HRC. Several large metropolitan areas elected HRC (a factual statement using any number of local sources).

I wasn't intentionally being a dick, but I was responding to what I saw was an inaccurate and misleading statement. Especially given that the whole process for counting votes isn't finished, and the information we are getting about the process is from the same sources that lied to us, mislead us, and ultimately forgot what unbiased journalism was. That is also a fact, as is evidenced by this letter from the Executive Editor of the New York Times.

 

[nobodythank you]

Let's try this: It is very likely that her vote lead will be over 2 million when all is said and done. He isn't going to make up the difference. Is it equally inflammatory to call states? To say that Trump is President Elect because the EC hasn't technically voted yet? Your standard is a bit on the ridiculous side.

Disagree. She conceded, therefore he won. It isn't inflammatory at all. Again, we don't know the final vote counts because all the "credible" sources out there have varying vote counts. Will she win the popular vote? Probably since the majority of her votes come from a handful of large metropolitan cities. However, we don't know yet with certainty do we? So the constant needling by those that did not vote for the current President-Elect, and believe him not to be the legitimate winner, is doing nothing but worsening an already stressful situation.

I'm not trying to be all tinfoil-y, but goddamn, if the media outlets were intelligence sources they would have been classified as not reliable and had anything they said independently verified. Why is it bad that I don't want to believe what they say without independent verification? Such as an official final vote count.

 

[0699]

Here we go AGAIN. Moderators lecturing their personal viewpoints...

 

[Il Duce]

Disagree. She conceded, therefore he won. It isn't inflammatory at all. Again, we don't know the final vote counts because all the "credible" sources out there have varying vote counts. Will she win the popular vote? Probably since the majority of her votes come from a handful of large metropolitan cities. However, we don't know yet with certainty do we? So the constant needling by those that did not vote for the current President-Elect, and believe him not to be the legitimate winner, is doing nothing but worsening an already stressful situation.

I'm not trying to be all tinfoil-y, but goddamn, if the media outlets were intelligence sources they would have been classified as not reliable and had anything they said independently verified. Why is it bad that I don't want to believe what they say without independent verification? Such as an official final vote count.

Media, especially reputable media (what you would likely call MSM), is used as a reliable intelligence source all the time. It's one of the applications of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT).

I almost disagreed with your post too @Deathy McDeath. You're of course correct on the technical specifications of a 'mandate' - though I've read some political scientists who believe there's almost no way to really leverage a mandate - with a bunch of caveats for LBJ and FDR of course. But to me, I can only see this administration governing as though the slightly-more-than-half-the-voting-public that voted the other way doesn't matter at all. The political shifts that have led us to an unprecedented level of control by the Republican party - all three branches of government - seem to exclude fear of the other side, or governance from the middle. Instead, the political drivers seem to be fear of the right flank. I could see an argument that the PE would be motivated to reach out in some respects to maintain the 2 million or so white non-college educated voters who crossed from the Democratic to the Republican party to vote but that sort of political calculus does not seem consistent with how he campaigned or what kind of cabinet he's putting together.

 

[amlove21]

Here we go AGAIN. Moderators lecturing their personal viewpoints...

Bro, come on. No one is "lecturing".

Do I agree w @ke4gde ? Nope. Do I respect his position and want him to engage? Absolutely. Am I grateful for his open and honest communication? Yep. Would I ever punish him for a man to man conversation in my role as a mod/admin? No.

I am calling bullshit where I see it- yes I am voicing my personal viewpoint because I happen to have an opposing personal viewpont.


I will shoot you a PM so we can hash this out. I will also not continue my conversation w @ke4gde in this thread.

 

[nobodythank you]

Media, especially reputable media (what you would likely call MSM), is used as a reliable intelligence source all the time. It's one of the applications of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT).

I am sure they are used as reliable sources. My point was that after what happened on election night, they should be called into question as to their
reliability. After all, logic would dictate that sources of information can lose their credibility or reliability depending on what has occurred. At this point, the reputable media has lost its credibility with both sides of the isle.

 

[BloodStripe]

Here we go AGAIN. Moderators lecturing their personal viewpoints...

And why shouldn't they be able to be contributing members to the discussions? While I may not agree politically with @TLDR20 or @Deathy McDeath, it doesn't mean I want them silenced. Differing viewpoints are one of many reasons I enjoy this forum. It's the only forum I visit. Yes, their names may be red but that doesn't mean their opinion is any more valuable than yours, @0699. Anyone here can lecture on a viewpoint until a thread gets locked, in which case, yes they can say as they please without our mob input.

 

[nobodythank you]

Bro, come on. No one is "lecturing".

Do I agree w @ke4gde ? Nope. Do I respect his position and want him to engage? Absolutely. Am I grateful for his open and honest communication? Yep. Would I ever punish him for a man to man conversation in my role as a mod/admin? No.

Not to diminish @0699's concerns, and be fair, In @amlove21's defense, I can say without a doubt that he hasn't tried to throw is girth around. In fact he has been helpful in the past when addressing administrative issues.

He's still a liberal cock. Oh, wait... I promised not to do that... :-"

 

[amlove21]

I am sure they are used as reliable sources. My point was that after what happened on election night, they should be called into question as to their
reliability. After all, logic would dictate that sources of information can lose their credibility or reliability depending on what has occurred. At this point, the reputable media has lost its credibility with both sides of the isle.

And I agree with this. There is literally no drama.

The media got the election wrong. They were exposed to be awful.

 

[amlove21]

Not to diminish @0699's concerns, and be fair, In @amlove21's defense, I can say without a doubt that he hasn't tried to throw is girth around. In fact he has been helpful in the past when addressing administrative issues.

He's still a liberal cock. Oh, wait... I promised not to do that... :-"

lol, that is in fact a true statement. And it's ok for you and everyone here to have that opinion, as a matter of fact.

In the interest of keeping the thread on track, please return to the initial conversation. Any staff issues should be put in the thread that's appropriate.

 

[BloodStripe]

In case SecDef doesn't workout.

 

[AWP]

1. There are too many "dicks" in this thread. While it seems to be hashed out, that doesn't make it right and should not have started in the first place. Christ...
2. Staff can participate in our discussions and are under no obligation to agree with the masses. Specified or implied bullying isn't tolerated. I'm sick of this topic (from both sides) and unless @ShadowSpear explicitly tells me otherwise I'm going to start kicking things up a notch with my spot corrections.

Back to the thread.

 

[compforce]

But to me, I can only see this administration governing as though the slightly-more-than-half-the-voting-public that voted the other way doesn't matter at all.

Of course they will. It's the balance in the system. Dems do the same thing. Noone can legitimately say that Obama gave any credence to the conservative voices. I can't remember a case where he reached across the aisle. There may be one or two, but they weren't on anything of substance. The pendulum keeps swinging back and forth, further and further each time. At some point it is not going to come back and that will signal the end of the US in all but name, regardless of which side it stops on.

The political shifts that have led us to an unprecedented level of control by the Republican party - all three branches of government - seem to exclude fear of the other side, or governance from the middle.

It's not unprecedented at all. As a matter of fact, the last time we had control of the executive and legislative by one party, we got Obamacare (09-10). If you want to only include "by republicans". Bush "W" had the congress and senate in both 03-04 and 05-06. Presidents and Congresses

 

[Blizzard]

The entire "winning the popular vote" argument is kind of silly to me; it seems to come up every election now when a certain group doesn't get their way.

Problem is that even aside from the pesky Consitutional constraints of our system, the fact remains that in 2016, approx 231M Americans were eligible to vote in the Presidential election, give or take a dead body or two. Yet, similar to all modern U.S. elections, voter turnout didn't even top 60% of the eligible population. For all practical purposes, Hillary and Trump each garnered only 60M votes. Another way to look at is that only ~25% of the total eligible population in the U.S. felt compelled to come out and give either candidate their approval. So, approx. 50% of the population chose to stay on the sideline for whatever reason; a rather embarrassing stat for our society.

With those facts in mind, it's difficult to think anyone really has a mandate or why anyone would really brag about "the popular vote". When we have everyone (or a respectably higher percentage >80%) fully engaged in the process, then maybe that discussion carries more weight.

 

[Salt USMC]

Here we go AGAIN. Moderators lecturing their personal viewpoints...

Devil, if ever you think a point i make is incorrect, you don't agree with it, or is just plain stupid, then say so! You are absolutely allowed to say, "Hey @Deathy McDeath that point you made was so fucking dumb that I'm pretty sure I caught Downs from it." I have never banned anyone for disagreeing and I never will.
I don't post on here to browbeat people because I got a red tag or some shit. I genuinely enjoy the level of discourse here, and of course contributing to it. Any mod will say the exact same thing.

 

[Il Duce]

@compforce I think that's a misrepresentation of the Obama presidency - especially during the first 3 years. Much of the tumult over the ACA was due to President Obama's efforts to include Republican votes. Though I agree the later portion of his first term and second devolved to almost total gridlock. I think political scientists and historians will credit the Obama administration with a great deal of outreach across the aisle - but also fault it for the lack of success. I read somewhere that no party has controlled all 3 branches of government (including the judicial) since the 1920s - but I take your point on executive and legislative.

My larger point was that the pressure to reach across the aisle to legislate has largely dissolved over the last 15 years for a variety of structural reasons - and that's bad for democracy. Both parties have to pursue an electoral strategy towards turning out reliable voters (and suppressing the other party's voters) vs trying to convince 'swing' or 'undecided' voters to move over. It means there's very little room to compromise legislatively because of ideological pressure - even where the policy positions line up pretty well.

That's why I disagree with @Blizzard as well on the importance of the popular vote. Wherever the final tally lies - and I've read it could be anywhere from .5 - 2 million against the PE - it displays a profound split in the politics of the country. It seems structurally unsound to me to govern in a 'winner take all' manner when half your populace (or at least the ones that bothered to vote) disagree with your positions. That should generate a desire to compromise or move to the middle in at least some areas. But, I think looking at the electoral map with such a powerful demographic divide, rural/city divide, gerrymandered districts, dark money, tailored media, and the loss of earmarks it seems to me the institutional set-up pushes against that kind of governance.

I was reading an article that said what makes democracy strong is not it's efficiency or ability to get the right answer on policy - but it's ability to withstand internal pressure. A democracy has the ability to peacefully transition power at multiple levels and ensures factions do not have to resort to violence to ensure their survival. Its the ability to protect the minority that makes the majority stronger.