Glass Ceiling has been smashed!

[jesmu84]

The media and the elites were smoked last night.  The people have spoke.

Do you believe the people spoke in 2008?  Was that also a referendum on what the American people want in a government? Were you onboard with any decisions that government made because the people spoke?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

If your candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, would you be saying the same thing?

Yes, I would.  I don't want to see the Electoral College eliminated either.  I honestly don't know what the answer is here?  But the optics don't look right for it to happen twice in 16 years.

[Galway Eagle]

If your candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, would you be saying the same thing?

Would not be broadcasting that opinion but I'd damn well be thinking it.

[jficke13]

Yes, I would.  I don't want to see the Electoral College eliminated either.  I honestly don't know what the answer is here?  But the optics don't look right for it to happen twice in 16 years.

I read a big long form piece of journalism that was talking about the decades long process of reducing the power and influence of elites and political insiders and that the end of the road is that a bomb thrower like Ted Cruz can abruptly rise to prominence in the Senate (getting rid of the incentives for being a good party soldier etc.) and the consistent rhetoric that they, as in insiders, are to blame, that the "will of the people" is being ignored. It is interesting in the context of the framing of our government was designed to be very Athenian in insulating the government from the "will of the people." No direct election of senators, the electoral college, etc., the objective was to put elites in charge, but that has been systematically dismantled over the past 50ish years.

Our current result is in no small part an outgrowth of that trend.

[jficke13]

Found the article, it's long, but a very good read:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

"Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system's capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries' influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself."

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Found the article, it's long, but a very good read:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

"Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system's capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries' influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself."

I'm an Atlantic subscriber and I remember reading that article.  It's a very good read.  Is that the same article that said "transparency" is part of the problem? 

[jficke13]

I'm an Atlantic subscriber and I remember reading that article.  It's a very good read.  Is that the same article that said "transparency" is part of the problem?

Perhaps?

"We reformed closed-door negotiations. As recently as the early 1970s, congressional committees could easily retreat behind closed doors and members could vote on many bills anonymously, with only the final tallies reported. Federal advisory committees, too, could meet off the record. Understandably, in the wake of Watergate, those practices came to be viewed as suspect. Today, federal law, congressional rules, and public expectations have placed almost all formal deliberations and many informal ones in full public view. One result is greater transparency, which is good. But another result is that finding space for delicate negotiations and candid deliberations can be difficult. Smoke-filled rooms, whatever their disadvantages, were good for brokering complex compromises in which nothing was settled until everything was settled; once gone, they turned out to be difficult to replace. In public, interest groups and grandstanding politicians can tear apart a compromise before it is halfway settled.

Despite promising to televise negotiations over health-care reform, President Obama went behind closed doors with interest groups to put the package together; no sane person would have negotiated in full public view. In 2013, Congress succeeded in approving a modest bipartisan budget deal in large measure because the House and Senate Budget Committee chairs were empowered to "figure it out themselves, very, very privately," as one Democratic aide told Jill Lawrence for a 2015 Brookings report. TV cameras, recorded votes, and public markups do increase transparency, but they come at the cost of complicating candid conversations. "The idea that Washington would work better if there were TV cameras monitoring every conversation gets it exactly wrong," the Democratic former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle wrote in 2014, in his foreword to the book City of Rivals. "The lack of opportunities for honest dialogue and creative give-and-take lies at the root of today's dysfunction.""

[Pakuni]

This is a worthy read/analysis, if you have the time or interest.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/


But human beings are not going to follow and obey the exact people they most blame for their suffering. They're going to do exactly the opposite: purposely defy them and try to impose punishment in retaliation. Their instruments for retaliation are Brexit and Trump. Those are their agents, dispatched on a mission of destruction: aimed at a system and culture that they regard, not without reason, as rife with corruption and, above all else, contempt for them and their welfare.

After the Brexit vote, I wrote an article comprehensively detailing these dynamics, which I won't repeat here but hope those interested will read. The title conveys the crux: "Brexit Is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions." That analysis was inspired by a short, incredibly insightful, and now-more-relevant-than-ever post-Brexit Facebook note by The Los Angeles Times' Vincent Bevins, who wrote that "both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years"; in particular, "since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt."

[forgetful]

Hillary lost because she was a horribly flawed candidate and because she couldn't energize enough minorities and women to vote for her. She lost because she made some terrible mistakes - if they even were "mistakes" - with the email server. She lost because America is sick of the Clintons. She lost because the vast majority of Americans considered her untrustworthy.  She had near-record unfavorables (of course, having even worse unfavorables didn't prevent her opponent from winning!).

Trump won because Americans wanted change for change sake. He won because a large swath of America is gullible and pathetic.

Think about this man. He's outwardly racist -- it's not his "fault" that every radical racist group supported him, but he certainly didn't push back on that, and in fact, he hired an avowed racist as his campaign CEO. He's an admitted sexist, an admitted sexual abuser, an admitted pervert who bragged about being able to watch 15-year-old Teen USA contestants in various states of undress.

He has zero knowledge of anything beyond our borders and no intellectual curiosity. He brazenly refused to show his tax returns. PolitiFact said that more than 70% of what he said during the campaign was either "mostly false," "false" or "pants on fire." He wants to spread nukes around the world and has threatened to use them. He has offered few, if any, detailed policies. He is exceedingly vindictive; it will be interesting to see how he engages with the many Republicans who repudiated him.

He won because he did a brilliant job of appealing to the "deplorables" ... and enough non-deplorables to get over the top.

He won because he was right about the election being rigged; he was just wrong about the "rig-ee." The combination of the Russian hacks being leaked through Wikileaks and Comey's outrageously awful handling of the email situation -- all in the campaign's final two weeks -- made things very difficult for Clinton. Of course, those situations wouldn't have existed had Clinton not committed her multiple faux pas.

Our VP-elect denies science. He's a bible-thumping evolution denier who thinks God actually created the world in six days, and did so only a few thousand years ago: the classic "Jesus rode dinosaurs" guy. Disavows anything to do with climate change. Wants to deny women control of their bodies and futures. In many ways, I fear him more than I fear Trump.

In the end, more than half of America was bamboozled by a racist, sexist, bombastic snake-oil salesman. How embarrassing. We are the laughingstock of the world.

Look, as long as Trump doesn't blow up the world, this probably won't affect me personally. I'm white, I'm not rich but I am financially comfortable, I've got a house, I've got a Sugar Mama. I sure wouldn't want to be anything but a white male under a Trump presidency, though, especially with the GOP retaining control of the Senate. 50+ years of work on women's rights, black rights, etc, are in jeopardy.

Of course, Mrs. MU82 and I are probably going to lose about a year's worth of salary in the stock market today, but this too shall pass. Something fairly similar happened after Brexit, and the market recovered fairly quickly.

The girls basketball team I coach won our season opener yesterday afternoon and then the old-man's softball team I play on won our league championship last night, so I was feeling pretty jubilant until I started watching the election results.

But I did all I could do - even held my nose and voted for Hillary - so now I'll be a big boy and live with it. I don't have a choice. Despite my wife saying she wants to move to Canada, we're not going anywhere. We probably won't even leave North Carolina, which has erased a century of progressive progress in the last 4 years.

So I'm going to try to look at the few bright sides:

1. I like to think we have seen the last of the Clintons. Hillary couldn't beat an unknown rookie whose name sounded like Osama in 2008, and she couldn't beat one of the most unpopular people on the planet in 2016. She's toast, and she can take her douchebag husband with her.

2. This should open the Dems' eyes to see they can't just throw anybody on the presidential ballot and rely on the minority vote. They need to start tapping into their pool of younger potential stars that progressive whites, minorities, women, Millennials, etc can get behind - more like Obama, less like Clinton. It will be interesting to see how the Cory Bookers, the Julian Castros, the Eric Garcettis, etc, progress as political leaders.

3. This totally exposed the religious right as the hypocrites they are. Has there EVER, EVER, EVER been a less-Christian, major-party political candidate? Even if one offers Jefferson and a couple others from that era as atheists, they weren't blatantly, undeniably immoral, like this guy. And yet the Christians fell all over each other to vote him in. Here in NC, the GOP passed the infamous "bathroom law" because, they said, it would prevent perverts pretending to be trans from terrorizing their daughters in bathrooms and locker rooms. And then, for president, they back an actual pervert who literally bragged about spying on their daughters in the locker room!! Classic.

Finally, I'll be curious to see if the Dems in Congress have the nuts to wage the kind of stonewalling, obstructing and fillibustering attack that the Republicans did with Obama. My guess is that they don't.

All right. End of screed. I'd better get started on that bomb shelter.

Thanks MU82 for summing up what a lot of us are feeling today. 

As a person who has devoted my life to science, progress and educating our youth, I fell particularly demoralized today.  We elected a man who does not believe in man's affect on the environment; and a VP who doesn't even believe in evolution.

I feel this election was a direct attack on science, women and minorities.  I will fully support our president, but can't help feeling angry and ashamed (of our country) today.  I will not post on this beyond this post, because it is all over now, today we have to find a way to move on together.

[MerrittsMustache]

Yes, I would.  I don't want to see the Electoral College eliminated either.  I honestly don't know what the answer is here?  But the optics don't look right for it to happen twice in 16 years.

That only happened because a Republican won and it came as a result of super-liberal California.

Hillary won CA by over 2.5 million votes. That means Trump won the remaining 49 states by 2.3 million votes.

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 544,000 but Bush won the non-California states by nearly 2 million votes.

I'm not saying that California's votes should be discounted, but fear of this type of skew in votes was a main contributor to the electoral college being created in the first place. It's not perfect but it's better than just a straight popular vote (IMO).

[Galway Eagle]

That only happened because a Republican won and it came as a result of super-liberal California.

Hillary won CA by over 2.5 million votes. That means Trump won the remaining 49 states by 2.3 million votes.

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 544,000 but Bush won the non-California states by nearly 2 million votes.

I'm not saying that California's votes should be discounted, but fear of this type of skew in votes was a main contributor to the electoral college being created in the first place. It's not perfect but it's better than just a straight popular vote (IMO).

So it's those peoples fault that they don't live in a battleground state then? This is why the Electoral college is idiotic. Right now my vote mattered more when I was living in Wisconsin than living in Illinois, why should I bother voting in a Presidential election? And old people wonder why the youth are so uninterested in voting.  If the federal government was truly libertarian like it was created to be then it'd make sense to have each state have delegates based on their population but since the federal government is far from what it was originally intended as the overall population should matter more. 

I'm sorry I don't want to end up in any arguments here. Congrats to you righties, I'm thankful I have dual citizenship and can dip out of here at will.

[Babybluejeans]

That only happened because a Republican won and it came as a result of super-liberal California.

Hillary won CA by over 2.5 million votes. That means Trump won the remaining 49 states by 2.3 million votes.

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 544,000 but Bush won the non-California states by nearly 2 million votes.

I'm not saying that California's votes should be discounted, but fear of this type of skew in votes was a main contributor to the electoral college being created in the first place. It's not perfect but it's better than just a straight popular vote (IMO).

This doesn't make any sense. By discounting individual votes in California, the Electoral College skews the votes in the other states and gives them heavier weight. Why does this make sense? The whole point of a popular vote is that each vote is counted as it should be: equally.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

That only happened because a Republican won and it came as a result of super-liberal California.

Hillary won CA by over 2.5 million votes. That means Trump won the remaining 49 states by 2.3 million votes.

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 544,000 but Bush won the non-California states by nearly 2 million votes.

I'm not saying that California's votes should be discounted, but fear of this type of skew in votes was a main contributor to the electoral college being created in the first place. It's not perfect but it's better than just a straight popular vote (IMO).

Merritt you can't do that.  Let's sub Texas state for California in your hypothesis?

[#UnleashSean]

So it's those peoples fault that they don't live in a battleground state then? This is why the Electoral college is idiotic. Right now my vote mattered more when I was living in Wisconsin than living in Illinois, why should I bother voting in a Presidential election? And old people wonder why the youth are so uninterested in voting.  If the federal government was truly libertarian like it was created to be then it'd make sense to have each state have delegates based on their population but since the federal government is far from what it was originally intended as the overall population should matter more. 

I'm sorry I don't want to end up in any arguments here. Congrats to you righties, I'm thankful I have dual citizenship and can dip out of here at will.

Having a popular vote would mean the voice of the minority is never heard. This would mean Midwestern states like Wisconsin Illinois and Minnesota with small populations would have no say in government policy. That's why the electoral college was built. It's a combination between a popular vote and a representative vote.

[StillAWarrior]

So it's those peoples fault that they don't live in a battleground state then? This is why the Electoral college is idiotic. Right now my vote mattered more when I was living in Wisconsin than living in Illinois, why should I bother voting in a Presidential election?

Difficult problem to fix.  But, you should recognize that the point you're making could be viewed as diminishing the impact of the popular vote argument.  How many Trump supporters in Illinois didn't bother to vote?  New York?  California?  How many Clinton supporters stayed home in Texas?  Missouri?  Determining who would win in a popular vote isn't really as simple as just looking at the popular vote.  People vote based on the rules in place.  As you've pointed out, that removes the incentive to vote for some people in states that are clearly leaning one way or the other.

[MerrittsMustache]

Merritt you can't do that.  Let's sub Texas state for California in your hypothesis?

That's not a hypothesis. It's what happened.

Trump won Texas by 820,000 votes. That's about 1/3 the difference of CA. Remove Texas and Hillary wins the popular vote by ~1M.

What's your point? I'm not trying to stir the pot or start an argument. I'm simply providing facts. UnleashWally and StillAWarrior have good posts on this issue.

[StillAWarrior]

I don't think it's good that we are going to have a popular vote winner again who lost the electoral vote for the second time in 16 years.

I think we probably should get used to that.  The urban/rural split will continue to grow, and as it grows so will the likelihood of an electoral/popular split.  And, frankly, attempting to change that may well make it worse because it will be akin to telling the majority of the states that they should have no say in who is in the White House.

[muwarrior69]

Difficult problem to fix.  But, you should recognize that the point you're making could be viewed as diminishing the impact of the popular vote argument.  How many Trump supporters in Illinois didn't bother to vote?  New York?  California?  How many Clinton supporters stayed home in Texas?  Missouri?  Determining who would win in a popular vote isn't really as simple as just looking at the popular vote.  People vote based on the rules in place.  As you've pointed out, that removes the incentive to vote for some people in states that are clearly leaning one way or the other.

I favor the electoral college system, but not the winner take all from each state. I would like each electoral vote go to the winner of each congressional district and the remaining two go to the state wide winner. I think this would mitigate the influence of big money as it would have to be spread over all 435 districts. Though I must say big money did not seem to help Hillary who out spent Trump at least this cycle.

[Babybluejeans]

Having a popular vote would mean the voice of the minority is never heard. This would mean Midwestern states like Wisconsin Illinois and Minnesota with small populations would have no say in government policy. That's why the electoral college was built. It's a combination between a popular vote and a representative vote.

Again, this is a twisting of logic. With a popular vote for president, people in every state would have exactly the same voice. Indeed, with a popular vote, the state has no role at all. So it wouldn't matter if you live in Minnesota or California because state borders aren't relevant-it evens the playing field. Think of it like us voting as a single country rather than as a collection of different states with different weight attached to each.

Anyway, the point is that a popular vote gives the same weight to each vote. That's why people consider it the most fair.

Also, giving voice to small states is not why the electoral college was built (the Senate was designed to do that). Instead, it was to protect the people from themselves. The Founders were afraid giving citizens the popular vote would put too much power in the hands of the people. Mission not accomplished, as demonstrated last night. 

[StillAWarrior]

I favor the electoral college system, but not the winner take all from each state. I would like each electoral vote go to the winner of each congressional district and the remaining two go to the state wide winner. I think this would mitigate the influence of big money as it would have to be spread over all 435 districts. Though I must say big money did not seem to help Hillary who out spent Trump at least this cycle.

I'd be interested to see modeling of how this would look.  I honestly don't know.  Would it just end up mirroring the house?  It would be interesting to see what would happen in some of the states that the parties count on.  California wouldn't be an auto 55 for Dems, and Texas wouldn't be an auto 38 for the GOP.

[Galway Eagle]

Having a popular vote would mean the voice of the minority is never heard. This would mean Midwestern states like Wisconsin Illinois and Minnesota with small populations would have no say in government policy. That's why the electoral college was built. It's a combination between a popular vote and a representative vote.

I'm confused let's take this election or 2000 are you arguing that it's a good thing the person with less votes wins? I'm just arguing that each vote should be considered equal or that the House of Representatives should be much more proportionately split up and the senate should not be included. It's BS that one of the handful of people in wyoming have essentially three times the power with their vote than say Maryland where it's actually proportionate to population.

Here's what I am using
http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I'd be interested to see modeling of how this would look.  I honestly don't know.  Would it just end up mirroring the house?  It would be interesting to see what would happen in some of the states that the parties count on.  California wouldn't be an auto 55 for Dems, and Texas wouldn't be an auto 38 for the GOP.

First you'd have to find a way to eliminate gerrymandering if you want to use Congressional Districts.  Regardless, we should still find away to eliminate gerrymandering.

[warriorchick]

I'm confused let's take this election or 2000 are you arguing that it's a good thing the person with less votes wins? I'm just arguing that each vote should be considered equal or that the House of Representatives should be much more proportionately split up and the senate should not be included. It's BS that one of the handful of people in wyoming have essentially three times the power with their vote than say Maryland where it's actually proportionate to population.

Here's what I am using
http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes

If it weren't for the electoral college the smaller states would get zero attention.  Presidents would make sure that California and New York get everything they want, and f*ck North Dakota with their measly 400,000 voters.

[StillAWarrior]

I'm confused let's take this election or 2000 are you arguing that it's a good thing the person with less votes wins? I'm just arguing that each vote should be considered equal or that the House of Representatives should be much more proportionately split up and the senate should not be included. It's BS that one of the handful of people in wyoming have essentially three times the power with their vote than say Maryland where it's actually proportionate to population.

Here's what I am using
http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes

I think one of the biggest issues with relying on  a pure popular vote would be a complete focus on cities.  Politicians would pander to the cities and the term "flyover country" would take on a whole new meaning.

[Pakuni]

Having a popular vote would mean the voice of the minority is never heard. This would mean Midwestern states like Wisconsin Illinois and Minnesota with small populations would have no say in government policy. That's why the electoral college was built. It's a combination between a popular vote and a representative vote.

The electoral college has its positives and negatives, but no, it wasn't built to protect the voice of the minority or even small states. It was built to protect the presidency from an unqualified populist who would sway less educated voters (oops). It was, in fact, created to protect the elites from the masses.
Even backers of the college have to admit it's patently unfair. It makes a vote from a Wyoming resident, for example, far more valuable than one from a California resident.
There are downsides with a purely popular vote as well, of course.