They are so used to winning they do not realize just how temp their jobs really are.
And, idiot constituents don't realize they don't have to vote status quo.
I don't know about Spike but Pa. republicans including my family like many others across the country are looking to sink the freedom Caucus and sink them fast. When they learn what the word momentum and winning means and how all things can be CHANGED when you hold power they are going down. They are getting the message quick from donors and now they are looking to giving Trump his victory on Heath care. Everyone knew it was flawed but that was not the point. They wanted to flex their muscles and now they are on their knee's weakening the entire party in public.
The Rock
Trumps victory with that health care bill was it never being passed. Three parts of trust me legislation should be more than any American is willing to do at this point. Especially with the swamp still full of the alligators. How is it then that Trump would have won with the passing of this bill? These establishment politicians would have hung it around Trumps neck and strangled him with it. Never intending to see it succeed.
God Bless men
It seems some have become so enamored with winning at all cost, they've lost sight of what they are playing for.
In my 54 years, I've never seen the Red team so fractured.
Matt
Thanks, Spike.
I did my part to send Trump to DC to hopefully be mentored by the Freedom Caucus. His conservative promses aligned pretty well with what the freedom caucus stands for. In order to put this country back on course Not further deviate from the course the founding documentation outlines. It is that simple. You either believe the Constitution is the definition ithat guides this country. Or, it is swaying with the tides. Republicans used to believe it was defined as intended. Not to be ratified by anyone. Not what many are now suggesting.
God Bless men
The Rock
The Rock
Trump now understands the danger Paul Ryan posses to him. He now understands that this is a bit more complicated than just promising healthcare to everyone on tax payers dime. And, it was the first thing he approached that said quality is more important than quantity. He's doing a great job man. No American can say different, He needs to be sure to continue that even if it means he has to slow down on some things. Besides, you can't legitimately blame so few people for a whole party's short comings.
You know I respect you but, you are the one that has this one wrong. It wasn't a middle of the road Trump campaign that elected him. It was the promise of conservative leadership that elected him. From both sides. If this bill had passed the house, it would have sunk Trump. Because he would never have gotten the same votes the second time around.
God Bless
The Rock
You're a little mixed up. There were plenty of Republican voters available to elect Donald Trump. It's just that a lot of them were so appalled at him that they didn't vote for him. His significant under-performance in many areas that traditionally get a lot more Republican votes was proof of that. That's on him.
If that were actually true, Trump would not have won the nomination. The number of Republican voters who are full-spectrum Conservatives is clearly much smaller than previously imagined.
Trump got a huge number of Democrat votes in the Rust Belt (and probably other places too, in the South and Appalachia), and yet Hillary beat him in the popular vote by a large margin. Hillary lost a huge number of Democrat votes in the Rust Belt, and yet....she beat Trump in the popular vote by a large margin. In no Universe does the Republican candidate for President swing a ton of Democrat votes his way and yet lose the popular vote big, unless he draws a much smaller percentage of the Republican vote than normal. State by state returns show some stark under-performance numbers for BOTH of them in areas compared to "normal". Fact is, neither Trump nor Hillary received nearly as high a percentage of the base voters in the R & D parties as the "average" Presidential candidate has in recent memory.
You have posted a fact, but tried to get us to draw a false conclusion. She ONLY built up that margin in CA, NY, and IL. The "fact" is false for the majority of the rust belt making the conclusion you wish to lead us to also false.
Trump's history is not particularly conservative, but so far he has mostly governed as a conservative. He did flip some blue collar democrats in the rust belt, and that is one of the factors that made him president.
Trump has done a fine job as a conservative and as a President and I think he is getting better at it as he goes.
Outside the area Henry pointed out, Trump won in a landslide victory. For numerous reasons. The important thing is he won versus Hillary. And, to date has done nothing but try to fufill his promises he campaigned on. While not all were far right, that's the way it goes when you truly try to represent 330 million people equally. I'll take it. And as an American, you should too. With no arguments at this point. God Bless the freedom caucus and Donald Trump.
It goes both ways. Something Joshua, freeglee, Gray Ghost, Mike V, yourself, and a few others need to realize. For every Trumpette, as you call them, that's here there is a Trump hater that over looks all rational in his attempt to smear him.
No on suggested giving him a free ride but you. I simply pointed out as of yet, there should be no complaints. Not that we should be zealots to his actions.
God Bless men
WV, Please justify why I'm included in your list of Trump haters.
Yes, I've been critical of his botched travel ban, his reckless and often untruthful Tweets and comments, and his "rinse and repeat" heath care bill. I've also praised him for his SCOTUS pick and his "message" to Assad in Syria.
I don't the hate the man, but I certainly don't think he walks on water, either.
Matt
Compromise has meant minimizing our losses for a long time. I'm ok with compromise as it's the reality of the system but instead of compromises where we lose a little instead of a lot, we need compromise where we win a little instead of a lot. Constantly minimizing losses still adds up to defeat eventually. The ball has to move the right direction.
Trump has earned kudos and rasberries in my book. Time will tell.
Trump is not a "real" conservative who now so many since his rise claim kinship. Kid yourselves to believe that the far right is going to make policy changes in this country. Never going to happen folks, the same folks who fell for the Republican AND conservative BS year in and year out. They played you like the grand master when zero was given everything he ever wanted without a whimper from the right. Continue on in your fanatic belief that "principle" will see this nation through. What in the hell have you learned this past election cycle about both sides of the aisle and your government? You don't have to answer because you will play the same tune on the same bugle forever. The tune you just recently learned and now stand in stunned disbelief because you did not know. Here we are with a age old strategy in a new corrupt advanced society. That is going to work out well.
Your beloved Freedom Caucus is going the way of the buggy whip. Bank on it or be dragged kicking and screaming into the garbage heap.
The Rock
Well Matt, you're not the only one pondering your name begin on that list. My observation has been you've been consistently objective; doling out praise when warranted and expressing polite disapproval likewise. Personally, I prefer we leave the echo chamber to the far left and let them continue their fade into oblivion without lament.
The Freedom Caucus shouldn't be castigated for sticking a fork in PPACA v2.0; they should be lauded and at minimum festooned with the very best $1.99 floral arrangements WalMart has to offer.
I'm with Sen Tom Cotton on this one; take the time to get it right-period.
FYI, the Freedom Caucus may only be small (32 members) but they are also part of the RSC (Republican Study Commission) comprised of 172 conservative members of the HOR Republican contingent of 237; hardly a drop in the bucket.
And lest we forget, it was the Freedom Caucus that helped usher John (cry me a river) Boehner into retirement; yes, I know we got stuck with Paul Ryan but I'll take incremental gains over the status quo any day.
Good topic Spike, thanks for posting.
Hackbow, the way you took my words out of context, I assumed you were one of the Joshua types. I don't spend near as much time here as others so, I'm not up on the past of everyone. Proof of my misunderstanding of GG. I apologize if I misunderstood your post too. But, I KNOW my past and, my feelings on interpretation of the job Trump is/has done. And, I've said it enough for everyone here to know I'm optimistic but, give no one a free pass. As Glunt said, Morals and constitution first. Party and person next. That'e me. What I believe and have said a bazillion times. So, I will be the first to say when he does something wrong. He gets no free pass from me for being Trump. He has gotten my approval so far because it is obvious he is trying his best to do the best job he can.
God Bless men
What false conclusion? The only logical conclusion from the General Election results is that neither Trump nor Hillary were very popular among voters in the parties they were representing. The fact there were roughly 5.5 million more votes for 3rd party/write-in's in 2016 than in 2012 should tell you something.
Surely you haven't forgotten already what a polarizing figure Trump was among Republican voters in both the primaries and the general election? Did you already forget how he won the nomination with only a plurality of the primary vote?
"He did flip some blue collar democrats in the rust belt, and that is one of the factors that made him president."
It was THE factor. Without Trump's Liberal Democrat, Union Friendly economic campaign rhetoric gaining him large numbers of Democrat votes in the Rust Belt states, he loses not just the Popular Vote but the Electoral Vote also. The Democrat votes he received in Kentucky/West Virginia/the South didn't affect the outcome one way or the other, as he was winning those states regardless. With all the Democrat votes Trump got, if he had received near the percentage of Republican votes as normal, Hillary wouldn't have won the Electoral OR Popular votes. And if Hillary, with all the Republican votes she got, had received the normal base Democrat votes, Trump wouldn't have won either the Electoral OR Popular votes.
Think about this for a minute: Hillary unpopularity with Democrat voters lost her some of the most reliably Democrat Presidential voting states in the nation. And she STILL won the Popular vote. And no, it wasn't just because of California, New York, Or Illinois. But even if it WAS from just those 3 states, that doesn't disprove what I'm saying, either. You do realize those states actually have a lot of Republicans also, right? I know this narrative that Trump won some kind of historic victory is a very fashionable one, but he in fact dramatically under-performed in some traditionally very Republican areas.
In Texas, statewide Hillary did 2% better than Obama. Trump did 5% worse than Romney. There were multiple high population, heavily Republican suburbs counties in Texas where Trump lagged Romney/2012 by 6-9% of the vote. How do you explain that, except Republicans abandoning Trump in large numbers? Hillary pulled over half a million more votes in Texas than Obama.
In Arizona, Trump did 5.5% worse than Romney.
In California, Hillary did just over 1% better statewide than Obama/12. But Trump did 5.5% worse than Romney. In Orange County, (nearly 1.2 million votes in 2016), Trump lagged Romney's percentage by 9% and Hillary bested Obama's by 5%. Obama/12 bested Hillary/16 in a number of California counties, but she beat him easily in the most populous reliable Republican county in the state. In a county that had almost a quarter million votes in 2016, do you realize how big of a vote swing that is towards Hillary and away from Trump? Any idea when the last time was that Orange County voted for a Democrat in the Presidential election? I stopped looking when I got to Nixon in 1968 and still hadn't found a Democrat that had ever won Orange County. How do you explain that result other than Republicans defecting from Trump? Orange is the 3rd most populous county in California and the only high population California County that has reliably voted for the Republican in General Presidential Elections. Until Trump.
In Utah, Hillary over-performed Obama by over 3%, while Romney bested Trump by a whopping 27%. Even if you spot Romney an extra 10% in Utah because he is a Mormon, Trump still drastically under-performed among Republicans there, doing 17% worse than McCain/08. How do you explain that except Republican voters defecting away from Trump?
You mentioned Illinois. Hillary under-performed Obama by 2% in Illinois. And Trump under-performed Romney by 2% also in Illinois.
You mentioned New York. Hillary under-performed Obama by 4%+ in NY.
What about Georgia? Cobb County (suburban Atlanta) had over 300,000 votes, and Trump under-performed Romney there by 10%. In 2012, Romney won Cobb by 13%. Trump lost Cobb by 2%. Gwinnett County (suburban Atlanta) had over 300,000 votes also, and Trump under-performed Romney there by 9%. In 2012, Romney won Gwinnett by 9%. Trump lost Gwinnett by 6%. That's just 2 reliable Republican counties, in 1 state, but a swing of a whole lot of votes towards Hillary (and others) away from the Republican candidate. How do you explain that result other than Republican voters defecting from Trump?
Now....do you still want to go with the story that it was just those Lib states like California, Illinois and New York that gave Hillary her popular vote win? Because that ain't the case.
I'm not sure which part of any of this you believe to be false? Have you just not looked at election returns? This isn't the first time I've posted some of these numbers.
"Outside the area Henry pointed out, Trump won in a landslide victory."
Wait, what? If you're saying that outside of Illinois, New York, and California, Trump won in a landslide, well.....that is just flat out not true. And even if it were, you can't just remove states from the tally whose results you don't like. That is absurd. That would be like Hillary supporters saying that "if you take away Texas, Florida and Missouri, Hillary won in a landslide." It would be an utterly absurd statement, and you would laugh in their faces. And you deserve to be laughed at to your face if you honestly are trying to push the NY/IL/CA narrative.
Bottom Line: Hillary did decisively worse than Obama in some very traditionally Democrat counties. And Trump did decisively worse than Romney in some very traditionally Republican counties. A lot of Democrats voted for Trump, and a lot of Republicans voted for Hillary.
WV Mountaineer's Link
http://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map
The popular vote was won by Hillary Clinton by 2,864,974 votes.
Trump won the popular vote in the remaining 49 states by 1,405,004 votes.
While the statistics you cite are beyond dispute Josh it should be plainly evident that absent CA (just one state) Mrs. Clinton's victory turns into a defeat.
If there was ever a case for the retention of the Electoral College that tidbit of information should cement it.
My guess on the "union friendly" inclination is twofold; first the plan for substantial infrastructure spending, typically a boon for union labor. Second, the overall sense of a protectionist policy with regard to trade.
I'd agree that you have to consider the infrastructure spending as a sop to the unions (and we know they tend to (or perhaps it's now "tended to") vote Democrat) but I'd counter with the reality that our infrastructure is (and has been for quite some time) crumbling and I don't see how we can neglect it with the rationale that it's "a democrat platform"; roads, bridges, etc. also move goods and are a vital cog in the economic engine. I think they're shape dictates that we no longer have the luxury of abstaining from addressing the need over political ideology.
I'll leave the trade protectionism alone for the evening; long day and I'm running on vapors right now.....
Private sector will hire unions if they so choose because of craft expertise. So, if that's "democrat union friendly", bring it on.
With all the talk about "made in the USA", what else would you expect than to address world trade...?
At the risk of asking a question I'm sure I already know the answer to....do you understand how the Electoral college system works in U.S. Presidential politics? How many states were won by one candidate or the other means squat. How much red or how much blue is on the map means squat. Look at a map of Obama's wins over McCain and Romney. Using your reasoning, both McCain and Romney beat Obama easily!
"Take away the large win of the popular vote for Hillary from those three states"
And what, exactly, is your argument for doing that? Are those states not part of the United States? Do their votes not count? The next time a Republican wins the popular vote in the election, should the Democrat be able to say "take away the votes of Texas, Florida and Georgia and I would have won!"
"If not for those 3 touchdowns our opponent scored, WE would have won the Super Bowl!"
That you can't see the absurdity of this argument is quite insane. The argument is so weak and so riddled with excuse-making. We don't get to play the game by the rules we WISH it had. We play the game by the rules there ARE. For the recent past, and the near future, the Democrat Presidential candidate is going to win CA/IL/NY. There is exactly one reason Trump lost the popular vote big: a lot of Republican voters did not vote for him, in many places around the nation. There is exactly one reason Hillary lost the electoral vote big: a lot of Democrat voters did not vote for her, in some of the most reliable Democrat states in the nation.
"CA was won by Hillary Clinton by 4,269,978 votes. The popular vote was won by Hillary Clinton by 2,864,974 votes.
Trump won the popular vote in the remaining 49 states by 1,405,004 votes."
Mike, you can't cherry pick like that. That's like saying "here are the results in the other 49 states if you take away the Republican state - Texas - with the most votes". Here are the actual numbers for that: With Texas counted, Hillary's popular vote win was 2,868,519. With Texas excluded, her popular vote win would be 3,675,698. Unless people are seriously proposing that we eliminate the votes of the top few best Republican states or the top few best Democrat states, then all this is really just an exercise to try and make a very unusual situation (Trump electoral win while sustaining a big popular vote loss) seem understandable. It is quite understandable if people would stop trying to make excuses for a Trump win and why it wasn't even bigger. He won the electoral vote because he got a lot of Democrats to vote for him in traditionally Democrat states. He lost the popular vote because he alienated a lot of Republican voters with both his stated policies and his person.
Trump's economic rhetoric throughout the campaign was anti-free trade and anti-free market protectionism gobbledygook with an extra dose of heavy-handed government coercion and interference in business. If you don't understand how that is Liberal, Democrat policy that is friendly to Democrat controlled Unions then I can't help you.
Couldn't the same have been said about FDR's WPA program that was rife with corruption and used to reward political patronage for FDR's big $ backers?
I am not opposed to infrastructure improvement. However, I don't believe it is a function of the Federal Government to fund all infrastructure improvement. Furthermore, for infrastructure that IS the responsibility of the Federal Government, I don't believe improvement projects should be implemented that are simply "make-work". They should be implemented in the normal process of determining when major improvements or upgrades are needed, not to create jobs. Using it as "make-work" is not the Free Market at work. Some of the things Trump has said about the infrastructure spending plan are decidedly Keynesian in tone. That is not a true Free Market at work.
Looks like your doing what most progressives and liberals do best - take statements and turn them into something else to support your thesis. Did he say all that, probably. But you need to say the rest of it too...
All or nothing doesn't work. Never has, never will. Think you've misinterpreted what conservatism really is.
Quote away and entertain with your "gobbledygook" rhetoric (Sigh)....
Obamacare repeal and replace bill that lowers premiums for Americans soon.
Obamacare repeal and replace bill that lowers premiums for Americans soon.
Obamacare repeal and replace bill that lowers premiums for Americans soon.
delivering President Donald Trump a major victory in the Congress’s lower chamber.
Congressman Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said that there are “no conversations going on” in his caucus about replacing Ryan...
Says the guy whose Trumpist brethren are continually pushing ridiculous narratives like "well if the top 3 Democrat voting states didn't count, Trump would have won the popular vote!"
Your guy won the election. Maybe the Trumpist brethren should get over it. And yet they can't. The Trumpist brethren persist in needing to find ways to rationalize him badly losing the popular vote result. Open your eyes. There's a reason. It's not because of California. Or Illinois. Or New York. It's because Trump was unpopular among many Republican voters. This was right in front of our eyes for the entire election season. Go back and see how many times I predicted that the number of Republicans who didn't vote for Romney in 2012 would seem small compared to the number who wouldn't vote for Trump in the General. That's exactly what happened. That is why Trump lost the popular vote. This "if not for California!" nonsense is just that. Excuse-making nonsense.
"Conned" would be the more appropriate word, but yes, I see you get the idea.
"take statements and turn them into something else to support your thesis."
And how have I done that?
"Did he say all that, probably."
"Probably"? Were you on the moon during the election season?
"But you need to say the rest of it too..."
And what is the "rest of it" to which you are referring?
"Think you've misinterpreted what conservatism really is."
STOP. My sides are going to split from laughing at the irony of you saying this. You, who are confused as to why Trump's economic message during the campaign should be construed as Liberal, Dem, Union Friendly, anti-free market, and Big Government expansionism.
Since you are so knowledgeable about what "conservatism really is", please bless us with a defense of why Trump's economic platform during the campaign is anything other than Liberal, Democrat, Big Government policy.
The difference between you and the rest of "us brethren" is that we have the capacity to accept reality as it is.
And really josh, YOU bragging about a prediction????? Seriously?
You need help man. Get some. If nothing else do it for your family.
Oh Good Grief! STOP. The constant pushing of this narrative that Trump only lost the popular vote because we actually counted the votes in the 3 biggest Dem states is the very definition of NOT accepting reality!
"And really josh, YOU bragging about a prediction????? Seriously?"
I, along with many others here, made the mistake of thinking that registered "republicans" wouldn't vote for Trump in the large numbers they did in the primaries to give him the nomination. I was grievously mistaken at the number of actual Conservatives in the party. I, along with many others here, believed that Hillary would in fact win the general. I would bet there's a darn good chance you woke up on election morning thinking Hillary would be the winner by the end of the day. I knew a lot of Dems would vote for Trump, but even I did not realize how high the number would end up being.
Have all of my predictions been correct? No they have not. Have yours? Has anyone else's here?
A lot of my predictions have been correct. Including that a lot of R's wouldn't vote for Trump (particularly ones in highly populated suburban areas), and a lot of Dems would. That Rubio wouldn't get the nomination. That Bush would never sniff the nomination. That Cruz would be the last one standing with Trump. That Cruz would win Iowa despite losing the last 13 polls there. That Cruz would win Oklahoma, Kansas and Idaho despite losing in the polls there. That Trump wouldn't come close to winning Texas over Cruz. That if Trump was elected President, he would push bad legislation and try to pressure Republicans in Congress to vote for it. That Trump was not interested in pursuing an actual, meaningful repeal of Obamacare like he promised during the campaign. That Trump was not going to pursue a wholesale deportation of illegal immigrants like he promised during the campaign. That Trump would pursue working with Democrats to pass bad legislation if enough Republicans balked at supporting it. I have a pretty bad feeling this list is going to get longer as Trump's term goes on, too.
Funny thing is, it didn't require Nostradamus to make these correct predictions. Many of them were, quite simply, common sense. Others were easy enough for anyone willing to look at Trump's past record. But people more often are interested in making their reality what they want it to be, not seeing it for what it actually is. Reality is that Donald Trump is not a Republican or a Conservative. He is a New York City Liberal, and that has always been the case. Reality is that a lot of Republicans did not support him in the General Election. Reality is that between Hillary's extreme unpopularity and Trump's Liberal economic campaign rhetoric, he pulled a lot of Dem votes and was able to win the general election with what was the lowest popular vote percentage in a long time (for a 2-man race). Reality is that in his time in office so far he has kept some promises, and he has broken some promises. Reality is that in his time in office so far he has done some good things, and he has done some bad things. Reality is that there are a lot of stories lately saying that the Democrat/Liberal/NYC wing of his cabinet members and advisers are starting to win out in the battle for influence over Trump's policies. Reality is that there is a heck of a lot of time left in his 4 year term and he is already polling at historically low approval levels.
I think I need to clear up a few points, first and predominantly that I'm not looking to rationalize away the popular vote; as the saying goes "it is what it is."
I do feel however that when people, and to be specific it's mostly hard-left ideologues, push the narrative that the popular vote disparity represents what the country as a whole thought of Trump they're the ones who don't have a firm grasp of reality.
Here's a reality; it can be fairly argued that even some of the more traditionally conservative states are a closer approximation to mainstream America than California. The latter has (with heavy drag from heavily tilted liberal strongholds) been steadily sliding farther away from even the center (or moderate) hub of the country. That is the context needed; not to excuse the popular vote differential but to properly frame it in context; what is more representative of America as a whole; the EC or CA?
You may still disagree with my clarified reasoning and that's fine; I'm comfortable with my take on the election.
One other point I thought I was clear on was the clear distinction between, as you call it, "make work" versus work of necessity. I thought I was pretty clear when I referred to crumbling infrastructure needing to be addressed. I'm no fan of throw work for the sake of work out there; it's a waste of resources and historically seems to benefit the party of perpetual dependency. I hope this point is clearer now.
On the whole I don't see anything glaringly wrong in your assessment of the election; the how and why Trump won and Hillary lost are pretty much on the money. With regard to election predictions regarding Hillary if you research a thread that Pat started I flat-out told him (and this was well before the primary season started) that Hillary would NEVER win; I told him words to the effect that she was the most inherently unlikeable person in politics I'd ever seen and that the more people saw of her the less they liked her. Check it out-it's there in black and white. If there was ever a prediction I felt good about that was the one.
As to Trump's presidency as with every other of his predecessors I prefer to wait for a body of work to be accumulated before grading him.
In any event, I appreciate the discussion and hope you feel the same.
And why does nearly every political discussion turn into a low-bar comparison of Trump to either Obama or Hillary? Are expectations really that low?
Back to the topic, the Rs really need to define what the party stands for as a whole. Otherwise, winning the majority in both houses is meaningless, and won't result in any significant change.
Matt
"Back to the topic, the Rs really need to define what the party stands for as a whole. Otherwise, winning the majority in both houses is meaningless, and won't result in any significant change."
Yep.
Because josh has a brain worm that tells his brain that EVERYTHING his eyes see is this............
"Back to the topic, the Rs really need to define what the party stands for as a whole. Otherwise, winning the majority in both houses is meaningless, and won't result in any significant change." Sadly I agree but the whole is the sum of its parts of which each has their own "individual" conditioned response. Therein lays the problem. Winning both houses is not enough in this political climate. When we find it necessary to "define" who we are as a party , and I agree that we do, the fractures and ideologies are deeper than we were led to believe. We are as a society no longer a simple "D" or a simple "R" as defined by decades past. The reality of politics today, is the game within the game, and each party has multiple champions. Thus the difficulty to "define". The premise then becomes the "lions" share and everybody demands "that" considerable share. This is of course simply not possible to co-exist as a unified force and will undoubtedly weaken and drain the strength of the much ballyhooed house control that was necessary, or so we were told. I predict this administration will fight tooth and nail to unwittingly defeat itself and each succeeding reform in the wings will be a struggle, let alone Heathcare, a monster in itself with so many moving parts. Tax reform and infrastructure will follow this path, all with three branches in their pocket that otherwise should be a slam dunk. I hope I am wrong. I believe our party to be inept, and as you stated, had better get a face that MOST R's recognize because as of this moment our leader's are looking at their feet. Not a very good starting point.
The Rock
Do I know how the electoral college works? Is that a joke? Naw, it's an attempt by you to try and divert away from making such a dumb statement.
Landslide victory : There are two ways to look at it Josh. One is the vast majority of the country swinging Trump's way. Proven by the electoral map I posted. Hillary won parts of 20 states and a District. That's 40 percent of the states. That leaves 60% to Trump. He won half again more states then she did total. That's an electoral landslide given he had 306 to her 232. She won 43% of electoral votes, he won 57% Landslide number 1. Number two is if you take away CA, Trump beat her in the poplar vote. To the tune of about 5% more popular votes country wide. In voting, that number is huge. Landslide number 2.
I truly get confused by you. Your inability to look at reality. Your inability to do anything but, try and belittle another. Your only reply to anyone that points out your one sided agenda is to insinuate they misunderstand the topic at hand. It's your crutch. Your way to shift gears and slow it down. While trying to advert the pressure by applying a weak insinuation. It's your pathetic, weak minded way of trying to maintain control of the direction of the conversation.
Now, this is not really an argument. It was a reply to your so called professional observation of politics. Which seems to be really bad BTW. From the time primaries started, you started. You just kept digging that hole deeper and deeper as you went. Because your pride was bigger than your ability to understand the average American. As you've pointed out, many missed that. Most have gotten over it by now. You continue to make statements, quote and post tweets from all sorts of people about all kinds of things that have since turned out wrong. all in earnest to try to prove that you were just barely wrong. Basically, You are tying to sound like the authority of why Trump was elected while, being too ignorant of why he even was elected. And, when this gets pointed out to you, your reply is to change the subject. You do this every time when you make a stupid statement that gets dropped kicked right back down your throat.
I know you aren't so dumb to not be able to read what people write. I know that while people sometimes misunderstand one another, that it is simply impossible to misunderstand what others say every time. which seems to happen when you get in a debate with someone and lose the point at hand. In more than one way. EVERY TIME.
You are a sad human being. You really are.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, void of any infantile insults, and you make some valid points.
What you've described is basically political stagnation. A fight towards the middle, if you will. I've always favored that over radical changes one way or the other. My political philosophy is, the less they change, the less they f**k up.
Yeah, that's a cynical view, but it's grown stronger as I've aged.
Matt
Says the guy whose Trumpist brethren can't stop talking about what the election results might have been if the 3 biggest Democrat states didn't have their votes counted. And Trump won! And they still can't stop pushing this utter nonsense narrative.
WV just did not say it plain enough. Your sick buck. Honestly. I fuq around more than most here but you sincerely believe your institutionalized thinking. Should you continue on this path to wobbling thought I predict you will be sadly read on then news one day. Suicide Salsa and that is not a joke. Make peace with yourself.
The Rock
Perhaps I should tutor you on sociology and how it applies to shifts the current American culture has underwent. Maybe then you could have a relevant debate about important topics? I know reality is not your strong suit. Nor is acknowledgment. But, you can't Bluff your way through this anymore. I'm tired of hearing your one sided lies and, hate driven dribble.
You truly are borderline pathetic when you act like this.
God Bless everyone
No brainer there...
Mike, I don't believe the popular vote final tally always automatically tells us what is representative of what most of the country thinks of the losing candidate.
But let's be real here....the Democrat candidate for President ALWAYS wins New York, Illinois, and California big. Always. What is different about this time? Trump was so disliked by a chunk of the Republican voter electorate that it took a huge number of Democrat votes in the Rust Belt to drag him to what ended up being a historically low percentage of the vote for the winning candidate. Trump was so disliked by a chunk of the Republican voter electorate that a lot of them voted for a historically unpopular DEMOCRAT Presidential candidate rather than pull the lever for Trump. As I already showed in voting results, the large number of Republican voter defections from Trump was a large part of why he lost the popular vote so badly. For anyone to blame it on Illinois, California, or New York and Liberal voters there is just a sideshow. Same as it would be if the Democrats said the same thing about Texas or some other big reliable GOP state. The Democrat wins NY/CA/IL big every 4 years. I don't recall George W. Bush or his voters complaining that he'd have won the popular vote against Gore if only the results of the 3 biggest Democrat states didn't count. Of course the more traditionally Conservative states are a better representation of "Middle America" as a whole. Still doesn't mean we get to throw out the votes from the biggest Democrat voting states. There are also a lot of Republican voters in those states. We play by the rules we have, not by the rules we want. The rules say that votes get counted from all 50 states.
I love the Electoral College. I'm vastly in favor of it. America is well and truly screwed if ever we get rid of the EC. However, the EC doesn't mean we get to ignore or discount the story the popular vote tells us when our guy wins, any more than Democrats should ignore what the people of Kansas and West Virginia voted for when their guy wins. The popular vote told us this year that a lot of traditional Republican voters didn't vote for Donald Trump. They didn't all go to Hillary (though a lot did), but they didn't vote for Trump. The popular vote told us this year that a lot of traditional Democrat voters didn't vote for Hillary, with most going to Trump. Some have fantasized that Trump is like Reagan and has the same broad cross-party appeal that Reagan did and won in a landslide. Neither is remotely true. The difference between Trump and Reagan is that Trump attracted many voters from the other party at the expense of many Republican voters. Reagan attracted many from the other party, but in addition to, not at the expense of, his own party voters. This idea that Trump was a widely beloved and popular figure by a majority of the nation's voters is just plain and simple fiction being pushed by Trump voters who truly have become un-moored from reality.
Regarding infrastructure spending, I understand your point. However, the way in which Trump has talked about this has very, very strong Keynesian overtones and is not a free-market solution to improve the economy on a long-term basis. Would Trump voters defending this plan be just as strongly in favor of FDR's WPA? I am highly skeptical that only clearly Federal Constitutional projects will be included in this plan, and that everything that would be worked on is truly "crumbling". I am also mindful of what a corruption and political patronage boondoggle FDR's WPA became.
"I told him words to the effect that she was the most inherently unlikeable person in politics I'd ever seen and that the more people saw of her the less they liked her."
Clearly, Hillary was extremely unpopular or she would not have lost so many Rust Belt Dem voters to Trump. But one can't acknowledge how unpopular Hillary was without taking strong note that despite that, a lot of Republican voters disliked Trump even more. You did call it right, though. I never thought Hillary had a chance of winning, either, until Trump got the nomination. I knew Trump would get a lot of Dem voters, but I didn't realize the extent of just how much they would be hypnotized by his pushing traditionally Democrat economic policy issues during the campaign.
"As to Trump's presidency as with every other of his predecessors I prefer to wait for a body of work to be accumulated before grading him."
Time will tell. I said during the campaign that Trump was not truly this outsider, anti-establishment figure some fantasized he was. He has already done multiple things to validate that point of view. He seems to be starting to favor the Liberal New York Democrat wing of his policy advisers, led by his son-in-law, so I expect that to continue. Today was a particular doozy. He was flippin' and floppin' today like a fish out of water. He disavowed his comments during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. He said he wants to keep the Export-Import Bank. All throughout the campaign he called China a currency manipulator, and now has said they are not. And he has changed his position on FED chair Yellen also. Does anyone here think any of those positions is any different than Hillary's would be on that issue?
"In any event, I appreciate the discussion and hope you feel the same."
Absolutely, and thank you for debating civilly and without the hyperbolic histrionics some here tend to favor.
Again with the wanting to not count votes of certain states, lol. Is California no longer a state? Can a person running for President representing the Republican Party no longer win the majority of votes in a U.S. Presidential election? Keep making excuses, it suits you well.
As I said before, perhaps you should spend some time studying the history of Presidential election results, state by state. I mean really studying. I have. You should. There are certain areas that have become more left over time, and there are certain areas of the country that have become vastly more right over the very same time.
"Hillary did the same in many traditionally very democrat areas because, well, you know, democrat areas."
Read that sentence again, and the one it immediately follows. I meant that, like Trump under-performing in many traditionally Republican areas, Hillary also under-performed in many traditionally Democrat areas. Badly.
I think you and Trump are the only people who really care about the election results any more. But don't let that stop you from yammering on about it. Yawn.
Matt
God Bless men
