So WAS this a repudiation of "politics as usual"?

[GMDino]

Someone on ABC, early in the evening said this was a "punch to the face of the elites".

I disagreed then and still do now.

The VAST majority of incumbents were re-elected.  The only change is the Presidency.  

So if one of the themes is "not liking career politicians"  why did so many get re-elected?

[Griever]

people are stupid, and hillary is a evil

[mallorian69]

(11-09-2016, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Someone on ABC, early in the evening said this was a "punch to the face of the elites".

I disagreed then and still do now.

The VAST majority of incumbents were re-elected.  The only change is the Presidency.  

So if one of the themes is "not liking career politicians"  why did so many get re-elected?

I think it is. Just because most incumbents won doesn't mean it's not. I can't think of any race other than president where both candidates weren't career politicians who are already beholden to lobbists.

[*jason*]

I agree with the OP.

I feel Trump won because he rallied the masses who feel that their life sucks, and it sucks because somebody (Clinton, Obama, Mexicans, Syrians, NAFTA, China, etc....) did them wrong.

[Benton]

(11-09-2016, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: The VAST majority of incumbents were re-elected.  
 

(11-09-2016, 10:00 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Just because most incumbents won doesn't mean it's not. 

It speaks volumes.

Kentucky swung heavily in favor of Trump. It's also swung heavily in favor of Mitch McConnell for 30 years. The mixed message there is "we don't want conventional political candidates except when they're OUR conventional political candidates."

[mallorian69]

(11-09-2016, 11:51 AM)Benton Wrote: It speaks volumes.

Kentucky swung heavily in favor of Trump. It's also swung heavily in favor of Mitch McConnell for 30 years. The mixed message there is "we don't want conventional political candidates except when they're OUR conventional political candidates."

Notice you didn't quote my entire post. As I said before as far as I know Trump was the only person up for election at the national level (with a realistic chance of winning) that hasn't already been elected to public office.

 All other candidates with the exception of McMullen already have ties to lobbists and the Washington elite. If there had been several other viable candidates with no political background and they had all lost i might agree with you. 

[SunsetBengal]

I'd say more of an absolute rejection of the PC culture, the Progressive Agenda, and all other radical idealisms that have been forced upon the lives and altered the cultures of plain Americans, ever increasingly for the past 8 years.

[*Nately120*]

(11-09-2016, 02:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'd say more of an absolute rejection of the PC culture, the Progressive Agenda, and all other radical idealisms that have been forced upon the lives and altered the cultures of plain Americans, ever increasingly for the past 8 years.

Agreed.  I'm sure you can't wait to go to the courthouse and get legally separated from that man the liberals forced you to marry in 2014.  Welp, Trump is in office...time to go see which assault rifle the right-wing forces me to purchase!

[Belsnickel]

Kind of like in 2010, IIRC, this isn't really a repudiation of anything, though the GOP will try to say it is. Voter turnout was remarkably low. The Democrats increased their seats in both chambers of Congress and won the plurality of the popular vote for POTUS. So even while the GOP retains control of both chambers and won the white house by electoral votes, the people that voted actually went left, and more of them would have if the Democrats had put up a decent candidate.

It was business as usual with a slight lean to the left.

[*Nately120*]

(11-09-2016, 02:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'd say more of an absolute rejection of the PC culture, the Progressive Agenda, and all other radical idealisms that have been forced upon the lives and altered the cultures of plain Americans, ever increasingly for the past 8 years.

47% of voters chose the purportedly socially conservative candidate = absolute rejection of the progressive agenda

Again, the majority of voters went with the Democrat and the absurdly socially liberal 3rd party candidates and we're supposed to read this as America clearly rejecting such things? Trump is the president, but some of the conclusions you are drawing don't quite add up.

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-09-2016, 09:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Kind of like in 2010, IIRC, this isn't really a repudiation of anything, though the GOP will try to say it is. Voter turnout was remarkably low. The Democrats increased their seats in both chambers of Congress and won the plurality of the popular vote for POTUS. So even while the GOP retains control of both chambers and won the white house by electoral votes, the people that voted actually went left, and more of them would have if the Democrats had put up a decent candidate.

It was business as usual with a slight lean to the left.

The popular vote is always a little skewed by NY and especially California. Clinton had a net + of 4 million in those two states alone. With that advantage, she still only won the popular vote by about 185,000 out of a total of 1.18+ million votes.

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2016, 10:09 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: The popular vote is always a little skewed by NY and especially California. Clinton had a net + of 4 million in those two states alone. With that advantage, she still only won the popular vote by about 185,000 out of a total of 1.18+ million votes.

But that is still winning the plurality, and with a significantly decreased voter turnout from previous elections that was primarily made up of Democrat base. Doesn't negate what I am saying.

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-09-2016, 10:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But that is still winning the plurality, and with a significantly decreased voter turnout from previous elections that was primarily made up of Democrat base. Doesn't negate what I am saying.

I'm not trying to negate what you said. Plurality or majority, I just don't think using a gauge that is that skewered because of two states is a good way to make a point when there are 48 other states that make things look different.

[*Nately120*]

(11-09-2016, 10:37 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not trying to negate what you said. Plurality or majority, I just don't think using a gauge that is that skewered because of two states is a good way to make a point when there are 48 other states that make things look different.

Well Texas hasn't gone blue in 40 years so let's just toss that one out too?

[Belsnickel]

(11-09-2016, 10:37 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not trying to negate what you said. Plurality or majority, I just don't think using a gauge that is that skewered because of two states is a good way to make a point when there are 48 other states that make things look different.

How does it skew when you are looking at an overall percentage of the national population, sans state borders? In a national popular vote, no state holds more weight than any other.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 10:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How does it skew when you are looking at an overall percentage of the national population, sans state borders? In a national popular vote, no state holds more weight than any other.

Of course one state holds more weight than another on the popular vote, as do certain cities.

Our Nation is distributed by state, why shouldn't the vote? Could the EC use some massaging? Sure, but popular is not the way to go.

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-09-2016, 10:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well Texas hasn't gone blue in 40 years so let's just toss that one out too?

trump- 59,231,409 minus cali 56,264,755
clinton- 59,416,203 minus cali 53,934,037

trump- 56,264,755 minus ny 53,627,077
clinton- 53,934,037 minus ny 49,790,496

trump- 53,627,077 minus fl 49,021,562
clinton- 49,790,496 minus fl 45,304,751

trump- 49,021,562 minus tx 44,339,972
clinton- 45,304,751 minus tx 41,436,935

[*Nately120*]

(11-09-2016, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course one state holds more weight than another on the popular vote, as do certain cities.

Our Nation is distributed by state, why shouldn't the vote? Could the EC use some massaging? Sure, but popular is not the way to go.

How many times do we award the presidency to a person who got the 2nd most votes before we acknowledge something may be amiss?  We're up to 5 at the moment.

[*rfaulk34*]

(11-09-2016, 10:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How does it skew when you are looking at an overall percentage of the national population, sans state borders? In a national popular vote, no state holds more weight than any other.

Maybe i'm missing something? How can it not hold hold more weight with a denser population and a clear leaning one way?

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2016, 10:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: How many times do we award the presidency to a person who got the 2nd most votes before we acknowledge something may be amiss?  We're up to 5 at the moment.

I suppose as long as we are a Nation of united states. Once we do away with the whole state concept then we can focus on the popular vote.