(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?

(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. 

(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."

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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?

(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.

(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.

(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.