THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 587, 588, 589  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 40925
Location: In a world where admitting not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:56 am    Post subject:

Socks wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Those living in the vicinity of Trump Tower are in for a huge lifestyle change. Melania and Baaron are not going to the White House when Trump moves in. Trump says they won't move to Washington until he finishes school.

Baaron is 10, that would put him in the 4th grade. If he remains in New York that means SS will be on two fronts. In essence there will be 2 White Houses.

He may never get to Washington.


No need to get into what his and their reasons might be for this decision, but it is logistically impossible for Trump to live in Trump Tower, in terms of his ability to run the country from there and security issues. I suppose his wife and son do not need to be with him though.


I heard a lot of complaints from my conservative friends about how B and M Obama were always on vacation or how his trips to and from various locations cost taxpayers a ton of money. I'd love to see the bill on how much it'll cost us if Trump ends up spending a significant amount of time living outside the white house.

I don't know how many SS personal are assigned to each, Melania, Barron. I think it's two apiece. When he's in school, she's home, if I'm right that's four plus the SS staff assigned o Trump. The cost will be high.

It's going to be interesting to see just how much time Donald spends in New York. I know the people living and shopping in New York around Trump Towers are going to be inconvenienced to the max. When Obama came to Los Angeles the traffic snarls were nightmares.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.


Last edited by jodeke on Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 3223

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:13 am    Post subject:

Will law be changed regarding US Political Candidates releasing of their Tax Returns?
_________________
Nobody knew Health Care could be so complicated.. Thank you Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlOo1QNmHAI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39193
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:29 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
I find myself hoping that Romney ends up as Secretary of State. That's where I think we are; that's just the reality of the current state of affairs.


Agreed. Romney would be a gust of fresh air in the current climate. Shocking as that is.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aussiesuede
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 9724

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:40 am    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Will law be changed regarding US Political Candidates releasing of their Tax Returns?


Exceedingly Doubtful. We just had a candidate refuse to release his returns and not many folks seem to think it was all that big of a deal when it came time to make their decision. Most folks seem to think Trump was a quasi-shady business man who did quasi-shady things during his business life, but he still had the one primary trait that was better positioned to give them what they desired - change. For better or for worse, folks were voting for change above the same-ole same-ole, and by that metric, traditional talking points like 'tax returns' simply don't matter

2 Smartest things the Dems could do at this point prior to the 2018 mid-terms, is join forces with Trump in his call for term limits, and Town Hall the heck out of Ryan's destruction of Medicare (which he'll go after quickly). The Republicans will fight him tooth and nail on it, and the beauty is the Dems don't even need to have their heart in it. They'll simply be able to say they've joined Trump as the agent of change and it's the Republicans who are working to keep the 'swamp' full.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39193
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:41 am    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:


Were they wrong? She was a horrible candidate and she lost to the worst, most unqualified candidate of all time.

And, as soon as the paid shills disappeared, suddenly it was pro-Bernie again. Funny how that works.

Maybe if the establishment hadn't screwed Bernie and his supporters at every turn we wouldn't be worrying about President Trump and his Supreme Court nominees right now.


There was certainly much more in play than that. One cannot discount the dedication and drive that the Trumps supporters put into seeing him win.

But yes, as I have said before, there were many miscalculation made by the DNC that were based in arrogance and complacency and that was one of them.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 12919
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:53 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
Socks wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Those living in the vicinity of Trump Tower are in for a huge lifestyle change. Melania and Baaron are not going to the White House when Trump moves in. Trump says they won't move to Washington until he finishes school.

Baaron is 10, that would put him in the 4th grade. If he remains in New York that means SS will be on two fronts. In essence there will be 2 White Houses.

He may never get to Washington.


No need to get into what his and their reasons might be for this decision, but it is logistically impossible for Trump to live in Trump Tower, in terms of his ability to run the country from there and security issues. I suppose his wife and son do not need to be with him though.


I heard a lot of complaints from my conservative friends about how B and M Obama were always on vacation or how his trips to and from various locations cost taxpayers a ton of money. I'd love to see the bill on how much it'll cost us if Trump ends up spending a significant amount of time living outside the white house.

I don't know how many SS personal are assigned to each, Melania, Barron. I think it's two apiece. When he's in school, she's home, if I'm right that's four plus the SS staff assigned o Trump. The cost will be high.

It's going to be interesting to see just how much time Donald spends in New York. I know the people living and shopping in New York around Trump Towers are going to be inconvenienced to the max.


I am pretty sure they meant the school year, not when he finishes all of his school, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18734

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:56 am    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
It's a mistake to classify this election as liberal v. conservative. This wasn't a typical election and, thus, the typical analysis (which I still see many trying to apply) is incorrect. HRC lost the election because of 1) lack of enthusiasm for her as a candidate among non-die hard liberals and casual democrats and 2) her failure to focus on economic issues/jobs (instead doubling down at every turn on why to vote against Trump instead of why to vote for her).


I'm not focused on the election. It's over. HRC lost because Trump won the swing states by tiny margins. This was driven by a multitude of factors, including the ones you mentioned. Other factors include white identity politics, regional economic concerns in the swing states, the host of HRC scandals, yada yada yada. How much each of those factors drove the result is a question of interpretation.

I'm focused on what the Dems need to do going forward. They can't just wait around for Trump to implode. That's basically what the GOP did with Obama. The Dems need a message that resonates with the working class. Bernie gave them a roadmap. The Dems need to stop obsessing about gun control, transgender rights, and stuff like that. They need to speak to the economic security of the working class. They need to talk about jobs and income.

The GOP had the same problem. Like it or not, Trump taught them a bitter lesson. He basically ran against Bush I (free trade) and Bush II (the war in Iraq). He was attacking new-con and globalist philosophies. He wiped out the field in the primaries.

The Dems need to reinvent themselves. Bernie was too far out to do it. Now the Dems will need to do it themselves, or else things are just going to get worse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 12919
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:56 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:


Were they wrong? She was a horrible candidate and she lost to the worst, most unqualified candidate of all time.

And, as soon as the paid shills disappeared, suddenly it was pro-Bernie again. Funny how that works.

Maybe if the establishment hadn't screwed Bernie and his supporters at every turn we wouldn't be worrying about President Trump and his Supreme Court nominees right now.


There was certainly much more in play than that. One cannot discount the dedication and drive that the Trumps supporters put into seeing him win.

But yes, as I have said before, there were many miscalculation made by the DNC that were based in arrogance and complacency and that was one of them.


I thought Obama was pretty clear when he insinuated Clinton simply did not work as hard as he did in the campaign. Both of these candidates took more time off of the campaign trail than previous campaigns as far as I can recall.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 17750

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:59 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
I don't want to beat this to death, but a few things about bernie vs Hillary:

Super delegates are free like everyone else to vote for whom they want. The fact that they tend to end up aligning with the popular vote winner means that while they have influence in their early support, they aren't the fixers they are portrayed to be. It is worth noting that they come from positions such that most of them have long histories knowing and working with or around both Bernie and Hillary. The fact that they know both and support one overwhelmingly leads me to my next point.

Bernie tried to run a best of both worlds campaign, just as he tries to have the best of both worlds as a legislator. He wants to be the outsider, but then wants the support of the inside. And he wants to mostly trade his already vote for a favor here and there, and throw a protest vote out there when it doesn't matter legislatively. Similarly, his primary base doesn't really care about democratic politics, and often doesn't show up to vote, and certainly doesn't organize around lower level positions. This is Bernie in a nutshell. Lots of bombast and protest voting, very little heavy lifting building coalitions and getting things done.

And let's get to the general, where the argument is that Bernie would have upped enthusiasm and won the vote. Where? It is a pretty strong conclusion in this election that it was a partisan one, where the base of both parties came out in solid if unspectacular numbers and part of the base (moderate Republicans in some numbers and left wing Democrats in some numbers) either didn't vote or voted write in/third party.

Both Bernie and Trump appealed to populism on their own side, and the idea of a them to blame and destroy, including institutions on both sides (and we are seeing the results of a candidate who doesn't believe in institutions trying to fill a government without dipping into them). Both would end up taking most of the partisan base on their side, but while some of the Stein and Johnson and stay home voters come over to Bernie in a general, some of those on the other side come out against him, because his policy scares them far more than a moderate Democrat. Similarly, Hillary lost a fair chunk of the middle to Trump (the decider of the election), and those are exactly the voters that Bernie already turns off.

Bernie would get gains mostly in states she already won, and perhaps in Iowa and or Wisconsin, but due to electoral math, that doesn't help him much when he was way weaker than her in places like Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. He doesn't win outside the firewall and loses a bunch in it as well.

It is easy to simply say you backed the wrong horse, but that leads to self satisfaction and repeating the same patterns of only showing up in presidential years and major elections. If you want to change institutions, you seldom do it from completely outside. Try taking the time to actually make your voice heard inside one, and not just with a presidential vote. Elect Congress people, and other jobs, so that your message is heard daily. Revolutions are about power, and if you even succeeded in tearing down institutions, the vacuum is rarely filled with peace and love and egalitarianism. Move the party in the right direction if that's the goal and you can Marshall the votes. Make the party respect and hear you at worst, and take its leadership at best. Because you're never going to win the throw the bums out battle, the right wing has way too much easy hate to sell there.


I initially thought that as well, but after watching Michael Moore on Morning Joe, I'm pretty convinced Bernie may have changed the game. It seemed like there were a large contingent of voters who wanted Bernie, but voted Trump because they just didn't want another 4+ years of the same thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 40925
Location: In a world where admitting not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:03 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Socks wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Those living in the vicinity of Trump Tower are in for a huge lifestyle change. Melania and Baaron are not going to the White House when Trump moves in. Trump says they won't move to Washington until he finishes school.

Baaron is 10, that would put him in the 4th grade. If he remains in New York that means SS will be on two fronts. In essence there will be 2 White Houses.

He may never get to Washington.


No need to get into what his and their reasons might be for this decision, but it is logistically impossible for Trump to live in Trump Tower, in terms of his ability to run the country from there and security issues. I suppose his wife and son do not need to be with him though.


I heard a lot of complaints from my conservative friends about how B and M Obama were always on vacation or how his trips to and from various locations cost taxpayers a ton of money. I'd love to see the bill on how much it'll cost us if Trump ends up spending a significant amount of time living outside the white house.

I don't know how many SS personal are assigned to each, Melania, Barron. I think it's two apiece. When he's in school, she's home, if I'm right that's four plus the SS staff assigned o Trump. The cost will be high.

It's going to be interesting to see just how much time Donald spends in New York. I know the people living and shopping in New York around Trump Towers are going to be inconvenienced to the max.


I am pretty sure they meant the school year, not when he finishes all of his school, right?

I believe so but no decision has been written in stone. LINK

Quote:
That source said also that there is a possibility that Melania and Barron may move to the White House at the end of the school year, but no plans are in place

_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 17750

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:13 am    Post subject:

Keith Ellison for DNC Chair? They can't be serious.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-keith-ellison-who-might-be-the-next-1479495275-htmlstory.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 12919
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:15 am    Post subject:

Trump is meeting with Tulsi Gabbard today. Would he really place someone so liberal in a cabinet level position? No desire to be sexist towards Mrs. Gabbard, but there are million jokes in there about Trump simply requesting to speak to the most attractive female in Congress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 12919
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:16 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Keith Ellison for DNC Chair? They can't be serious.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-keith-ellison-who-might-be-the-next-1479495275-htmlstory.html


On the surface, it would seem to be doubling down or getting a bigger shovel...most liberals consider him a little too liberal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 7596

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:16 am    Post subject:

Barack received 7,854,285 votes in Cali (60.24%) and 4,485,741 (63.35%), in NY (Wiki). Hillary, thus far (CNN), has received 7,230,669 votes in Cali (61.6%) and 4,143,874 (58.8%), in NY.

Eyeballin', as a percentage, Barack received a slightly higher percentage of votes in those states--somewhere just beyond a point.

Recent totals per Wiki: Trump, Popular vote: 61,958,044 (46.56%); Hillary: 63,640,193 (47.83%)

Hillary's lead is nearly 1.6M.

Hillary is about 2.25M behind Barack.

Trump, thus far, has received 46.56% of the popular vote and 56.88% of the electoral vote.
_________________
For the adults in the room only


Last edited by ribeye on Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 29037
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:19 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
It's a mistake to classify this election as liberal v. conservative. This wasn't a typical election and, thus, the typical analysis (which I still see many trying to apply) is incorrect. HRC lost the election because of 1) lack of enthusiasm for her as a candidate among non-die hard liberals and casual democrats and 2) her failure to focus on economic issues/jobs (instead doubling down at every turn on why to vote against Trump instead of why to vote for her).


I'm not focused on the election. It's over. HRC lost because Trump won the swing states by tiny margins. This was driven by a multitude of factors, including the ones you mentioned. Other factors include white identity politics, regional economic concerns in the swing states, the host of HRC scandals, yada yada yada. How much each of those factors drove the result is a question of interpretation.

I'm focused on what the Dems need to do going forward. They can't just wait around for Trump to implode. That's basically what the GOP did with Obama. The Dems need a message that resonates with the working class. Bernie gave them a roadmap. The Dems need to stop obsessing about gun control, transgender rights, and stuff like that. They need to speak to the economic security of the working class. They need to talk about jobs and income.

The GOP had the same problem. Like it or not, Trump taught them a bitter lesson. He basically ran against Bush I (free trade) and Bush II (the war in Iraq). He was attacking new-con and globalist philosophies. He wiped out the field in the primaries.

The Dems need to reinvent themselves. Bernie was too far out to do it. Now the Dems will need to do it themselves, or else things are just going to get worse.


You already see signs that Warren and Bernie are the new voices of the party. You have Ryan trying to take the minority speakership from Pelosi and Ellison for the DNC chair. You even have Kamala Harris buddying up to Warren as opposed to the typical democrat establishment.

In any case, I agree changes need to be made and I see them being made. The election was a slap in the face to many liberals, citizens and politicians alike, and they will rebound. I'm glad I see signs of them rebounding in the right direction as opposed to doubling down on traditional paths.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 29037
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:21 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
Barack received 7,854,285 votes in Cali (60.24%) and 4,485,741 (63.35%), in NY. Hillary, thus far, has received 7,230,669 votes in Cali (61.6%) and 4,143,874 (58.8%), in NY.

Eyeballin', as a percentage, Barack received a slightly higher percentage of votes in those states--somewhere just beyond a point.

Recent totals per Wiki: Trump, Popular vote: 61,958,044 (46.56%); Hillary: 63,640,193 (47.83%)

Hillary's lead is nearly 1.6M.

Trump, thus far, has received 46.56% of the popular vote and 56.88% of the electoral vote.


Thanks. So she's down about 5 million votes from Obama, and around 800,000 of those are from California and New York alone. So, as compared to Obama, she's down around 4 million votes spread amongst the other states.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 12919
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:22 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
Barack received 7,854,285 votes in Cali (60.24%) and 4,485,741 (63.35%), in NY. Hillary, thus far, has received 7,230,669 votes in Cali (61.6%) and 4,143,874 (58.8%), in NY.

Eyeballin', as a percentage, Barack received a slightly higher percentage of votes in those states--somewhere just beyond a point.

Recent totals per Wiki: Trump, Popular vote: 61,958,044 (46.56%); Hillary: 63,640,193 (47.83%)

Hillary's lead is nearly 1.6M.

Trump, thus far, has received 46.56% of the popular vote and 56.88% of the electoral vote.


Why does it matter? A candidate would run a totally different campaign if the goal was to get the most overall votes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 40925
Location: In a world where admitting not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:23 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
It's a mistake to classify this election as liberal v. conservative. This wasn't a typical election and, thus, the typical analysis (which I still see many trying to apply) is incorrect. HRC lost the election because of 1) lack of enthusiasm for her as a candidate among non-die hard liberals and casual democrats and 2) her failure to focus on economic issues/jobs (instead doubling down at every turn on why to vote against Trump instead of why to vote for her).


I'm not focused on the election. It's over. HRC lost because Trump won the swing states by tiny margins. This was driven by a multitude of factors, including the ones you mentioned. Other factors include white identity politics, regional economic concerns in the swing states, the host of HRC scandals, yada yada yada. How much each of those factors drove the result is a question of interpretation.

I'm focused on what the Dems need to do going forward. They can't just wait around for Trump to implode. That's basically what the GOP did with Obama. The Dems need a message that resonates with the working class. Bernie gave them a roadmap. The Dems need to stop obsessing about gun control, transgender rights, and stuff like that. They need to speak to the economic security of the working class. They need to talk about jobs and income.

The GOP had the same problem. Like it or not, Trump taught them a bitter lesson. He basically ran against Bush I (free trade) and Bush II (the war in Iraq). He was attacking new-con and globalist philosophies. He wiped out the field in the primaries.

The Dems need to reinvent themselves. Bernie was too far out to do it. Now the Dems will need to do it themselves, or else things are just going to get worse.

IA. I don't understand why they didn't see the significance of Trumps poll numbers not plunging. Hell, I'm not a politician and I did. The Dewey defeats Truman headline stayed in my head. Their complacency was their, our, downfall.

AH, you know I've always been Pollyannaish. I'm hoping Trump will not govern using his campaign platform as a template.

Putin said in a interview campaign rhetoric is not necessarily a persons true intentions. He said politicians will say and do anything to get elected.

I hope that's what Trump did.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 27719

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:48 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
Dems have to regroup. They didn't see the hand writing on the wall. When Trump was making the outlandish statements his poll numbers didn't fall. Dems seem to think it meant nothing.

I had a feeling it did. Which is why I kept re-posting the Dewey defeats Truman headline.

I voiced concern when the first two states went Trump. I knew they carried few electoral votes but I just couldn't shake the feeling,

I'm a Dem and feel we have to do a overhaul. During the campaign I thought it was the Republicans that would have to do that.

I'm going to wait and see what kind of policies Trump tries to implement. I hope he moves away from his campaign rhetoric.

It probably won't do anygood but I can see motion for a vote of no confidence a possibility if Trump acts on his campaign platform.


A lot of us could see the train coming. I saw a lot of premature celebration that HRC would be the next president when votes weren't even cast yet. All they had were polls which themselves are flawed since they only take a small number of volunteers to represent how people might vote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 29037
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:01 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Keith Ellison for DNC Chair? They can't be serious.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-keith-ellison-who-might-be-the-next-1479495275-htmlstory.html


On the surface, it would seem to be doubling down or getting a bigger shovel...most liberals consider him a little too liberal.


Its only doubling down if you think that Hillary lost because she was too liberal. If, like me, you believe that had little to do with her losing, Keith Ellison would actually be a shift away from the likes of Hillary.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
trmiv
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 19 Nov 2001
Posts: 15780
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:09 pm    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Barack received 7,854,285 votes in Cali (60.24%) and 4,485,741 (63.35%), in NY. Hillary, thus far, has received 7,230,669 votes in Cali (61.6%) and 4,143,874 (58.8%), in NY.

Eyeballin', as a percentage, Barack received a slightly higher percentage of votes in those states--somewhere just beyond a point.

Recent totals per Wiki: Trump, Popular vote: 61,958,044 (46.56%); Hillary: 63,640,193 (47.83%)

Hillary's lead is nearly 1.6M.

Trump, thus far, has received 46.56% of the popular vote and 56.88% of the electoral vote.


Thanks. So she's down about 5 million votes from Obama, and around 800,000 of those are from California and New York alone. So, as compared to Obama, she's down around 4 million votes spread amongst the other states.


No, she's only down around 2.25 million compared to Obama in 2012. She has 63,640,193 right now, Obama had 65,915,795 in 2012.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 7596

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:15 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Barack received 7,854,285 votes in Cali (60.24%) and 4,485,741 (63.35%), in NY. Hillary, thus far, has received 7,230,669 votes in Cali (61.6%) and 4,143,874 (58.8%), in NY.

Eyeballin', as a percentage, Barack received a slightly higher percentage of votes in those states--somewhere just beyond a point.

Recent totals per Wiki: Trump, Popular vote: 61,958,044 (46.56%); Hillary: 63,640,193 (47.83%)

Hillary's lead is nearly 1.6M.

Trump, thus far, has received 46.56% of the popular vote and 56.88% of the electoral vote.


Why does it matter? A candidate would run a totally different campaign if the goal was to get the most overall votes.


Yep. Donald could win more popular votes in some states by changing tactics. That could also affect the popular votes in those states he previously campaigned in. Zero sum gain? Dunno.
_________________
For the adults in the room only
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 6217

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:18 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
adkindo wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Barack received 7,854,285 votes in Cali (60.24%) and 4,485,741 (63.35%), in NY. Hillary, thus far, has received 7,230,669 votes in Cali (61.6%) and 4,143,874 (58.8%), in NY.

Eyeballin', as a percentage, Barack received a slightly higher percentage of votes in those states--somewhere just beyond a point.

Recent totals per Wiki: Trump, Popular vote: 61,958,044 (46.56%); Hillary: 63,640,193 (47.83%)

Hillary's lead is nearly 1.6M.

Trump, thus far, has received 46.56% of the popular vote and 56.88% of the electoral vote.


Why does it matter? A candidate would run a totally different campaign if the goal was to get the most overall votes.


Yep. Donald could win more popular votes in some states by changing tactics. That could also affect the popular votes in those states he previously campaigned in. Zero sum gain? Dunno.


yeah, trump won fair and square (within the game)... move on

focus on what DNC gonna do instead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 27719

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:05 pm    Post subject:

If you go to the popular vote, you would be changing the entire strategy, tactics, platform, etc....I think Donald Trump only held 2 rallies in the entire state of California, one in Costa Mesa and one in San Jose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 15933
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:06 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Yet, according to Hillary and Bernie both, the Democrats had the most progressive platform ever.


But the candidate was different from the platform. Few people would regard HRC as a progressive. When she hit the campaign trail, she was a status quo candidate. One of Trump's most effective arguments was that HRC has been in positions of power or influence for decades, but had delivered little or nothing.

The Dems need a progressive message that appeals to the working class, and it needs a messenger who can credibly champion the message. HRC is the wrong messenger, and Bernie Sanders' message was too extreme.


This touches on one of my biggest takeaways from this election. And I started noticing it in the debates. I think the most effective moments in the debates for Hillary weren't when she was making morale stands against Donald's comments. But when she identified him as the .1%. Someone who doesn't understand the troubles of the working class. In fact, he's someone who has taken advantage of working class individuals in the past (not paying employees even after they've done the work).

Barack did that fantastically with Romney. Even before the secret video was released. Barack hammered home the point that he understands working class people. That he was working class. It's a shame. Donald relied on his business experience even more than Romney. Yet Hillary didn't hammer home that he's a billionaire outsider (when it comes to the middle class ). Trump isn't an American dream success story. He's a son of a real estate mogul born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He can't fix or understand working class problems. Because he's never been working class.

There's no logical reason why Midwestern middle class whites should've thought Trump was one of them.
_________________
"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell


Last edited by kikanga on Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:09 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 587, 588, 589  Next
Page 3 of 589
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB