As of this moment, Trump has a razor thin popular vote lead. I'm sure that will change, he won the EC beyond the "margin of fraud ", but they won't want that in the history books.

If the Presidency was awarded by popular vote? Florida 2000, sea to shining sea. Think about that.
 

The EC is an anti-democratic anachronism, but it won't be changed because at any given time one of our two parties is doing better with places than with people and so wants to keep it.
 

People are so tiresome. All hail land.

One thing a state can do is some sort of instant run-off voting. A look at vote totals today suggests why that might be a nice idea.
 

"If (and we don't know yet), Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, then I think that there will be a surge of interest in the proposal that some states have adopted to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner once states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes do this. This would create a workaround to the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment."

Democrats self-segregated into a handful of large cities and states are at a fundamental disadvantage under our geography based electoral system at all levels of government. However, if these handful of blue states enacted the law you suggest, Trump would still be president this morning and, if he manages a narrow plurality as the final counts come in, would also have all the electoral votes.

If they want to become more than a geographic rump party. the Democrat elites may want to put aside their arrogance and address the needs and desires of the Americans they denigrate as "deplorables" who live in the majority of the nation they dismiss as "flyover country."
 

'Geographic rump'

Yup, it's about land, not people.
 

Mr. W:

The geographic nature of our electoral system was by design. A handful of blue megalopolises imposing their policy preferences on the rest of the nation with different needs and desires, especially after most checks on government power have been interpreted out of the Constitution, is a very bad "Hunger Games" governing model and one which significantly raises the likelihood of civil war.
 

SPAM's:

"The geographic nature of our electoral system was by design. "

is sure that was the Framers' design in 1787 re: land, not people? How about a chorus of "Don't Fence Me In."
 

Shag:

Our system was designed to require a supermajority concensus of people across our nation for the federal government to exercise power over us.

The system was designed so that states and localities would largely self govern to address their own needs and desires.

The system was not designed to concentrate power in the Capital and then have these do or die elections for dictator.
 

People matter, not places. Who cares where the majority of them choose to live? What matters is majority rule should trump minority rule.
 

You know what would be worse than a concentrated urban mass ruling over a sparse amount of people in a rural expanse? The reverse, that's what. And that's closer to what the EC gives us.
 

Mr. W: People matter, not places. Who cares where the majority of them choose to live?
What matters is majority rule should trump minority rule.

Because people have different needs and desires based on geography. Rural and suburban and urban communities all have different interests. Within those groups, a city based on finance like New York has different interests than a city based on energy production like Houston; a dairy farmer in Ohio has different interests than a wheat farmer in Nebraska; etc, etc.

The only way for government to meet the needs of a diverse citizenry across a continental nation is to decentralize, which is what our system was designed to accomplish.

You know what would be worse than a concentrated urban mass ruling over a sparse amount of people in a rural expanse? The reverse, that's what. And that's closer to what the EC gives us.

Under our constitutional system as it was originally designed, the federal government cannot rule anyone without an effective supermajority consensus of people across the nation. This is the only way the House, Senate and President can enact law.


 

Bart is right that the geographic nature of our system was by design, but he's wrong about the reason. It wasn't to stop some horrible tyranny from the cities. It was because our country was founded by a bunch of white men from the South who enjoyed raping their slaves and installed a significant number of protections in the Constitution that they hoped would ensure that they and their legitimate white descendants would be able to continue to do it.

It wasn't that poor yeoman farmers would be oppressed-- it was that plantation slaveholders might get outvoted by those teeming masses.
 

How does SPAM think his proposition:

"The only way for government to meet the needs of a diverse citizenry across a continental nation is to decentralize, which is what our system was designed to accomplish."

was designed in the 1787 Constitution? What in the Constitution would compel or urge such? Urban areas came about for many reasons, including an assist from the so-called free market and economies of scale. Perhaps SPAM has a proposed Amendment to the Constitution to return us to his claimed glory days of such alleged original design. . And remember the song from the Great War: "How'ya Gonna Keep 'Em Down on the Farm After They've Seen Paree?" I assume SPAM is not a yeoman farmer unless Ganja has made him a man of the soil.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Dilan:

Like Mr. W, you have your history arse backwards.

The slave state Virgina offered a plan for proportional representation; the free state of New Jersey wanted state representation so it would not be dominated by its larger neighbor New York; and the free state of Connecticut offered the compromise between the two.

 

The Electoral College was part of the "great compromise" and was put in place for a variety of reasons, none that warrant its retention really, so just citing those raping slaveowners only tells part of the story.

One apparent appeal of the EC is diversity but things throughout history turned on a few places with the usual divisions & in the process large minorities not getting much of a voice be it Dems in Texas (in recent years) or Republicans in NY.

Place is a rather limited signifer of diversity anyway. And, division by states in various other ways protects that interest anyhow. A popular vote system with some form of instant running voting (or whatever alternative voting nerds feel best) here will not harm that interest in the long run from what I can tell.
 

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

NationalPopularVote

 

Bart:
Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates campaigning and winning only in big cities.

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 38+ states and voters.

Big cities are not as big or as Democratic as some think. And in the real-world, of all other political campaigns in the country, successful candidates do not ignore 80% of their voters.
Candidates for governor and other offices in elections in which every vote is equal, and the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes, campaign wherever there are voters.

In a successful nationwide election for President candidates could not afford campaigning only in metropolitan areas, while ignoring rural areas.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

The biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

 

Brett: Think about this.

No statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.


 

The slave state Virgina offered a plan for proportional representation; the free state of New Jersey wanted state representation so it would not be dominated by its larger neighbor New York; and the free state of Connecticut offered the compromise between the two.

Bart:

Once the slave-rapists made clear that there would be no union without mechanisms to lock in slavery, yes, northern delegations (some of whom also supported slavery, BTW) proposed the specific mechanisms.

But raping slaves was the founding principle of this country. It was the non-negotiable item-- everything else had to be bent, massaged, or compromised to preserve the prime directive that Jefferson be permitted to legally rape Sally Hemings.
 

tot: Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates campaigning and winning only in big cities.

Not only. The delegates were also considering large versus small states.

In a successful nationwide election for President candidates could not afford campaigning only in metropolitan areas, while ignoring rural areas.

They can easily do so since the industrial revolution shifted the population from the automated farms to the factories in the cities.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

The Democrat urban base of mandarins and government dependents is located in the political and financial centers, most of the thirty most populated cities, and their suburbs.The other handful of concentrations are in minority districts.

For example, see the House districts Obama won in 2012.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/US_congressional_district_2012_presidential_election.png
 

Dilan: "Once the slave-rapists made clear that there would be no union without mechanisms to lock in slavery, yes, northern delegations (some of whom also supported slavery, BTW) proposed the specific mechanisms."

The compromises demanded by the future Democrats were did not have to do with the Senate (which was based on the House of Lords) or the Electoral College.




 

Gerard:

The only way you can reform the current system is through a constitutional amendment. Allow me to suggest the following compromise between majoritarianism and geographic interests:

Section 1. To be elected to the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United States of America, a candidate must receive a majority of the total number of popular votes cast for all the candidates running for that office.

Section 2. To be elected as President of the United States of America, a candidate must receive a majority of the total number of popular votes and a majority of the votes of Electors cast for all the candidates running for that office.

Section 3. If no candidate receives a majority of the popular votes cast in the election for an office, a runoff election shall be held between the two candidates receiving the most popular votes. If a runoff election is held for President of the United States, Electors shall be appointed based upon the results of the runoff election.

Section 4. In the event that one candidate for President receives a majority of the popular votes and another candidate receives a majority of the votes of the Electors during a runoff election, the current House of Representatives shall choose the President immediately by ballot.

This system would also make it easier for third parties to succeed, something we desperately need to check the party establishments.

 

Toto in his 2:36 PM comment states:

"In a successful nationwide election for President candidates could not afford campaigning only in metropolitan areas, while ignoring rural areas."

Presidential campaigns seem to take longer and longer and require more and more campaign funds. While the National Popular Vote bill as explained by Toto makes sense, might presidential campaigns take longer and get more expensive to get to rural and other areas? I mean in person campaigning. Does the NPV bill address long and expensive campaigns?

(I note that SPAM in his 3:42 PM comment quotes the same language of Toto and points to the role of the industrial revolution in bringing about the situation described. SPAM seems to look upon the industrial revolution as a negative. SPAM fails to mention the impact of corporate farming which has significantly reduced family farming. SPAM seems to want America to return to some point in yesteryear to improve the lot of rurals.)

 

The compromises demanded by the future Democrats were did not have to do with the Senate (which was based on the House of Lords) or the Electoral College.

The electoral college was based on the composition of the Congress, and the Composition of the Congress was based on the non-negotiable demand of slave states that smaller population states be given enough power and votes to ensure that anti-slavery legislation never passed.

Slavery was, indeed, the founding principle of this country. No governmental structure that did not preserve slavery could have ever been adopted.
 

Making slavery "the" founding principle is overly reductionist. It was an important reality and like the state of the sexes at the time, you weren't going to greatly advance the power of the federal government w/o protecting it in some fashion.

But, it wasn't "the" thing at issue & the Electoral College itself was created for various reasons, only partially slave related. If there was no slavery, things like the fear of direct popular rule would have made it a useful compromise mechanism.
 

Query: Are originalists challenging the position that the EC can be modified without the need for an amendment?
 

But, it wasn't "the" thing at issue & the Electoral College itself was created for various reasons, only partially slave related. If there was no slavery, things like the fear of direct popular rule would have made it a useful compromise mechanism.

Joe, this country was founded a guy who said "all men are created equal" and then went home and raped his slave.

Seriously, these guys weren't exactly honest. "We form this new nation so that we can lock in our right to hold slaves" doesn't sell. "Liberty" and "equality" and "resistance to tyranny" do sell. That's why they said those things. They didn't believe them.

If there were no slavery, there would be no fear of direct popular vote. The "arguments they made against it were just lies to cover up the fact that they were protecting slavery. They were so dishonest they didn't even mention the word "slavery" in the Constitution even though several provisions enshrined it.

This country was founded by terrible people. And no, they weren't a product of their times. Most countries outlawed slavery long before we did. Because they weren't founded by liars and hypocrites.

That's why we have a terrible Constitution. We basically advance this country every time we repudiate what those lying slaveholders believed in.
 

I assume all of us who comment here strongly feel that slavery was evil at the time it was engaged in. Here is a link to a Chronology on slavery and when various nations abolished it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery-idUSL1561464920070322

I just saw a Law & Order re-run that featured Haitian children "adopted" and in effect worked as slaves. Forms of slavery exist today, including here in America in limited numbers.

Toto's comments are most interesting on the National Popular Vote bill are interesting, especially the actions taken by some states. The comments do not reference need for an amendment to the Constitution. The discussion here is not aimed at undoing the recent presidential election but looking to the future in evaluating the EC system as it has functioned.
 

National Review performed an interesting comparison of the 2012 and 2016 elections finding that, although Obama 2012 received 6 million more votes overall than Trump 2016 (partly because there was third party leakage in 2016), Trump's votes would have allowed him to take more swing states and win the electoral college.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442059/dont-blame-clinton-trump-2016-wouldve-beaten-obama-2012

Interesting.
 

What's more interesting is the National Review dump Trump movement during the 2016 campaign that contributed to the "third party leakage." Is the National Review now cuddling up to Trump as 45, despite the caliber the National Review had ascribed to Trump in the National Review's dump Trump movement? Or is SPAM I AM! being handed lemons of the man he described as a fascist relentlessly trying to make "orangeade"? Keep in mind how erratic a fascist can be.
 

The House district map of the 2016 presidential vote has come out, illustrating how geographically concentrated the Clinton vote was.

https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-landslide1.png
 

Shag:

What is even more interesting was the fact that there was no dump Clinton movement during the 2016 campaign. You folks had no problem at all voting for a serial lying, influence peddling felon. What is worse is that nearly all the attorneys here and probably a majority of the bar at large had no problem voting for a criminal.
 

SPAM I AM! has a short term memory problem: Bernie Sanders was an attempt at dump Clinton.

What's even more and more interesting is how the "feint-heartened" libertarian vote turned out.

Query: Does SPAM have access to information from post-voter polling that:

" ... probably a majority of the bar at large had no problem voting for a criminal."

And of course SPAM, a practicing attorney, presumably high in CO, except in legal circles, displays his ignorance of the law in his use of "criminal." That's not a crime, just ignorance.


 

At the state government level, the Democrat loss of rural and suburban voters in the heartland and growing concentration in megalopolises is making their position even worse.

Under Obama, 800+ legislative seats have shifted from Democrat to Republican and over 2/3 of the governorships are now Republican, the largest partisan shift since Hoover/FDR.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/10/dems_eke_out_legislative_race_wins_lose_governorships_132313.html
 

Shag: Bernie Sanders was an attempt at dump Clinton.

The #nevertrump movement continued after Trump won the nomination. The Democrat lemmings all fell into line after the Clinton coronation.

Query: Does SPAM have access to information from post-voter polling that: " ... probably a majority of the bar at large had no problem voting for a criminal."

You do realize that the bar is supermajority progressive like the rest of the mandarin caste? The Clintons are mandarin royalty.

Every single lawyer here apart from your truly voted for Clinton.

Those with post-graduate degrees voted almost 2-1 for Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

 

Is SPAM I AM! with this:

"Every single lawyer here apart from your [sic & sick!] truly voted for Clinton."

informing us that is not married? All the young maidens in CO are cooing: "Be still my heart."

But did SPAM vote for the personal he described over and over as a fascist? Maybe he drank the orangeade after all.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Susan Sarandon, who felt the Bern (without groping) was #NeverClinton/Ever Bernie to the end, as she drove off the cliff.

And speaking of the "mandarin caste," SPAM is now obviously a member of the "mandarin orange caste" (aka "Dummies for Donald").

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Joe, this country was founded a guy who said "all men are created equal" and then went home and raped his slave.

I realize slavery involved sexual abuse but if you want to each and every time remind us about it ... as compared to that benign form ... go right ahead.

The DOI set forth an IDEAL. So, yes, slavery existed. People AT THE TIME realized it violated basic principles that they were promoting. As you must know, you know the basic history here as much as I do, there were various responses there. This included those that felt slavery was a fait accompli and like it or not, getting rid of it was not currently practical. But, they admitted it was against natural law. Now, you might think natural law is moronic, but that doesn't mean not understanding the basic arguments involved.

If there were no slavery, there would be no fear of direct popular vote.

Seriously? So, why wasn't there direct popular vote for local elections where slavery didn't exist? I cited something else there -- sexism. There was no provision in the Constitution protecting women from discrimination. Why? Because a basic understanding at the time -- one of many -- was that men and women were different, women were not equal citizens. John Adams, who didn't rape slaves, laughed when his own wife cited a concern for women.

Being reductionist leads to ignorance and makes addressing problems that much harder. We don't need that in these times. The people at large at the time allowed slavery to exist. In the future, many will find our society horrible in various ways. I don't think the recent election will improve that in many ways.

But, you have to work with the people you have. The people in 1787 were going to set forth imperfection especially as compared to our current understandings. The Constitution was amended since then. Not enough but given the state of society at the time, they did a decent job. This included setting forth many provisions that allow us to apply it using current understandings. Originalism isn't their fault.
 

ETA: Instead of deleting and re-posting again, I'll note that the "direct popular vote" comment was intended to address various laws that didn't entrust voting to the population at large. Only a limited number of people, even among adult white males, were allowed to vote. This has been addressed in various good accounts of the history of voting discrimination in this country.
 

Democrats have self segregated themselves into such a limited geographic area that they are doomed to be a national and oftentimes state politucal minority under any representative system apart from a completely "at large" voting scheme.

For example, if the US adopted a completely proportional parliamentary system like the UK as Sandy proposes, the federal government would look like the House and Obama would have been fired as PM in 2010.
 

I hope Prof. Sandy Levinson is doing okay.


 

Joe:

If I am depressed at the prospect of a Trump presidency, Sandy must be on suicide watch.
 

No joke that, I'm a bit worried about him myself.

"Democrats have self segregated themselves into such a limited geographic area"

Personally, I don't think it's that. Not a matter of people becoming Democrats, and then moving to urban areas.

Rather, I think there's something in the nature of living at very high population densities that inclines you to statism of the Democratic party sort. Democrats don't make cities, but cities make Democrats.
 

Cities require more government to operate for various reasons than thinly populated areas. They are likely more diverse than other areas etc.

"statism of the Democratic party sort"

Telling modifier.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Brett: Personally, I don't think it's that. Not a matter of people becoming Democrats, and then moving to urban areas. Rather, I think there's something in the nature of living at very high population densities that inclines you to statism of the Democratic party sort. Democrats don't make cities, but cities make Democrats.

This is a complex issue.

1) The Mandarin Caste dominating the public and private bureaucracies, the professions, academia, finance and the media are overwhelmingly progressive and primarily work in large cities.

2) The wealthy subsidize and make dependent the urban working class to service the needs of the wealthy. Our megalopolises are like economic donuts with lots of wealthy and poor, but little in the middle.

3) The young, especially the young Mandarins, tend to be progressive and cluster in the cities because there is more entertainment and they do not yet have the responsibilities of marriage and family. When the young marry and start families, they tend to become more conservative and leave the cities for the suburbs.

I have heard others advance your theory, but I have never seen the evidence to back it up.

 

SPAM I AM!'s:

"If I am depressed at the prospect of a Trump presidency, Sandy must be on suicide watch."

is not an admission that he is actually depressed. Frankly, I think SPAM I AM! is thrilled by the outcome, like a hog in N. Carolina. As to Sandy, he, as well as I, survived Nixon in 1968. I assume that in due course Sandy will will focus on the issues presented by a Trump presidency, including the extent to which the FBI and Comey (not to mention NSA) in the Russian investigation associated with some within the Trump campaign regarding what the FBI/Comey knew before Nov. 8th on the recent reports by a Russian official on contacts with many in the Trump campaign and after Nov. 8th. Can Comey consistent with his positions on the Clinton emails avoid letting the public be aware prior to January 20, 2017 of such investigation? After that date, a Rudy G. as AG, would no doubt clamp down. Those who voted for Trump may not care of the Trump campaign's "To Russia With Love," but America should be made aware before Trump has the nuclear football.

As a counter to Brett's view on cities, I might suggest that rural areas tend to breed unibombers as they brood with their crystal radio sets. Recall Brett's youth pulling radishes in norther Michigus unable to compete with the Mexican farm workers because of hisr handicap. Keep in mind that The Donald is far removed from a rural. Maybe a President Trump will provide free rural electicity. OOPS, FDR already did that.
 

"Cities require more government to operate for various reasons than thinly populated areas."

An excellent reason why we shouldn't encourage them.

"Telling modifier."

I'm hardly silly enough to pretend that there aren't a lot of statists in the Republican party, too. Mind, a lot of them are RINOs, who are really just frustrated Democrat wannabees. But, the (early) LP aside, you don't go into politics if you're not something of a statist.
 

SPAM I AM!'s rejoinder to Brett's response:

"I have heard others advance your theory, but I have never seen the evidence to back it up."

raises the question whether SPAM has evidence to back up his theory. (I suspect that SPAM doesn't know the difference between a theory and just pulling something out of his derriere.)
 

Shag:

When it comes to the lifetime New York progressive who suddenly became a born again conservative promising change 15 months ago in order to get elected, just consider me from Missouri: Show me.

I saw this movie back in 1992 and 2008 with the other party.
 

Frett's response to Joe on cities and government:

"An excellent reason why we shouldn't encourage them."

suggests he is back to his anarcho libertarian stage. Of course Brett's savior, The Donald, was weaned on the city, now towers over NYC. (Query: Is a statist the opposite of an anarcho libertarian?)
 

"I might suggest that rural areas tend to breed unibombers"

You do realize that Kaczynski moved to the country *after* going nuts? In any case, unibombers are rather thin on the ground, compared to your usually urban terrorists.

In any case, we're not talking rural here, necessarily. Republicans are competitive anywhere that's not highly urbanized.

According to this, the cutoff is somewhere about 800-1000 people per square mile; If you live below the cutoff, you're probably a Republican, above it, probably a Democrat.
 

"lot of them are RINOs, who are really just frustrated Democrat wannabees"

I'm more interested here with conservatives, with whom Brett recently self-identified, not "wannabees."

They support government power, including over basic personal lives, and with one party Republican rule should be passing national legislation involving that (following in the footsteps of what they did locally) soon enough.

You don't go in politics to run a state or the United States, for that matter, if you don't support government. It sorta requires it.

 

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], I had a dream in the wee hours of Nov. 9th, of a Trump supporter, who said: "Don' judge me based upon the content of my character but on color of my skin." He probably came from Brett's description:

"Republicans are competitive anywhere that's not highly urbanized. " Self-segregation?

Oh well, it was only a dream, bordering on a nightmare.

Also by the Bybee [expletives deleted], speaking of nightmares, SPAM's reference to:

"I saw this movie back in 1992 and 2008 with the other party."

conveniently overlooks the nightmare of 2000 movie. Bush/Cheney squandered the Clinton surplus and closed its second term with the 2007-8 Great Recession and major deficits. Bush/Cheney was the sh*t in that sandwich.

And Brett, nuts also go from rural areas to communities in S. Car. and go full international.



 

BD: "I saw this movie back in 1992 and 2008 with the other party."

Shag: conveniently overlooks the nightmare of 2000 movie.

The analogy was between prior progressives who campaigned from the right or at least the center and then governed left.

I must say, however, that Paul Ryan's appearance on Fox this evening gave me some hope. It appears that Trump is onboard with moving the Ryan tax reform plan and the House Obamacare repeal and replace principles immediately. Regulation reform would be next in line.

If this actually gets done, we might finally pull out of this depression and get some recovery-level growth again.
 

SPAM I AM! seems to think that The Donald will be Paul Ryan's puppet (competing with Putin?). For some reason Spam doesn't mention The Donald's infrastructure proposal that will provide jobs to the white working class (unless he can get immigrants to work cheaper. And the wall, an early and often promise of The Donald that lured his anti-immigrant base, is separate from the infrastructure proposal. Perhaps SPAM believes that Mexico will pay for that wall as does the WALL & (B)ORDER President-elect. The Donald's list will outdistance Nixon's list, and it includes many Republicans. (I assume SPAM will be on that list for calling The Donald a fascist. So it appears that SPAM will continue to inhale DUI second hand fumes despite the Republican control of of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. But living high in CO has its rewrds even though CO gave its votes to Hillary.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag: seems to think that The Donald will be Paul Ryan's puppet

Hardly.

Ryan seems to think that he and Trump are on the same sheet of music concerning tax reform (the Donald did offer the Ryan plan as his own during the campaign), repeal and replace Obamacare (which was a Donald campaign staple), and regulatory reform (which is another Ryan plan which the Donald would occasionally discuss during the campaign).

In return, Ryan seems to be onboard with securing the border from undocumented Democrats. I suspect the GOP establishment noted that Trump ran an anti-illegal immigration campaign and won. Hispanic Americans apparently were not fixated on the plight of illegal immigrants.

As for your enemies list, you are confusing Trump with Obama and Clinton.
 

I have never watched the TV reality show The Apprentice other than on a few occasions in using the remote, so I know little about the show other than what I have read in the press. Perhaps many Trump voters watched the show and were impressed by his business acumen. Take away commercials and we're talking about 50 minutes of highly scripted performances. Trump I understand would hire and fire apprentices, sometime in cruel fashion. But business operations cannot be realistically cannot be realistically portrayed in the 50 minutes. The scripted aspects may present clues as to whether Trump would hire or fir or fire and then rehire. But this may have impressed much of the audience regarding Trump's business acumen and executive skills.

As President, Trump willhave powere to hire and fire employees of the Executive Branch, but subject to many limitations than in a private business. Certain hires may require Senate approval. Once approved, there may be practical, political and legal limitations on fire such persons. Even if Senate approval is not required, hirings and firings do not result in the 50 minute style of The Apprentice. Think of Cabinet members, military leader, Agency heads. On The Apprentice the personal executive skills of Trump were demonstrated with the scripting of hiring and firing. Considering the size of the Executive Branch, does anyone think Trump personally has the skills to determine who should be hired - or fired? A president must rely upon others for assistance in this regard. Who will be advising Trump? Chris Christie will be leading the Trump transition team. Recal some of their jousting during the Republican debates. And then there's BridgeGate. Lewandowski was let fo by the campaign but while still on the Trump candidacy payroll went to work as a commentator on cable at a significant salary and presumably forbidden by contract with the Trump campaign from negative remarks about Trump. He is rumored to b in line for a position in the Trump Administration. then there are Trump campaign surrogates Gingrich and Giuliani. What about Secretary of State and potential conflicts with the connection of Russia with the Trump campaign. Would the FBI continue its investigation of such connection? Would Comey dare do to President Trump what he did to Hillary? Probably not if Guiliani were heading the Justice Department as AG. And then there is the matter of potential conflicts between the government's interests and the Trump business empire.. These are but some of the matters to be considered in the course of the transition and continued after Trump inauguration. Would congressional committees controlled by Republicans permit hearings on any conflicts? Might non-political Executive employees protected by Civil Service be thwarted in performing their duties? We'll have to wait and see. HOw would the IRS audits of his tax returns be resolved? I understand there's nothing in the law that would prevent a President Trump from making business decisions for his Trump business empire.unless the Article II "take care" clause comes into play.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], some in the media are wondering if Trump's presidency might be like that of Andrew Jackson. Consider that Jackson nominated Roger Taney as Chief Justice to the Supreme Court. And some of us are aware of what Taney did with racial division in the 1850s.

A note to Sandy - and Jack - when you're ready, we need you.
 

SPAM, IT IS NOT MY ENEMIES LIST, IT IS THE ONE THAT A MEMBER OF THE TRUMP TEAM SAID WOULD BE ASSEMBLED. See:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/omarosa-list-donald-trump/index.html

And the personal history of Trump supports this. As an example:

http://gawker.com/donald-trump-to-tucker-carlson-i-get-more-pussy-than-1755844144

Did Trump mean by grabbing?

This is an effort by SPAM to get off the Trump enemies list.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

The basis for your enemies list is a comment by someone named Omarosa Manigault that the Donald had a very long memory concerning people like Lindsey Graham who tried to screw him?

You are really comparing this to Obama sending Justice and the IRS after his political enemies? Then there are the people around the Clintons who keep dying.

 

SPAM I AM! continues his efforts to get off The Donald's enemies list which he made with his constant claims that The Donald was a fascist, with this:

"You are really comparing this to Obama sending Justice and the IRS after his political enemies? Then there are the people around the Clintons who keep dying."

Who are these people that keep dying? How are they dying? Name names, places, causes of death. Alas, SPAM is so anxious to get off The Donald's enemies list that he may have to ride the coattails of his mentor Tom-Tom Tancredo.

Does SPAM deny that The Donald has a long memory? Just ask conservative pundit "Mother" Tucker. And Omarosa was part of the Trump campaign's efforts to attract African-American voters.

These not so subtle efforts by SPAM suggest he actually voted for The Donald. Can we expect a ballot selfie from SPAM demonstrating he is not only a hypocrite but also a mole?