Well no. Baseline Bum compared Trump to Romney. These are two completely different elections. That's when i pointed out that you can cherry pick two candidates from different elections and the popular vote can be wildly different, but that doesn't mean one or the other was more or less inspiring. Votes are just as likely (it seems) to be against a candidate as for one. Unless you consider fear to be excitement, then you have to face the fact that popular vote doesn't mean the voter base was excited about you. The issues are at least as important as the candidates.
I'm arguing because like always you butted in without understanding the conversation. I'm sure you'll forfeit this one as well once you realize it takes more than a dissenting opinion to carry on.
There's nothing to forfeit. HRC won the popular vote, but not the electoral college. The popular vote isn't "terribly misleading" because of the EC as compared to any other election as All presidential elections are cunducted under the same system.
It doesn't matter as we don't use popular vote to elect presidents, but there is nothing misleading about her winning the popular vote.
There's no popular vote contest. It's like saying the Warriors won the FG% contest so technically they are the better team, not the Cavs.
If all the teams entered the playoffs under the rules that the team with the best FG% wins, you'd not see any 3pt shots. In that event, it would be misleading to look at the total points scored to determine which team was better. That's what popular vote does in the EC system, it misleads. Candidates strategically campaign based on EV, not on popular vote.
This seems fairly simple.
I just said this.
I read your basketball analogy the first time. It's cute.
It is simple. That's why Trump is the president elect. Still, if it is so misleading, why is it so infrequent that the person who wins the popular vote loses the electoral college?
If one were to look at only the popular vote in this election, what would one think? That Hillary won. Ergo misleading because Hillary didn't win. See, every time you move the goalpost I can continue to hit it.
The original target was whether or not popular vote indicates excitement from the voter base. Now you've changed it to whether or not it correlates with the win.
It does correlate with the win, 90+% of the time. It's an interesting data point. I understand you hate HRC and are apparently bothered by the fact that she won the popular vote, but she did. More people voted for her, or against Trump. That's a fact.
You cannot find an escape route so you turn to "but you hate HRC".
All the difference and more can be explained away in California alone. So you're saying a state with 30 million people could only swing the national popular vote 600K?
Is popular vote a true indicator of the winner? Yes or no.
Escape from what? What is your argument? That the popular vote doesn't elect the president? That was established when the cons ution was written.
It's infrequent that the person who wins the popular vote loses the election. It a fact that you seem to want to disregad.
I've said it enough: It's not a good indicator that the candidate has excited his voter base, when you compare two different elections. I have no clue what you're on about.
The strawman you are jousting is the notion that popular vote doesn't indicate the winner. It certainly doesn't, regardless of the correlation. It never indicates the winner. Then you'll want to argue that somehow a campaign where resources are sent to battleground states would have the same popular vote count as one that had national media spots and large, high population cities only conventions, as if the "winner takes all" concept vs national popular vote doesn't in any way alter how a campaign manager runs the campaign.
My argument is that it happens infrequently, and as such, should be acknowledged as significant. You're right in that I butted into your exchange with BB. That said, You're clearly minimizing the significance of winning the popular vote and losing the election because of your dislike for HRC. That's a silly position imho.
winning the election =/= energizing the voter base
the voter base is comprised of people that go out to vote. if you have less people go out to vote, your base isn't as energized. that doesn't mean you're incapable of winning the election, especially when the opposing party has a less energized voter base
Neither "base" can win the election on their own, tbh. I thought this time around was another exemplary case of this.
There was no "silent majority" in the Rust belt "awaken" to vote for Trump. Nor there was in Florida either.
Simply people that voted for Barry a few years ago bought what Trump was selling this time around, or was disgusted enough not to show up and support either (ie: black turnout). Probably some of the same people that voted for Dubya before Barry.
It's probably: not enthused blacks + disenchanted Bernie fans > NeverTrumpers
ha, ha, El, we won.
Signed,
- s like me
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote