Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Will Donald Trump Be The Next President?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

every day I look at the Republican candidates and seriously wonder - really, is that the best they can do? Those are the top candidates? Roughly 1/2 the country is republican, and they supposedly have

Its all over for Trump! He is about to officially be a loser - he has been calling others losers when they are not, now it is his turn to really be a loser. 

Since you asked.....    Racist quotes:   (Re: Latino immigrants) "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."   (Re: Latino immigrants

I watched the debate and thought that Trump just says things so often that people start to take them as fact. The whole thing about those trade deals being so horrible just seems innane, since it's a very academic topic, and one where there's definitely no consensus. He's only saying that because it appeals to the part of his demographic that's essentially being outclassed in the labour market. Fact of the matter is is that he's messing with the market a lot with his opposition to free trade, and the person hurt the most will be the consumer. Furthermore, many economists (not all) would tell you that it's never wise to act in opposition to the economy of the opportunity cost.

 

Anyways, it's no wonder he attracts so many stupid supporters; It's because he basically reads like someone from the comments section of Youtube who just repeats the same facts over and over again, so often that they convince themselves of its truth. It's kind of depressing seeing how many people fall for it, but I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling incredibly cynical over this whole affair.

 

Then again, you reap what you sow, and the interesting capability of the anti-intellectualism combined with people being incredibly opinionated essentially results in this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Wikileaks don't really make a difference to anyone besides his supporters... besides, anyone who's going to be persuaded by them will read them and realize that all Hillary was doing was adjusting her campaign towards what people want... which is kind of what a democracy is all about, isn't it? Representing the people? Anyhow, anyone with two eyes can see that Trump is, at the very least, a useful tool for the Russian regime. He was caught parroting a line from the Russian propaganda site "Sputnik" the other day... granted, his supporters aren't the brightest of folk, and his campaign is so closely tied in with alt-right newspaper Breitbart

Link to post
Share on other sites

What?

Assuming your question is a response to 'what Trump actually is', it's the fact that his rhetoric is [1] Actually conducive towards the goals of wonderful groups of people such as white nationalists [2] His rhetoric carries with it the notion that what's really the problem for the weak America is "political-correctness" (see how readily his supporters use phrases such as "cucked", indicating that people let themselves get walked on by others. It very much suits people who are very insecure about themselves and want to latch on for strength). [3] He literally sources Russian propaganda. [4] He says things for shock-value, obfuscating his stance, but the fact that he said it gives the stance legitimacy to the ones who actually want to see it (See: The stuff he said about a complete ban on all Muslims entering the country). [5] Has had a colourful past with women, ethnic minorities, and disabled people. [6] Frankly, doesn't seem very smart. He's someone that stupid, insecure, and hateful people find strength and solace in in the wrong ways. There's also the fact that he never actually says how he'll get things done... he's just confident and people latch onto that. Frankly, I don't think he's intellectually capable of the chess-match that is global politics, though.

 

Perhaps I've spent too much time on the internet, on places like 4chan, **DELETED**, and observing polarized YouTube speakers. But I also don't consider myself polarized in any way, and I find it telling how extreme and polarized American politics is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

29% of Latinos voted trump. 8% of blacks voted for trump. These numbers are slightly up from Romney.

 

So, much to the dismay of privileged white left wingers, Trump actually was able to bring some Latinos and blacks in rather than alienating them. The fact that the numbers are somewhere near the unchanged mark is huge because many people thought the blacks and Latinos would support Clinton in droves, which they did not.

 

Maybe it was just white privileged left-wingers who were upset with trumps so called racism. I mean there was a net gain in percentage of these votes people....I see all these posts on fb about how white america won, and how racism won....from privileged white Canadians lol. What a bunch of BS. Statistically trump brought more blacks/Latinos in than he alienated....that's what a gain is.

 

What I find so hilarious is that in 2008 I remember watching an episode of Anderson cooper and Anderson did a huge report on how the drug cartel are becoming extremely dangerous in Mexico and are seeping in through the southern border. The report also mentioned that at much of the border, there is nothing...you can just drive across, no gate nothing. The very clear implication of the piece was that America needs a stronger border. Yet Anderson Cooper was not vilified but of course trump is. No mention of rapists of course but you get the point.

 

 

Edit: to be balanced, I'm sure there is a certain percentage of minority race voters who are also dismayed by these results, but that's not the point (these groups lean democratic by a wide margin so that's a confounder anyways). The point is these numbers of Latino and black trump supporters are significant. On the whole, the Latino and black electorate did not care enough about trumps remarks to not vote for him.

 

Also, the reason I bring these things up is that I find the disconnect between privileged whites and poor minorities more funny than anything else. Obviously I see the importance of social justice in the western world, and I know these people mean well. It's just funny how off the mark they are, which pretty much tells you that they really don't understand the issues of poor minorities.

 

But to anyone reading this still going "wtf are you prejudiced Canucks?", Unfortunately I can't defend trump's comments on women. That's a whole other story, obviously can't defend any of that. But even at that, more white women voted for trump than they did for Hilary. Kind of shocking to me I have to admit. I had to look this one up and I'm not gonna pretend like I predicted this one. I was personally offended by his comments on women, but once again it wasn't a deciding factor for the majority of white women voters.

 

But the racism thing....near 1/3 of Latino voters didn't care enough to not vote for him. That speaks volumes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...

Damn ik this thread is old af but I come to realize how little people understood and still don't get why Trump was elected in the 1st place. It has nothing to do with being dumb/smart like what is being said here. Both sides will attract smart/dumb people. Since the 90's the one thing that has been consistent is the rise of China and the decline of the US. The reason for this was so clear yet no one called it out. The rich people in the US sold out their country and sent all jobs to China and this has led to China becoming very powerful economically. The funny thing is that no one is talking about it. We talk about other issues to death and none of those are ever solved like healthcare in the US and other crap. When Obama was elected, we were suppose to see more peace between races yet it just seemed to get worse. The Middle East was supposed to get more peaceful, yet it got even more chaotic under Obama. All of this chaos seems to me to be porxy's created by the establishment politicians so they can get rich themselves, but transfers power to China as a result. China is very sneaky in their approach to tackling the US and has colluded with the rich people to cause chaos in the US while becoming an economic powerhouse themselves. All these politicians are controlled by lobbyists and what not and have full media support along with a social media which is obviously bias. I think within 5 years, if Trump doesn't win again, China will become the superpower of this world and the West will fall. Trump has flaws for sure and says stupid things, but I think he is brining us towards the decoupling of the US from China which I think is the only option which will keep the free world free as we know it. People always talk about Trump being a dictator and all kind of bs yet China is literally a dictatorship. Honestly, I don't think Trump is perfect and yes of course America has all sorts of problems with healthcare, etc. But before any of that is solved, the current, most important hurdle the US has to get through is stopping the CCP. The CCP is all built on lies. Like who actually believes they only have 83K cases. The Western countries are very clever and are all having trouble controlling and they're saying they only have 83K. Like that's obviously suspicious and they are definitely hiding something. It's not as easy as the Chinese say to control the virus. And of course Trump could have done a better job, but even then this is a tough thing to control just like H1N1 and other pandemics. So yea, I see a lot of people hate Trump and I myself was just neutral back in 2016 and didn't really care, but I truly believe Trump is the only person who will bring us towards decoupling from China, which may hurt in the short term, but I think it will be great for the long term as far as the US' position is concerned in the long run. Of course Trump isn't saying it explicitly but I think it's coming up. Biden is just another Clinton/Bush/Obama that people are fed up of cuz if they weren't Trump wouldn't have won in 2016 and even the rise of Bernie Sanders shows people are fed up with the establishment. Plus how come all the chaos all of a sudden before the election? Obviously seems sus. This is the type of sneaky shit these people do and people fall for it all the time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
4 hours ago, Bambi said:

Its all over for Trump! He is about to officially be a loser - he has been calling others losers when they are not, now it is his turn to really be a loser. :P

Yes he lost today but the Trump brand still won at the end of the day...4 years of presidency, 3 supreme court nominees, remade NAFTA to USMCA, democrats lost a bunch of house seats, republican senate control even after messing up everything he did and after all the chaos, tweets and nonsense he did in 4 years, he still got 70 million+ votes with increased support in non-white voters (Latinos, Asians, etc). In no way do I support the man or brand but to think the amount of damage he has done in 4 years and his brand will continue for the next 10+ years, Trump lost today but his brand won for the next decade

Link to post
Share on other sites

All true ^. But the US is much better off compared to the alternative. At least the healing can begin, something can be done about global warming and the other serious issues facing the US.  And there is no doubt that he will do his best to create more damage. And with his frustration, paranoia and conniving, he is considering his options to avoid criminal prosecution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bambi said:

All true ^. But the US is much better off compared to the alternative. At least the healing can begin, something can be done about global warming and the other serious issues facing the US.  And there is no doubt that he will do his best to create more damage. And with his frustration, paranoia and conniving, he is considering his options to avoid criminal prosecution. 

What is concerning more than anything is he lost by slim margins in multiple states, so there is anti-democrat sentiment and anti-progressive sentiment in the US. A bunch of house democrats were tossed for republicans due to the progressive sentiment and associations with "defund the police" and "tuition-free education, higher taxes". Their needs to be a delicate balance in the messaging otherwise in 2024, another Trump-like figure could step up and actually win due to the hate against progressives and socialism. Also, I don't know about how much Biden can accomplish and that is no fault of his own but without senate control, he cannot make any major policy advancements and with nothing to show as an incumbent government, the midterm elections in 2022 could be a major turning point for Republicans gaining back control. It happened in 2010 after Obama was elected in 2008, it happened with Trump in 2018, it is quite possible it happens again in 2022. Either way, we're in for a ride and the "trump brand" is going to be loud and making considerable noise to keep the democrats wary of their policy choices

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Trump has done his best to leave an ugly legacy and this election was much closer than what people expected.  The Supreme Court will be very conservative for decades and work to strike down progressive legislation.  If Roe vs Wade gets overturned, then it's going to be absolutely chaotic.   

But,  the major, underlying, issue is that the "will of the people" is no longer being followed by an out-dated/non-functioning and sometimes corrupt electoral system.  

The most egregious example is the Senate - California, as a country, would be economically comparable to the UK and has more people than Canada.  Yet it has only two Senators representing 20 million people each.  On the other hand, the combined population of Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana and Idaho is about 5 million and accounts for 10 Senators (which is also coincidentally about the margin of victory of Biden over Trump).  In other words, the voting effectiveness of a Californian is reduced by about 40 fold when it comes to the Senate as compared to anyone from those states.

And you're right - the lack of Senate control will mean that there's risk of a let-down with legislative grid-lock as these small states yield inordinate influence and the drivers of the economy, like California, won't see their interests well-served at the Federal level.  

In terms of corruption, in the house, there's a lot of gerrymandering (which is legal) and can keep minority parties in power even without an electoral mandate.  

Finally, because of the electoral college, Democrats need a major cushion in the popular vote to actually be able to win - the last Republican that actually won the popular vote was Bush Jr against Kerry (by about the same margin as Clinton vs Trump).  

So essentially, one has a minority either governing directly (like Trump) or having enormous power (the Senate).  The Supreme Court then gets chosen by these minorities and doesn't represent the "will of the people" at all.  

The good news is that the demographics are on the Democratic side - rural, white counties are shrinking and urban areas are both diverse and go overwhelmingly Democratic and helped carry the election this year.  

In any case - time changes everything.  Before the civil rights movement, it was the Democrats that were aligned with the racist policies of the South.  Who knows what things will look like in a few decades - ultimately the Republicans can only cling on to power in this form for so long.  In some ways, the US has never fully moved on from the legacy of the Civil War and slavery.  This election revealed the continued uncomfortable truths about division in the country - it's not a coincidence that electoral map is split along Union/Confederate lines, more or less, with the labels of the parties interchanged, although it's more complex with the additional rural/urban split.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, indefatigable said:

Yes, Trump has done his best to leave an ugly legacy and this election was much closer than what people expected.  The Supreme Court will be very conservative for decades and work to strike down progressive legislation.  If Roe vs Wade gets overturned, then it's going to be absolutely chaotic.   

But,  the major, underlying, issue is that the "will of the people" is no longer being followed by an out-dated/non-functioning and sometimes corrupt electoral system.  

The most egregious example is the Senate - California, as a country, would be economically comparable to the UK and has more people than Canada.  Yet it has only two Senators representing 20 million people each.  On the other hand, the combined population of Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana and Idaho is about 5 million and accounts for 10 Senators (which is also coincidentally about the margin of victory of Biden over Trump).  In other words, the voting effectiveness of a Californian is reduced by about 40 fold when it comes to the Senate as compared to anyone from those states.

And you're right - the lack of Senate control will mean that there's risk of a let-down with legislative grid-lock as these small states yield inordinate influence and the drivers of the economy, like California, won't see their interests well-served at the Federal level.  

In terms of corruption, in the house, there's a lot of gerrymandering (which is legal) and can keep minority parties in power even without an electoral mandate.  

Finally, because of the electoral college, Democrats need a major cushion in the popular vote to actually be able to win - the last Republican that actually won the popular vote was Bush Jr against Kerry (by about the same margin as Clinton vs Trump).  

So essentially, one has a minority either governing directly (like Trump) or having enormous power (the Senate).  The Supreme Court then gets chosen by these minorities and doesn't represent the "will of the people" at all.  

The good news is that the demographics are on the Democratic side - rural, white counties are shrinking and urban areas are both diverse and go overwhelmingly Democratic and helped carry the election this year.  

In any case - time changes everything.  Before the civil rights movement, it was the Democrats that were aligned with the racist policies of the South.  Who knows what things will look like in a few decades - ultimately the Republicans can only cling on to power in this form for so long.  In some ways, the US has never fully moved on from the legacy of the Civil War and slavery.  This election revealed the continued uncomfortable truths about division in the country - it's not a coincidence that electoral map is split along Union/Confederate lines, more or less, with the labels of the parties interchanged, although it's more complex with the additional rural/urban split.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

This needs to be taken in context though...Trump grew his base in terms of non-white voters including Latinos and Asians, now putting the house at play in 2022. And suburban voters who are anti-Trump are still voting Republican down ballot since as PA/OH/WI/FL voters put it, there is too much socialism in the Democratic party. I don't think America is ready for any major changes in the next 5 years, we may see the status quo return with moderate policies but I do not expect a major tax plan to pass, no "defund the police", minimal movement on climate change and healthcare (you can bet the republicans will block every attempt) but you can absolutely bet there will be changes to immigration, foreign policy and COVID. The radical changes people on social media are posting about won't happen in the next decade, it'll be closer to 2030 before healthcare for all, climate change and taxes will be more on the progressive end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, indefatigable said:

Yes, Trump has done his best to leave an ugly legacy and this election was much closer than what people expected.  The Supreme Court will be very conservative for decades and work to strike down progressive legislation.  If Roe vs Wade gets overturned, then it's going to be absolutely chaotic.   

But,  the major, underlying, issue is that the "will of the people" is no longer being followed by an out-dated/non-functioning and sometimes corrupt electoral system.  

The most egregious example is the Senate - California, as a country, would be economically comparable to the UK and has more people than Canada.  Yet it has only two Senators representing 20 million people each.  On the other hand, the combined population of Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana and Idaho is about 5 million and accounts for 10 Senators (which is also coincidentally about the margin of victory of Biden over Trump).  In other words, the voting effectiveness of a Californian is reduced by about 40 fold when it comes to the Senate as compared to anyone from those states.

And you're right - the lack of Senate control will mean that there's risk of a let-down with legislative grid-lock as these small states yield inordinate influence and the drivers of the economy, like California, won't see their interests well-served at the Federal level.  

In terms of corruption, in the house, there's a lot of gerrymandering (which is legal) and can keep minority parties in power even without an electoral mandate.  

Finally, because of the electoral college, Democrats need a major cushion in the popular vote to actually be able to win - the last Republican that actually won the popular vote was Bush Jr against Kerry (by about the same margin as Clinton vs Trump).  

So essentially, one has a minority either governing directly (like Trump) or having enormous power (the Senate).  The Supreme Court then gets chosen by these minorities and doesn't represent the "will of the people" at all.  

The good news is that the demographics are on the Democratic side - rural, white counties are shrinking and urban areas are both diverse and go overwhelmingly Democratic and helped carry the election this year.  

In any case - time changes everything.  Before the civil rights movement, it was the Democrats that were aligned with the racist policies of the South.  Who knows what things will look like in a few decades - ultimately the Republicans can only cling on to power in this form for so long.  In some ways, the US has never fully moved on from the legacy of the Civil War and slavery.  This election revealed the continued uncomfortable truths about division in the country - it's not a coincidence that electoral map is split along Union/Confederate lines, more or less, with the labels of the parties interchanged, although it's more complex with the additional rural/urban split.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

Quote

The Supreme Court will be very conservative for decades and work to strike down progressive legislation.  If Roe vs Wade gets overturned, then it's going to be absolutely chaotic.   

I think I could put money down on the idea that they likely aren't going to overturn R v W. The "swing vote" on the SC, John Roberts, is pretty in the lane of maintaining the legitimacy of the SC so he is very likely to vote against anything like that, even before considering the other more conservative justices. He has many conservatives pretty pissed off because of his "maintain the SC's legitimacy" stance.

 

Quote

And you're right - the lack of Senate control will mean that there's risk of a let-down with legislative grid-lock as these small states yield inordinate influence and the drivers of the economy, like California, won't see their interests well-served at the Federal level.  

The senate was created for that purpose. Universal healthcare exists in several states. California singlehandedly has essentially all of North America's products labelled with P65 warnings for teratogenic and toxic substances on consumer products. It's a certain type of federalist system that they understand generates gridlock and gives extra influence to small states. It's what they want. To compensate, states are given much leeway in how they want to govern their own states.

I'm personally pretty doubtful of a system like their senate (and supreme court) but it's not a Canadian system. It's an American one and I'm not American.

 

Quote

Finally, because of the electoral college, Democrats need a major cushion in the popular vote to actually be able to win - the last Republican that actually won the popular vote was Bush Jr against Kerry (by about the same margin as Clinton vs Trump).  

Bush v Gore yielded a margin of about ~0.5%. Trump v Clinton yielded a margin of 2.1%.

 

Quote

This election revealed the continued uncomfortable truths about division in the country - it's not a coincidence that electoral map is split along Union/Confederate lines, more or less, with the labels of the parties interchanged

Biden won Georgia. Trump won Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas. Last election, Trump won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. We live in globalized world and America is a globalized country. People can move much more quickly than ~200 years ago. General patterns still exist but things are not more or less the same.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Coldery said:

 

I think I could put money down on the idea that they likely aren't going to overturn R v W. The "swing vote" on the SC, John Roberts, is pretty in the lane of maintaining the legitimacy of the SC so he is very likely to vote against anything like that, even before considering the other more conservative justices. He has many conservatives pretty pissed off because of his "maintain the SC's legitimacy" stance.

So you're saying it could come down to "swing vote" - I'm not sure how this is different than my point.

The senate was created for that purpose. Universal healthcare exists in several states. California singlehandedly has essentially all of North America's products labelled with P65 warnings for teratogenic and toxic substances on consumer products. It's a certain type of federalist system that they understand generates gridlock and gives extra influence to small states. It's what they want. To compensate, states are given much leeway in how they want to govern their own states.

Yeah - and it's no longer the same country it was 200+ years ago, not by a long-shot.  So legacies of an outdated system have a disproportionate influence.

I'm personally pretty doubtful of a system like their senate (and supreme court) but it's not a Canadian system. It's an American one and I'm not American.

We agree on this.

Bush v Gore yielded a margin of about ~0.5%. Trump v Clinton yielded a margin of 2.1%.

Exactly - and they both lost.  

Biden won Georgia. Trump won Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas. Last election, Trump won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. We live in globalized world and America is a globalized country. People can move much more quickly than ~200 years ago. General patterns still exist but things are not more or less the same.

So you're saying maybe winning Georgia by a few thousand votes changes the pattern?  I think we'll have to disagree - this is now post Jim Crow and activists like Stacy Abrams helped mobilize the black vote.  

Answers in bold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, VivaColombia said:

This needs to be taken in context though...Trump grew his base in terms of non-white voters including Latinos and Asians, now putting the house at play in 2022. And suburban voters who are anti-Trump are still voting Republican down ballot since as PA/OH/WI/FL voters put it, there is too much socialism in the Democratic party. I don't think America is ready for any major changes in the next 5 years, we may see the status quo return with moderate policies but I do not expect a major tax plan to pass, no "defund the police", minimal movement on climate change and healthcare (you can bet the republicans will block every attempt) but you can absolutely bet there will be changes to immigration, foreign policy and COVID. The radical changes people on social media are posting about won't happen in the next decade, it'll be closer to 2030 before healthcare for all, climate change and taxes will be more on the progressive end.

I don't think any of this changes the overall big picture - these are details of legacy of the current system.  I would agree that Black and Indigineous people in the US have had a much more difficult history in the US and vote overwhelmingly Democratic.  

The weird things is it was a Republican over 100 years ago the originally proposed National Health care - Theodore Roosevelt and the FDA.  

I think we'll agree that the current system promises further deadlock for years to come.  The interest of the powerful minority is not aligned with the majority.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, indefatigable said:

Answers in bold.

 

Quote

So you're saying it could come down to "swing vote" - I'm not sure how this is different than my point.

You have to read more closely. "The "swing vote" on the SC". Supreme Court =/= a Supreme Court ruling.

 

Quote

Exactly - and they both lost.  

"by about the same margin as Clinton vs Trump".

Margin (n): an amount by which a thing is won or falls short.

A matter of degree.

 

Quote

"So you're saying maybe winning Georgia by a few thousand votes changes the pattern?  I think we'll have to disagree - this is now post Jim Crow and activists like Stacy Abrams helped mobilize the black vote."

I should not have bolded Georgia as it precluded your need to speak on Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan which you conveniently decided not to...

 

------------------------------

Just noticed that you also said "the last Republican that actually won the popular vote was Bush Jr against Kerry". Either you don't know too much about US presidential politics or you're deliberately ignoring the fact that GWB's 2004 election vs John Kerry was the last Republican presidential win until Trump's in 2016. It would've been another thing if "the last Republican that actually won the popular vote was Reagan vs Mondale in 1984" (hypothetical). That would've meant ~4 election wins since they won both the electoral college and popular vote (or ~8 elections in total) but what you said is just a single election where they won electoral but not popular (or 3 if you count all elections in total). This has happened before to both Dems and Repubs. Check the Reagan + HW Bush 3 popular vote victory run.

2000: GWB Republican

2004: GWB Republican (won popular vote)

2008: Obama Democrat 

2012: Obama Democrat 

2016: Trump Republican (lost popular vote)

2020: Biden Democrat -> Right now

It was just one electoral election win since the Republicans won the pop + electoral vote. It would've made much more sense if you had said of the last 3 elections they won, Republicans won the popular vote in only 1 of them. 

 

If I was American, I wouldn't have voted Trump as his rhetoric alone should've disqualified his run to lead a country like America but this sort of (willful?) prevarication is what is wrong with modern North American political discourse. Polarization in America goes both ways and it's only getting worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Coldery said:

 

You have to read more closely. "The "swing vote" on the SC". Supreme Court =/= a Supreme Court ruling.

Exactly - it's a conservative court so there's a possibility of a close ruling on Roe vs Wade which you think isn't "likely" to be overturned.  

"by about the same margin as Clinton vs Trump".

Margin (n): an amount by which a thing is won or falls short.

A matter of degree.

Clinton vs Trump - 2.1% popular vote margin for Clinton but lost electoral college.

 Bush Jr vs Kerry - 2.4% popular vote margin for Bush but won the electoral college.  

2.1 and 2.4 % are similar margins for winning the POPULAR VOTE - but different presidential results because of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

I should not have bolded Georgia as it precluded your need to speak on Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan which you conveniently decided not to...

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan were all Union states and went democratic.  I'd expect in 150 years things to change a little - the fact that Ohio, Indiana and Kansas went Republican doesn't change the Union/Confederate like divide.

------------------------------

Just noticed that you also said "the last Republican that actually won the popular vote was Bush Jr against Kerry". Either you don't know too much about US presidential politics or you're deliberately ignoring the fact that GWB's 2004 election vs John Kerry was the last Republican presidential win until Trump's in 2016.

Trump lost the popular vote

It would've been another thing if "the last Republican that actually won the popular vote was Reagan vs Mondale in 1984" (hypothetical). That would've meant ~4 election wins since they won both the electoral college and popular vote (or ~8 elections in total) but what you said is just a single election where they won electoral but not popular (or 3 if you count all elections in total). This has happened before to both Dems and Repubs. Check the Reagan + HW Bush 3 popular vote victory run.

2000: GWB Republican

2004: GWB Republican (won popular vote)

2008: Obama Democrat 

2012: Obama Democrat 

2016: Trump Republican (lost popular vote)

2020: Biden Democrat -> Right now

It was just one electoral election win since the Republicans won the pop + electoral vote. It would've made much more sense if you had said of the last 3 elections they won, Republicans won the popular vote in only 1 of them. 

This doesn't make any sense - you're saying the same thing as me.  Trump didn't win the popular vote, but he won the presidency because of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE system.  Bush Jr was the last republican president (or otherwise) to WIN the popular vote. 

If I was American, I wouldn't have voted Trump as his rhetoric alone should've disqualified his run to lead a country like America but this sort of (willful?) prevarication is what is wrong with modern North American political discourse. Polarization in America goes both ways and it's only getting worse.

We agree on this 

Honestly - I'm not sure if this is productive.  I've left these responses, hope it helps clarify my position.  I won't be able to respond to this post any further.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...