Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama

[Jastall]

^^ Guy with a foreign leader as queen says we are doing Democracy wrong. Ok then.

Man, you guys really need to inform yourselves. First, she's not a foreign leader per se, she's the Queen of Canada. Second, she has less influence on actual canadian policy than George Washington has on US policy.

Like, go after arguments if you want, but this pointless posturing where you try to look smart telling us ''well you has a queen so you no democracy lulz'' is simply stupid. It doesn't convince anyone who has any sort of clue how a British-inspired parliament works. The more you insist on it, the more ignorant you look.

[Tijuana]

What is so hard to understand about this? The queen of the UK is also the queen of Canada (and Australia, and The Bahamas, Jamaica, Saint Lucia and 10 other Commonwealth nations).

It's not that US education is poor, it's possibly simply due to your own limited intellectual capacity. Google is a good first step, it's empowering that you realize your cognitive shortcomings and are willing to educate yourself through external resources. Good luck on your arduous journey to the geographical competence of a toddler.

When you put it like that, it almost sounds like you are trying to insult me. Zero fucks given. We keep our kings and queens in Disney World and in fairy tales, where they belong. Calling yourself a real nation, when you have a foreign queen is just laughably fail.

[Vyxn]

I'd also like to see policy enacted to protect and support so-called "faithless electors". Electors were NEVER supposed to be beholden to the popular vote. If they are, they serve no purpose whatsoever. The Electoral College can ONLY function as a useful system IF electors are free to vote however they like.

please show us in the constitution where it mentions "Electors were NEVER supposed to be beholden to the popular vote."

here I will make it easy for you

United States Constitution: Article 2, Section 1:

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

and because the constitution doesn't mention how each state needs to select their allotted Electors and how each of those* Electors *are required or not required to vote that is a power left for the states to decide

- - - Updated - - -

HuffPost’s Sam Stein: Barack Obama Oversaw ‘The Destruction of the Democratic Party’

Huffington Post senior politics editor*Sam Stein argued on MSNBC’s*Morning Joe Wednesday morning that President*Barack Obama shoulders much of the blame for his party’s historic losses during his eight years in the White House.
Stein suggested that Democrats may be overanalyzing the 2016 election loss. “They ended up with 2.8 million more votes for their candidate. It was 80,000 votes in three states that really cost her,” he said.
“But then on the other hand, you look at the destruction of the Democratic Party under Barack Obama’s leadership and you have to wonder; what was the political — what were the electoral benefits that he gave to the party?” he argued.
“He leaves them in a much worse position,” Stein noted. “The states are decimated, they lost control of the House and Senate, the governorships are decimated.”
“Maybe he is a gifted candidate; he won election twice by substantial margins,” he concluded, “But his legacy as a politician is a bit muddied by all that.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/huffposts...ocratic-party/

[Zoranon]

Okay... the majority of people still voted democratic. It doesn't matter where they're from. Nothing I stated was false and I didn't even question the EC. Thems the rules right now and Dems played by them and lost. But the majority of American people are still democratic/left leaning.

48 % is majority since when?

[Endus]

please show us in the constitution where it mentions "Electors were NEVER supposed to be beholden to the popular vote."

here I will make it easy for you

United States Constitution: Article 2, Section 1:

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

and because the constitution doesn't mention how each state needs to select their allotted Electors and how each of those* Electors *are required or not required to vote that is a power left for the states to decide

If electors are required to abide by the popular vote in their State, then they serve no purpose, because they don't have any say. They don't HAVE a "vote". They're obliged to "vote" a certain way. That's not down to "what's in the Constitution", that's down to "what 'voting' means".

If I tell you "you get to pick what the office has for lunch, but most of us want tacos, and that means you need to pick tacos", then you're not giving me any say. You're telling me we're having tacos.

Also, the Constitution is just one document. Go read Federalist no. 68 some time; Hamilton was VERY clear that the purpose of the Electoral College was to ignore the will of the people if the people made a stupid decision. Otherwise, they wouldn't have NEEDED the Electoral College; it's ENTIRE purpose was to take choosing the President AWAY from the people, and put it in the hands of those who, in theory, knew better.

[Dug]

48 % is majority since when?

2.5 mil more than Donald Trump is a majority, yes.

[Zoranon]

2.5 mil more than Donald Trump is a majority, yes.

Please go educate yourself what majority means and then come back. Majority is 50 % + 1 vote and Clinton did not get that.

[Naxere]

If electors are required to abide by the popular vote in their State, then they serve no purpose, because they don't have any say. They don't HAVE a "vote". They're obliged to "vote" a certain way. That's not down to "what's in the Constitution", that's down to "what 'voting' means".

If I tell you "you get to pick what the office has for lunch, but most of us want tacos, and that means you need to pick tacos", then you're not giving me any say. You're telling me we're having tacos.

Also, the Constitution is just one document. Go read Federalist no. 68 some time; Hamilton was VERY clear that the purpose of the Electoral College was to ignore the will of the people if the people made a stupid decision. Otherwise, they wouldn't have NEEDED the Electoral College; it's ENTIRE purpose was to take choosing the President AWAY from the people, and put it in the hands of those who, in theory, knew better.

The people did make a stupid decision, which is why we have President Trump.

[Tijuana]

If electors are required to abide by the popular vote in their State, then they serve no purpose, because they don't have any say. They don't HAVE a "vote". They're obliged to "vote" a certain way. That's not down to "what's in the Constitution", that's down to "what 'voting' means".

If I tell you "you get to pick what the office has for lunch, but most of us want tacos, and that means you need to pick tacos", then you're not giving me any say. You're telling me we're having tacos.

Also, the Constitution is just one document. Go read Federalist no. 68 some time; Hamilton was VERY clear that the purpose of the Electoral College was to ignore the will of the people if the people made a stupid decision. Otherwise, they wouldn't have NEEDED the Electoral College; it's ENTIRE purpose was to take choosing the President AWAY from the people, and put it in the hands of those who, in theory, knew better.

This is true but, it's the only document that you mention that is actually a law. From a legal perspective, the written letter of the law means everything, and the intentions mean jack shit.

For example, the founding fathers of Canadia could have written, and maybe did write, that they wanted to be a free nation. Yet, the laws of your land allow for a foreign dictator to be your head of state.

The notion that the Federalist papers trump the constitution is just...bizarre.

[Dug]

Please go educate yourself what majority means and then come back. Majority is 50 % + 1 vote and Clinton did not get that.

Semantics. It was a greater number and by a substantial amount is all I'm saying. If you go off about the EC let me just stop you in saying I'm not arguing against the EC results.

[Tijuana]

48 % is majority since when?

Since 48% equated to 306 electoral votes, far more than the loser got.

It's certainly not the fault of Trump, or the founding fathers, that the "most qualified candidate in history" did not understand how the score is kept.

[Zoranon]

Semantics. It was a greater number and by a substantial amount is all I'm saying. If you go off about the EC let me just stop you in saying I'm not arguing against the EC results.

No its not semantics, stop using words to claim things that are not true. Clintons entire plurality comes from one state. Moreover republica voters in that state had very little reason to even turn up to vote, since both of candidates for senate were democrats.

[Dug]

No its not semantics, stop using words to claim things that are not true. Clintons entire plurality comes from one state. Moreover republica voters in that state had very little reason to even turn up to vote, since both of candidates for senate were democrats.

People are still people regardless of the state they come from. More people voted for Clinton is just a fact.

[Tijuana]

People are still people regardless of the state they come from. More people voted for Clinton is just a fact.

Meanwhile football teams lose every weekend, even though they had more yards.

[Thage]

This is true but, it's the only document that you mention that is actually a law. From a legal perspective, the written letter of the law means everything, and the intentions mean jack shit.

For example, the founding fathers of Canadia could have written, and maybe did write, that they wanted to be a free nation. Yet, the laws of your land allow for a foreign dictator to be your head of state.

The notion that the Federalist papers trump the constitution is just...bizarre.

Legally, papers like The Federalist no.68 and personal letters of the Founding Fathers are often used by courts to determine original intent, specifically to avoid letter-by-letter skirting around laws. For example, the oft-mentioned wording of the 2nd Amendment (regarding a well-regulated militia) is used by proponents of gun control measures to justify regulation, so courts refer to letters and other material written by the writers of the Constitution alluding to their thoughts on the 2nd Amendment to get a better feel for what it was meant to cover versus what was left purposefully-open to be determined by legislature and future amendments. So those aren't just things to be disregarded out of hand when they're actively used by courts to determine intent and to gain context.

Also, the royal family in the UK are largely symbolic and have been since before WWII, kept out of tradition and because the royal family tends to have great PR that keeps them very popular among the UK and other nations beholden to the Queen. All genuine power in the UK and related countries lay with the Prime Minister and Parliament (or appropriate analogues as applicable).

[Dug]

Meanwhile football teams lose every weekend, even though they had more yards.

That's true. Point out where I said Clinton should have won? She lost fair and square... but she still got the popular vote. Irrelevant to our EC system but relevant in the grand scheme of things with repubs going "kek liberals are dead!". People genuinely think the powers won't swap back again.

[Tijuana]

Legally, papers like The Federalist no.68 and personal letters of the Founding Fathers are often used by courts to determine original intent, specifically to avoid letter-by-letter skirting around laws. For example, the oft-mentioned wording of the 2nd Amendment (regarding a well-regulated militia) is used by proponents of gun control measures to justify regulation, so courts refer to letters and other material written by the writers of the Constitution alluding to their thoughts on the 2nd Amendment to get a better feel for what it was meant to cover versus what was left purposefully-open to be determined by legislature and future amendments. So those aren't just things to be disregarded out of hand when they're actively used by courts to determine intent and to gain context.

Also, the royal family in the UK are largely symbolic and have been since before WWII, kept out of tradition and because the royal family tends to have great PR that keeps them very popular among the UK and other nations beholden to the Queen. All genuine power in the UK and related countries lay with the Prime Minister and Parliament (or appropriate analogues as applicable).

So, if I am a young boy from Canadia, I can someday be king?

- - - Updated - - -

That's true. Point out where I said Clinton should have won? She lost fair and square... but she still got the popular vote. Irrelevant to our EC system but relevant in the grand scheme of things with repubs going "kek liberals are dead!". People genuinely think the powers won't swap back again.

Sure, the pendulum will always swing. It's a fact though that it hasn't swung this far against Democrats since 1922. If the Republicans behave like the Democrats did, such as forcing unwanted bills down the throats of the nation, I'm sure it will swing back just as hard as it did against Democrats after Obamacare's passage.

[Thage]

So, if I am a young boy from Canadia, I can someday be king?

Probably not, unless you happen to have a claim to the throne and can manage to off your rivals, or get everyone in line in front of you not to contest said claim, but you can be Prime Minister (where all the real and relevant power in Canada lay). As I said, the royal family is more symbolic than anything in UK and affiliated countries' politics. At most, the Queen rubber-stamps stuff and makes speeches. Their relevance is more cultural than political and has been for quite some time.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

The problem is many people who "roll with the dems" don't give enough of a shit about their country and circumstance to vote. Whether they liked Hillary or not, for all the Trump bashing I heard pre-election it sure wasn't enough to get them off their asses to try and do anything about it.

I think a lot of it too was just basic apathy about the top choice either way. I live in MN, which traditionally has high voter turnout (I think the state was 1st again this election). The county turnout where I live was around 80%. So fairly politically active, is what I'm getting at. Before the election there were tons of campaign posters and yard signs everywhere.... for local and state level elections. I think in my neighborhood there was one Trump/Pence sign and no Clinton/Kaine signs. I have coworkers who simply left the top spot blank because they didn't care. The Twin Cities is fairly liberal, but there was very little enthusiasm for Clinton which tempered the Democratic turnout either way.

It doesn't help that Minnesota was one of the more supportive states for Sanders (Sanders won the primary here by about 25 points) and subsequently Clinton turned a lot of people off from the Democratic party past the state level.

I know there are Trump supporters who will emphatically disagree, but I don't think Trump won the election so much as Clinton lost it.

[tyrlaan]

I feel there are still months and months of crying left.

You're at least right about this part. Especially once all the Trump supporters realize how badly they were conned by the orange reality show host.