Is Hilary to blame or the Democrats for choosing her

gfplux

During the campaign I destested Trump and all he stood for.
I am still VERY sceptical but if it is for real beginning with his speech after winning and things he has said in the last day or so he might surprise me.
If he were to bring a business mans common sense to the problems, if he takes the pragmatic approach to those problems, if he ignores party policy that is often undeliverable or sometimes just wrong headed.
If, if, if.
Perhaps he may surprise us.

I wait in hope

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chucknorris wrote: »

I didn't (probably still don't) like Trump, but he won, .

Well.... sort of.

He lost the popular vote - Clinton already has a half million vote lead, and it's getting bigger by the hour with 3 million votes still to be counted in California alone - she'll likely end up winning the popular vote by well over a million votes.

And two states currently called for Trump are so close that they may go into automatic recount.

But the key thing here is of course the electoral college.... And while I suspect it won't work there's currently a big push underway to lobby the electoral college to respect the democratic vote of the people and elect Hillary..... Millions have signed a petition to that effect.

And it's perhaps not quite as impossible as you'd think....

In about 1% of cases since the electoral college was established electors have refused to vote for the candidate they were pledged to by the outcome of the state poll and voted for the opponent.

These are known as 'faithless electors'.

In fact in many states, it’s perfectly legal for electors to change their minds. More than a dozen states don’t have laws to punish them if they do go rogue and even the ones that do have very light penalties.

The 'founding fathers' of the USA were actually afraid of direct election to the Presidency.

They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power - and how right they were.

Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.

This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

If ever there was a time for 'faithless electors' to stand loud and proud it is today.

LHW99

IMHO Claire Fox (as quoted by the BBC) has it right
"We have to be careful of an anti-democratic response to perfectly legitimate democratic votes. Quite a lot of liberals are saying, 'well, democracy is not working so well because people are voting in a way we don't want them to vote', which strikes me as a supreme irony."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/37949669

Filo25

I'm not sure Sanders would have fared much better than Hillary, he would have been weak in different ways, vulnerable to attacks from the right for being a ....... wait for it "SOCIALIST", which has rarely been a popular position in the US, even ignoring the superdelegates he lost with the voters as well during the Dem primary, and seemed to struggle with minority groups.

Yes he polled better than Clinton, but that's mainly because Joe Public knew very little about him, that would have changed quickly when the Republicans dusted off the attack ads.

Just a weak field of candidates all round this time.

HornetSaver

gfplux wrote: »

As the winner we have to say that the Republicans chose a winning candidate who ran a winning campaign..

I hardly think you can credit the GOP for choosing him (in the same way that you can hardly blame Labour for twice electing Corbyn).

The GOP weren't exactly thrilled about having him, to put it mildly. But you can't defend democracy without being prepared to be bitten in the !!!. Which, concerningly, is why increasing numbers of people in the Western world are taking a very selective view of democracy. El Presidente himself hinted at not accepting the election result (as a matter of pedantry, has he actually said that he's accepted the result?).

pop_gun

Hate
Trumps
Love


I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.