The greater the popular vote disparity, the deeper it undercuts his perceived mandate. If she won the popular vote by 100k it would be perceived as less of a moral victory than if she winds up winning it by 2.5 million.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The greater the popular vote disparity, the deeper it undercuts his perceived mandate. If she won the popular vote by 100k it would be perceived as less of a moral victory than if she winds up winning it by 2.5 million.
I find it unlikely that the difference between the 1.5m that has been clear for a while and the 2.5 that we're now contemplating means anything.
It doesn't mean anything in legal terms, but as mentioned, the bigger the number she wins by, the greater the perception (and correctly so) that more Americans voted for the President's opponent than the President himself.
Didn't stop W starting two wars, appointing two SC justices and a horde of regressive policies
Gore never won the popular vote by such a margin.
Well if it undermines Trump's mandate, then it actually means a hell of a lot.
And the difference in how much it does so, between 1.5 and 2.5million, is going to be significant?
If you want to put it firmly in the public consciousness, you need to repeat the fact a lot. And if you're doing that, you may as well use up to date figures.
Why the exclamation mark?
Yes but that's not what I'm challenging.
The bigger the disparity the lesser the mandate.
Do you actually know what you are challenging ?
Yes.
The idea this has serious effect. Not the fact we should use correct figures.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I mainly just want it to get to 2% for the sake of neatness. Probably fall just short.
Okay.
I shall try again.
The difference between 1.5m and 2.5 m is not going to make any difference to anything. Why do you care?
EDIT -
Is a fair answer.
I've already spelled it out and yet you're bringing it up again as if it hasn't been discussed before. The greater the disparity in the popular vote, the lesser the perceived mandate for Trump.
And I have spelled out that I think this difference we're contemplating is going to be meaningless.
Thanks mate, I didn't even notice that. I mean, I know he's taken trolling to a new level, but that would just be taking the piss.What does the 'perceived mandate' do, exactly?
As has been pointed out before, feck all. If you don't like the W comparison, there's always Quincy Adams, Hayes and Harrison.
The differences actually matter. Consider for example if the number hypothetically went from 2.5m to 5m. It completely impugnes and undercuts the perception that Trump has the support of the majority of the population to implement his programs. If more people voted for Hillary, by the millions, then he has little mandate to proceed without extensive compromises on his policy positions. Is it clear ?
But, that isn't what happened...
It undercuts the ability of the President to do whatever he wants. Dubya lost the PV by less and still wound up throwing the Dems a bone by keeping a Clinton cabinet official in his cabinet. Obviously 9/11 changed everything, so you can't judge his actions thereafter as in any way tied to his post election mandate.
You'd have a point if Congress & Senate weren't dominated by the RP
Well at least you're admitting that the numbers are indeed relevant. A good start.
The GOP congress and Trump don't agree on all policies. The biggest disparities being Russia policy, Obamacare, and Syria. There will be others given that Trump is not a Republican ideologue and tends to do whatever the feck he wants.
I did, a long time ago, state that Clinton winning the popular vote mattered. It does lessen the man/boy's mandate. No one, but us political nerds, is caring about the small differences as to how slimly he lost such, though.
They certainly agree on being anti-Hillary and Dems, though...
The fact that the popular vote numbers continue to simmer in the background on a lot of twitter accounts suggests its a pretty broad narrative beyond just a few online stat nerds.
It doesn't.
Of the four past winner who lost the popular vote (Adams actually lost both popular vote - by a whopping 11%, and the EC), the only one who you can arguably say has been hampered in his executive agenda was Hayes, and it was largely because of the Compromise of 1877 that put him in office in the first place (and even that's debatable, since there were evidence of him being in favour of ending Reconstruction).
The truth is, both the Cheeto Jesus and the Republican Congress won't give a flying feck about heartbroken liberals bleating on and on about whether the popular vote count is 1.5 or 2m.
Twitter? Really?
It's never been representative. It's not getting close to being so. It's an echo chamber.
Ok you know a bit about US history. We get it.
No need to bring Adams or others from 215 years ago into a present day internet context. It doesn't work. You can go back about 4 Presidents max, but that's about it.
So anyone on Twitter should be disregarded because you regard it as an echo chamber. Ok great.
Bear in mind however that this is a political nerd thread
This isn't related to the change in margin, but I also see it as the best chance to undermine public faith in the electoral college, far moreso than under W and in the 19th century when former slavery in the south was such a large issue. If he's historically disliked (and Bush never was until his second term, after he'd won clearly), it's easier to cite it as blameworthy and push for a change. The opposite also applies, of course.
Ok, so your opinion is the only authority on the matter, despite all available evidence pointing to the contrary.
Got it.
No, just maybe I don't regard your twitter sourcing as all that convincing.
And you think numbers will matter in this? (genuine question!) I feel the need to state that, whilst being dismissive of Raoul's posts.Bear in mind however that this is a political nerd thread
This isn't related to the change in margin, but I also see it as the best chance to undermine public faith in the electoral college, far moreso than under W and in the 19th century when former slavery in the south was such a large issue. If he's historically disliked (and Bush never was until his second term, after he'd won clearly), it's easier to cite it as blameworthy and push for a change. The opposite also applies, of course.
You have no evidence, just a smattering of improptu google searches that proved nothing other than your incredible (internet assisted) knowledge of US history.
So saying that, there's no evidence that losing the popular vote impedes the victor in any way?
It creates a public narrative that the victor doesn't have the backing of majority of citizens and has to therefore moderate their approach to governing. Trump in particular watches a lot of news and reacts to such narratives as evidenced from his Twitter use over the past few years.
- Status