How Clinton Failed

Politico has a really good article detailing how Hillary Clinton lost the most winnable Presidential campaign in history:

Everybody could see Hillary Clinton was cooked in Iowa. So when, a week-and-a-half out, the Service Employees International Union started hearing anxiety out of Michigan, union officials decided to reroute their volunteers, giving a desperate team on the ground around Detroit some hope.

They started prepping meals and organizing hotel rooms.

SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Michigan organizers were shocked. It was the latest case of Brooklyn ignoring on-the-ground intel and pleas for help in a race that they felt slipping away at the end.

“They believed they were more experienced, which they were. They believed they were smarter, which they weren’t,” said Donnie Fowler, who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee during the final months of the campaign. “They believed they had better information, which they didn’t.”

The article isn’t long and is worth a read. Basically, Clinton abandoned critical states, putting her faith in models that projected them to be safe because they had a lead of … five whole points. Volunteers were ignored. Literature was never handed out. Door-to-door campaigning, the lifeblood of any political campaign, was seen as passe. It’s incredibly damning of the Clinton campaign and of Clinton herself.

Over the last few weeks, we have been hearing a litany of excuses for why Hillary Clinton lost: it was the Comey letter, it was the Russians, it was Fox News, it was “fake news”, it was the Russians. But there’s a problem with this. Even if you assume that the Comey letter had an impact or the Podesta leaks mattered — huge assumptions, in my view — the race should not have been close enough for them to matter. When the race began, Clinton started with high positives and the entire Democratic Party and media establishment behind her. That was not going to last — Clinton had a long history of bad policy and corruption dating back to Arkansas. But she still should have been able to mop the floor with Trump, who wasn’t clear on whether he wanted to be President and stomped on every political mine in the field. Clinton had her dream candidate and she still lost.

And now we’re seeing why: bad management, poor decision-making and a sense of entitlement to victory. Instead of making sure she had the critical rust belt states in the bag, Clinton got greedy and tried to snatch states like Iowa away, hoping for a landslide. She outgamed herself, withholding resources from Michigan because she hoped she could bluff Trump into not fighting for the state.

(The stupidity of that last can not be overstated. Trump could not win without Michigan. One of the things that got discussed endlessly in the run-up to the election was that Trump has very few paths to victory. He essentially had to run the table on swing states and then steal a few “lean” states away from Clinton, particularly in the Rust Belt. This is, of course, precisely what he did. That Clinton did not throw everything into blocking his only route to victory show not only political idiocy but the kind of basic strategic blundering we saw as Secretary of State and I’m sure we would have seen has she been elected.)

This is not unprecedented. In 2000, Clinton, handed a Senate seat on a golden platter by a popular outgoing Senator, won her race by ten points in a state Gore won by 25. She was losing at points in the race and might have lost on election day had Rick Lazio not faceplanted.

Handed the Presidential race in 2008, she lost to a two-year Senator whose middle name was Hussein. And the reason she lost was the same: taking states for granted, assuming she would win, outgaming herself.

I lived in Texas at the time and it was the first time in many years that Texas was contested. Obama lost the primary but ended up with more delegates because he won the caucuses. I wasn’t a Democrat so didn’t attend the caucuses. But you could see this was going to happen because Obama’s people were fucking everywhere. They were knocking on doors, they were at the polls, they were running commercials. And on election day, they were always reminding people to come back that evening for the caucus. Obama has visited the state earlier. And he didn’t just pop into Austin, give a speech and jet out. He met with people, he shook a million hands and he listened. Obama fought hard and fought well to win Texas, despite everyone’s assurance that no black man could win the state. And that’s why he ended up edging her both in the Texas delegate count and the overall count.

Since 2009, I have lived in Pennsylvania. More to the point, I live in a college town. In 2008, while visiting for job interviews, I saw Obama signs everywhere. In 2012, Obama signs were everywhere and the place was crawling with canvassers making sure they got out the vote. This year … I actually saw more Trump signs. In a college town. I saw one lonely canvasser working our neighborhood the day before the election. In a college town. The Trump people were handing out signs and stickers on campus when Clinton people were few and far between. In a college town. After the election, there were lots of protests. Before … nothing. No big rallies. Few events. Being in academia, almost everyone I know voted for Clinton. But the lack of enthusiasm was palpable.

This is how you lose an election. The Left is making a big deal of the Clinton winning the popular vote by three million votes — a larger margin than many Presidents who won their elections. But they’re missing the point of that. A three million vote advantage in the popular vote should have easily translated to an electoral college victory. It didn’t. And the reason it didn’t isn’t because of shady conspiracies and Russian hackers. The reason is because Trump (and Conway) refused to concede the election before the votes were cast. And Clinton thought she’d already won. And, equally important, she thought just showing up and having a vile opponent was enough.

It wasn’t. It never would have been. She had to fight for it. She had to listen to people in the field. And she had to give people something to vote for. As much as I dislike Trump, he campaigned his heart out, he fought for states that the experts were writing off and, however much I might have disagreed with him, you knew what he was campaigning on. That’s why he’s assembling his cabinet right now and Clinton is wandering in the woods, taking selfies with disappointed supporters.

Addendum: And as long as we’re on the subject …

A lot of people are talking about the Electoral College and whether we should ditch it as outdated (on the days when they are not calling for it to rebel against Trump and save our democracy). Let’s put aside the practical considerations — you would need a Constitutional Amendment or interstate agreement that swing states would never support. Let’s put aside the voter considerations — you would create a race to the bottom as states tried to expand their voting rolls as much as possible. And let’s put aside the political considerations — support for the EC has risen sharply. Here’s the gripping hand about the 2016 election:

I think the Electoral College just functioned exactly as intended.

The idea of the College is to balance the power of states with high populations against those with lower populations. Practically, this has balanced the political power of cities against rural areas. It has prevented Democrats from winning the White House by running up giant margins in cities and forced them to at least pay lip service to rural areas. And vice versa for Republicans.

Right now, everyone is talking about why the rural Rust Belt areas abandoned the Democrats. Suddenly, we’re noticing that the economy is doing well … if you live in a coastal city or have a college degree. We’re noticing that while free trade has benefited the country enormously, specific communities have been hit hard. We’re noticing the epidemic of unemployment and opiate abuse that is crushing small towns.

None of this conversation would be happening without the Electoral College. If this election had been decided by popular vote, Hillary would have coasted to victory on the support of coastal cities and the rest of the country would be left to rot.

A lot has been made of the fact that two of the last five election have ended in an electoral-popular split. And, more to the point, that reflects a growing divide in which Democrats are winning the White House popular vote based on California and New York and losing it everywhere else. This is important. It is telling us that something has gone deeply wrong in our political system.

Trump doesn’t really know how to address this. Cutting off free trade and immigration will just make things worse. But neither does Clinton, who thinks that cities living through an ongoing depression can magically afford $15-an-hour jobs. Until we figure out how to build prosperity for everyone, we will continue to have these divides.

The split between the electoral college and the popular vote is a warning sign of a growing divide in the country. Let’s not kill the messenger.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    I think this can all be broken down to simple terms; people wanted a change. They were tired of the economical malaise, the stumbling bumbling Obama foreign policies, and the threats poised from an open border and an ever emboldened ( but never recognized or acknowledged) terrorist presence. Hillary would have given us for more years of this, folks did not want that, pretty simple actually.

    Re: the popular vote, Kellyanne should employ someone to sit next to Trump and instead of whispering ,”All glory is fleeting“,  should whisper ,”3 million votes” in Trump’s ear as a constant reminder that he does not have any mandate and must persuade as well as lead.

    on the days when they are not calling for it to rebel against Trump and save our democracy

    I was waiting for you to mention this. How ironic (pathetic) that these same clowns that were accusing the Russians of subverting democracy are themselves the worst practitioners of subversion, trying to change the date, the rules, then wanting special CIA briefings for the electors (like that is going to happen), has there ever existed a more petulant group of whining crybabies?

     This is important. It is telling us that something has gone deeply wrong in our political system.

    I don’t think so, and I will let your own words be the response;

    I think the Electoral College just functioned exactly as intended.

    The founders knew that big city folks and rural farmers were two sides of the same coin and that a president should require both to win. The fact that California and NY will never ever be in play (and Texas was) shows how out of touch they really are. The EC is needed to negate their moonbattery.

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  2. AlexInCT

    I think this can all be broken down to simple terms; people wanted a change. They were tired of the economical malaise, the stumbling bumbling Obama foreign policies, and the threats poised from an open border and an ever emboldened ( but never recognized or acknowledged) terrorist presence. Hillary would have given us for more years of this, folks did not want that, pretty simple actually.

    THIS!

    As I predicted when they elected Obama as a response to Boosh’s lackadaisical presidency: nothing will serve to turn people away from the idiotic ideology, ideas, and actions the left pushes, than the left getting to put them in action. 8 Years of Obama and the hardcore left running rampant have served to burn through whatever mental fog was preventing common sense from making it obvious that this collectivist shit is the most evil plague to strike mankind.

    When words, and only those approved by the credentialed elite, matter more than actions or the results of words/actions, you will get what we have today: a world in chaos, where these idiots tell you up is down, left is right, and that the problem is you for pointing out that what they are doing doesn’t just not work, but is actually destructive.

    The left has destroyed its credibility, not just in the US, but around the globe. People are catching on that what it preaches and promotes is going to result in the suicide of what has provided the world with freedom, progress, and a bounty of wealth: the constantly vilified western civilization, which while not perfect, has been better than anything else.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    Re: the popular vote, Kellyanne should employ someone to sit next to Trump and instead of whispering ,”All glory is fleeting“,  should whisper ,”3 million votes” in Trump’s ear as a constant reminder that he does not have any mandate and must persuade as well as lead.

    Want to know why I now suspect Trump is going to do far better than I ever expected? While some of his cabinet members have not been my top choice, most have been excellent. Then there is stuff like this. The days of people not being held accountable and tax dollars being pissed away making friends of the credentialed elite and democrat campaign coffers rich, are looking like they are coming to an end. And it couldn’t have happened at a better time.

    No wonder the left is in a tizzy. After weaponizing the fed in this country hoping handing it off to a crook like Hillary that wouldn’t have any problems “breaking a few eggs to make that omelet” would allow them to finally go after those evil people that refused to go along with their program, they are freaking out Trump now gets that machine and could actually turn it on them. And even worse for these douchebags, if all we get from Trump is a mediocre performance, it will drastically contrast how bad the last 8 years and the shit the left peddles, really is. And even the DNC operatives with bylines suddenly rediscovering that the economy is bad, that there are homeless people out there, that things in general around the globe are are really bad, that our healthcare system is falling apart, Guantanamo still exists, that the US is embroiled in all sorts of nasty and useless wars, and that the world is now more dangerous than back in the days of the Cold War, just to name a few, will not serve to undermine that fact or obfuscate the reality that these collectivists are destructive amateurs and idiots.

    Expect all the things anyone trying to point out the havoc the left was wreaking that got you labeled as a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and whatever other derogatory term that the left has used to shut down any attempt at discussion, suddenly to come back in vogue. Because the one mistake the left will never commit again is letting someone prove them and what they believe wrong by doing the right things, like Reagan did.

    Thumb up 0

  4. richtaylor365

    Then there is stuff like this.

    The left absolutely hates it when their own tactics, the ones they broke precedent in setting, are used against them. There are 40 some senators right now that would like to strangle Harry Reid and his precedent setting nuclear option, how delicious it will be to have the tables turned.

    I am going to take a wait and see attitude with Trump. He  has done  some good things so far but he isn’t in office yet, and he probably has no idea the levels at which the dems will stoop, the obstructionism, the perfidy, he is going to get a heavy dose of politics right out of the box.

    Thumb up 0

  5. ilovecress

    I don’t like it when they’re characterised as excuses. Campaigns and politics in general throw things up. It’s how you respond to them that counts. Trump had just as many, in fact even more, things happen in his campaign that could be called excuses if he lost. The difference is in how he reacted to them. In an election this close it’s not ‘one big thing’ that swings it – it’s a combination of things. Especially when you’re the most unpopular candidate ever.

    So a few things that I’ve been thinking (and this is 20/20 hindsight – I was wrong about these during the election, so take from that what you will)

    Comey. This is probably the big one. But the failure was in how HRC handled the email thing from the get-go. When the decision was made to go with the ‘no big deal’ defence – didn’t anyone raise the possibility that more emails could come out 2 weeks before the election?

    Russia ‘hacking’. There’s another way to look at this other than Russia was helping Trump (assuming etc etc). That HRC knew Russia was helping trump and didn’t take advantage of that. The Russian influence could have been good for HRC if they’d played it right.

    Fake news – let’s just get our terms right – Fake News isn’t about established news outlets pedalling lies. It’s websites specifically set up to spread lies over social media. Did it have an effect – I’m doubtful, as these things only work in the bubble that they’re intended for. The ‘HRC killed the FBI agent investigating her’ story only ever reached people who hated her anyway.

    Too much news. I think this is the biggest effect – and actually the trump campaigns genius. There was so much going on with Trump, so many clicks to be had, that it didn’t give HRC time to message properly before they were onto the next thing. And on messaging – ‘I’m with her’? How about something that refers to America, rather than the candidate? Can anyone think of a single memorable speech or soundbite?

    But the thing I disagree with you on (and again, hindsight) is that this shouldn’t have been close. And it was that assumption that led to all these bad decisions. When Bernie ran HRC close, she didn’t think ‘wow, the country is in a populist mood and wants to see a difference made in their lives’. She thought ‘whew, dodged that bullet, now it’s my turn’. The polls during the Democratic primary said that she’d lose to Trump. The fact that everyone (including me) forgot that is really weird.

    Some of the biggest criticisms of HRC came from the left – we loved Obamas lefty promise, but he didn’t live up to it – so you expect us to support someone more to the right of Obama 08?Basically the democrats nominated Mitt Romney. Now that’s not to say that Jill Stein took all those votes or anything. But there’s a bunch of people who begrudgingly voted for HRC, but didn’t evangelise for her. What was there to get excited about from the left? She was dirty corporatism in a blue pantsuit.

     

    The left fucked up on this one.

    Thumb up 1

  6. AlexInCT

    I am going to take a wait and see attitude with Trump. He  has done  some good things so far but he isn’t in office yet,

    I actually agree here Rich. But then again, the only person I think would make choices that would make me 100% happy would be myself, and even that hinges on me getting what I want every time. So far I like what I see far more than what I don’t. The only choice that disappointed me was his choice for AG, which tells me he plans to keep the current incarnation of the drug war going, and I find that to be sad. His other choices, especially the ones the left has gotten angriest about, have made me ecstatic. It is a double win for me. What these people have done in these last 8 years can’t be dismantlement fast enough for all our sakes.

    and he probably has no idea the levels at which the dems will stoop, the obstructionism, the perfidy, he is going to get a heavy dose of politics right out of the box.

    Actually I think he has a far better idea about what the left is like – he used to travel in their circles and even was supposedly friends with the Clintons, so he has to be aware of how low and dirty these people are and play – than your usual republican that ends up all butt hurt when the people that used to praise them (when they fucked over their constituency in favor of what the left wants) suddenly start calling them Hitler (every republican the left now tells us was better than Trump-Hitler, was previously called Hitler: ask McCain and Romney). In fact, I think Trump will play with these morons, yanking their chains and getting them to show their true colors, for all to judge. The left is unhinged. They are scared, not because they think Trump will be bad, but because they fear he will be good and could do to them what they wanted to do to the rest of us. Fuck them all.

    Thumb up 0

  7. AlexInCT

    Fake news – let’s just get our terms right – Fake News isn’t about established news outlets pedalling lies. It’s websites specifically set up to spread lies over social media. 

    I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment here Cress. The LSM not only lies for the left, but they decide what is allowed to be news. These douchebags  used to control the narrative, denying those of us that knew better even the chance to get the truth out. That ended when the internet provided people with the means to find the facts elsewhere. And that is the thing that most angers these DNC operatives with bylines today: that they no longer can control the news and popular opinion by obfuscation and manipulation. Hence the call to control news.

    It’s fucking Orwellian hearing these cunts pretend the problem was that some of us got to point out Hillary is a criminal and got away with it because this government decided to give her a pass none of us would ever get. Or that we could point out that the Obama administration and Clinton spent 8 years spying on and lying to us. The list goes on and on, but the hyenas in the media wanted us to believe that this was all false flags to distract us. There is a reason people like me will be more likely to believe a story on the internet or even in The Enquirer than in the NYT or WaPo: the NYT and WaPo are run for and by DNC operatives serving the democratic party and its agenda in general, and certain democrats in particular, over doing their job of informing people. The mask is off, they burned whatever credibility they might have had left trying to carry that criminal over the finish line. And they will never be able to get that back because they just can’t give up their ideological roots.

    Look at the mad falling and scary calls for censorship from these dirtbags. This argument about fake news IS about them wanting to censor and control news. If you are arguing things are otherwise, it is because you are mad/sad that the cat is out of the bag, and you will remain disappointed as these people keep digging the hole deeper and those of us that see through them never take them seriously again.

    Thumb up 2

  8. ilovecress

    I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment here Cress.

    This isn’t an assessment. I’m clarifying what the issue is, because people are getting confused.

    The ‘fake news’ issue is a very specific one (I’ve been working on it for the past few weeks) about shady operators mining social media for CPM by spreading fake information by linking to their own websites. It’s not just about politics – there are libel issues too, conflicting with free speech issues – all within an international environment. They’re basically the new spam or clickbait articles. Whether or not they’re true is totally immaterial, as long as you click on them. They’re not trying to inform you or change your mind (which is why you’ll probably not see the lefty ones, and I’ll not see the righty ones)

    Your criticism of the ‘LSM’ is a totally different issue. I’m not saying it’s not an issue, but dealing with ‘fake news’ needs a different solution.

    It’s the difference between you receiving a spam email, and you receiving an email from your liberal nephew.

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT

    And this is why we need to be really specific about what the problem is. 

    Here in the US the usual suspect have not even tried too hard to conceal that what they consider to be fake news is anything that didn’t come from them and/or anything that hurts the democrats. They are not concerned with fake sites doing fake news: they are pissed they don’t control what people hear anymore. Especially when they continue to make the argument Trump won because people were mislead. No they were not misled. They actually found out how corrupt and contemptible the democrats and Hillary in particular are, despite the attempt to hide it.

    And then, there is the whole red scare tactic they hope can block or deligitimize Trump, obviously bogus, and coming from people that up until the loss of Hillary, couldn’t make enough excuses for the Reds and their real horrible actions. Now suddenly Russia is a problem. Yeah, right.

    Thumb up 0

  10. ilovecress

    Here in the US the usual suspect have not even tried too hard to conceal that what they consider to be fake news is anything that didn’t come from them and/or anything that hurts the democrats.

    Yep. Which is why I keep banging on about it. The solution we’ve been working on is designed to tackle the problem, and not the excuse.

    Thumb up 1

  11. stogy

    A lot of people are talking about the Electoral College and whether we should ditch it as outdated (on the days when they are not calling for it to rebel against Trump and save our democracy). 

    I take your point Hal, but a better, more minimal reform, would be to remove the “winner takes all” rule for all of the states. This would mean that Republican voters in California have their votes actually mean something, and likewise, the Democrats in midwest states would be represented. Suddenly, candidates have to actually work for every vote – not just those in swing states. It also means that pork-barreling in marginal districts becomes much less effective in buying votes.

    Thumb up 0

  12. AlexInCT

    Yep. Which is why I keep banging on about it. The solution we’ve been working on is designed to tackle the problem, and not the excuse.

    “You” may be working on that, and in all honesty want to address the problem Cress, but you are in the minority. The left and the media here in the US, are still throwing a tantrum, running a campaign of disinformation, somehow hoping they can change reality if they but can censor those pesky people that keep undermining their narrative. That’s because according to them, the problem isn’t that they have been lying and colluding with one party for decades, but those of us that refuse to just swallow their idiotic narrative like a whore swallows cock. I for one, your best efforts not withstanding Cress, do not want any “fix”, because I know – from what they have done in the past and what they keep pretending was the false news when it was not – that by “fix” these people mean “rig”. No, thank you.

    Remember that a major component of the anger we see from the left is that the rubes they love to look down on outsmarted them. These people are not interested in a “fix” as much as they are interested in shutting down the voice of opposition AND punishing the rubes. These are the people that told us Hillary allowing foreign powers to hack the State Department was not worthy of criminal activity, but someone hacking the DNC and airing that filthy laundry is the most dangerous act ever perpetrated on this country, and should nullify an election that didn’t go their way. After all, the eleite that want to control “fake news” miss no opportunity to remind us rubes that we elected Trump because we are racist, misogynistic, homophobic, evil fucks. Not because we, unlike them, saw Clinton was a craven lunatic and criminal hell bent on a destruction they were all happy to inflict on the rubes. And as I have repeatedly stated, their freakout about Trump is driven by the fear he might use the very machine they built to use against those of us that refused to bow to Moloch, against them.

    Thumb up 0

  13. AlexInCT

    This would mean that Republican voters in California have their votes actually mean something, and likewise,

    No they would not. There are more illegal voters than republicans in California. The electoral college serves its purpose: to deny the coastal urban centers where the majority of the useless end up voting for a living from denying the rest of us our right to tell them that the abuse is over. This argument is a lie masquerading as a wish to do something to “improve” the thing. These people are hoping that you miss the fact that in these places they control they would just rig the whole game into perpetuity. The electoral college works, and works as intended, and has already spared this country twice in the last 20 years when it blocked two evil fucks from getting in. That the left wanted these evil, crazy, criminal, fucks, to take it regardless of the fact those of us that would be screwed did not, is more a statement on their agenda than any kind of reflection on the electoral college and how it works. Fuck that. No changes.

    Thumb up 0

  14. stogy

    There are more illegal voters than republicans in California. The electoral college serves its purpose

    Whether or not that’s the case, it matters not a jot in terms of what I have said. It doesn’t mean more democrat voters (illegal or otherwise) in California. In fact, it means more Republican supporters are likely to vote, knowing their votes will actually count for something. I can’t really see this particular reform benefitting one side or another.

    And how would making the electoral college more representative be bad thing? Why wouldn’t you want better representation?

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  15. AlexInCT

    In fact, it means more Republican supporters are likely to vote, knowing their votes will actually count for something.

    No it won’t. In fact, allowing the vote to be split and doing away with the electoral college, would do exactly the opposite of what you claim, and marginalize the republican’s vote even more, because now it cancels out the one mechanism that prevents overpopulated urban marxist cesspools from always picking the winner. I live in one of those east coast blue states where those of us that work for a living are always outvoted by those that vote for a living. The only way my vote would count for anything would be if the people that suck of the government’s teat were not allowed to vote period. What you propose, under the veneer of caring about counting republican votes, would be suicide for the country.

    I can’t really see this particular reform benefitting one side or another.

    Actually I am sure you see how it benefits the left perfectly, and as usual, are just playing dumb. As this article clearly points out, California will always hand democrats the win unless the system has a way to neutralize the fact that the state is overrun by government teat suckers, illegal or otherwise, and is run by the corrupt democratic crime syndicate/machine.

    Leave the electoral college alone. It is the one guarantee those of us have that urban cesspools of marxism, and California in particular, never holds sole power over whom leads this country.

    Thumb up 0

  16. stogy

    Alex,  your article makes the same point that I did:

    Plus, since Republicans knew Clinton was going to win the state — and its entire 55 electoral votes — casting a ballot for Trump was virtually meaningless, since no matter what her margin of victory, Clinton was getting all 55 votes.

    If the system in California discourages Republican supporters from attending the polls, it makes overwhelming Dem majorities more likely. And then you said:

    California will always hand democrats the win unless the system has a way to neutralize the fact that the state is overrun by government teat suckers, illegal or otherwise, and is run by the corrupt democratic crime syndicate/machine.

    Another way to look at your argument is that you support a system that allows one vote in one area of the country to have a higher value in another part of the country. And your characterization of the Democrats as “government teat suckers, illegal or otherwise, and is run by the corrupt democratic crime syndicate/machine” also fits the Republican party very well. 

    What I am suggesting doesn’t change the proportion of electoral college votes, or dilute small states’ influence, it just makes the final count more representative.

    Actually I am sure you see how it benefits the left perfectly, and as usual, are just playing dumb.

    I genuinely don’t know. The only way to actually prove or disprove the argument would be to run the numbers – and include the proportion of non-voters in non-swing states who would have voted if they thought their vote would make a difference.

    Thumb up 0

  17. stogy

    Thanks for the link, Alex, but if you think that somehow answers my argument, then you clearly haven’t understood my argument. The article makes the point that states choose not to allocate their electors based on the proportional popular vote in each state, noting that it makes republican votes in San Francisco meaningless (as I said), and then skips straight over that to “why we shouldn’t have a national popular vote (your argument).

    Of course, the only way what I am suggesting would work is if all states adopted proportional voting of electors – something I can’t see happening. But it would be a more representative system and encourage people with minority perspectives in each state to vote and reduce the value of pork-barreling – without undermining the role of smaller states in the electoral college.

    If you like, I’ll come back next time there is a Dem president elected and make the same argument.

    Thumb up 2

  18. CM

    Although our system of government is substantially different we changed to a proportional representation system in 1996, which is WAY fairer. Nobody is left with a wasted vote, and one isn’t worth more than another.

    Thumb up 0