Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 21, 2016 at 10:13 am #55711
    Billy_T
    Participant

    These graphics put a lot of things into perspective.

    By ALICIA PARLAPIANO and ADAM PEARCE AUG. 1, 2016

    (Best viewed on the NYTimes website)

    Excerpt:

    The remaining 60 million people voted in the primaries: about 30 million each for Republicans and Democrats.

    But half of the primary voters chose other candidates. Just 14 percent of eligible adults — 9 percent of the whole nation — voted for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

    The overall shares were about the same in 2008

    Obviously, once the primaries are over, the vote tallies go up for each candidate, as the nominees “unify” their party bases. Still, it’s striking to think what a low percentage of Americans are actually voting in the nominees to begin with. And this is after the selection process itself casts off pretty much anyone and everyone outside the richest 1%. Our leaders are chosen before we “choose” them by excluding 99% of the population.

    And contrary to the narrative pushed by so many on the right, our own revolution was not some anti-state uprising of “the people.” It was largely a battle of ruling classes — ours against a foreign occupier’s.

    It puzzles me, this deification of the founders and what they set up, as if it were the sacred voice of all colonists. It, too, was exclusionary — even more so than today. Just white Christian males with land. No one else was consulted, much less allowed to make decisions regarding the shape of our society . . . .

    So how do we include everyone in process, from the getgo? I have my own ideas about this, but would be interested in hearing from the rest of youze guys.

    October 21, 2016 at 11:12 am #55712
    bnw
    Blocked

    Yet with Hildabeast her super delegates in the primary completely negated Bernie’s voters. How many votes did each super delegate equal? Bernie by far had more voters so please tell just how “exclusionary” is that?

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    October 21, 2016 at 11:38 am #55717
    Zooey
    Participant
    bnw wrote:

    Yet with Hildabeast her super delegates in the primary completely negated Bernie’s voters. How many votes did each super delegate equal? Bernie by far had more voters so please tell just how “exclusionary” is that?

    No, he didn’t. She won the popular vote as well. She got more votes. She got more delegates. And she got more super delegates.

    October 21, 2016 at 12:37 pm #55721
    bnw
    Blocked
    Zooey wrote:
    bnw wrote:

    Yet with Hildabeast her super delegates in the primary completely negated Bernie’s voters. How many votes did each super delegate equal? Bernie by far had more voters so please tell just how “exclusionary” is that?

    No, he didn’t. She won the popular vote as well. She got more votes. She got more delegates. And she got more super delegates.

    Sure she did. Keep believing that. Especially BEFORE the California primary.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    October 21, 2016 at 1:47 pm #55725
    Zooey
    Participant
    bnw wrote:

    No, he didn’t. She won the popular vote as well. She got more votes. She got more delegates. And she got more super delegates.

    Sure she did. Keep believing that. Especially BEFORE the California primary.

    I supported Sanders, you may recall. I wanted to believe that her stacking the deck is what made the difference, and maybe it did.

    But Sanders did not get more votes. He just didn’t. Not overall.

    Now I don’t like the way superdelegates work, I don’t like the way delegates are apportioned in some states, and I don’t like Hillary Clinton.

    But she got more votes than Sanders did.

    October 21, 2016 at 2:14 pm #55726
    bnw
    Blocked
    Zooey wrote:
    bnw wrote:

    No, he didn’t. She won the popular vote as well. She got more votes. She got more delegates. And she got more super delegates.

    Sure she did. Keep believing that. Especially BEFORE the California primary.

    I supported Sanders, you may recall. I wanted to believe that her stacking the deck is what made the difference, and maybe it did.

    But Sanders did not get more votes. He just didn’t. Not overall.

    Now I don’t like the way superdelegates work, I don’t like the way delegates are apportioned in some states, and I don’t like Hillary Clinton.

    But she got more votes than Sanders did.

    More votes than Bernie? Up to and not including California? Because on the eve of the California primary the MSM called it for Hildabeast, a frequent tactic to kill further voter support in the remaining primaries.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by bnw.

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    October 21, 2016 at 2:35 pm #55728
    Zooey
    Participant
    bnw wrote:

    More votes than Bernie? Up to and not including California? Because on the eve of the California primary the MSM called it for Hildabeast, a frequent tactic to kill further voter support in the remaining primaries.

    Most Bernie supporters were quite skeptical of the media’s coverage of the primary, and on high alert before California. Moreover, they were passionate. I doubt the numbers were suppressed much because of that.

    And – think it all the way through – that move was more likely to dampen the wider, but less passionate Hillary support than to dampen Bernie voters. Calling it early was more likely to reduce the turnout of the rather tepid Clinton support than the passionate Sanders support.

    In any event, she got more votes. Even in California. It’s scoreboard, man. You can say the Rams played a better game, but if the other team had more points at the end, they won. Hillary won. Not just because of her bribery of superdelegates. She got more popular votes.

    October 21, 2016 at 4:35 pm #55736
    bnw
    Blocked
    Zooey wrote:

    Hillary won. Not just because of her bribery of superdelegates. She got more popular votes.

    She also had the DNC actively working against the Sanders campaign. Wonder how many votes that was worth?

    The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.

    Sprinkles are for winners.

    October 21, 2016 at 8:06 pm #55747
    Zooey
    Participant
    bnw wrote:
    Zooey wrote:

    Hillary won. Not just because of her bribery of superdelegates. She got more popular votes.

    She also had the DNC actively working against the Sanders campaign. Wonder how many votes that was worth?

    A lot, probably.

    I think that if the playing field had been even from the beginning, if Sanders and Clinton both began at the same starting line, Sanders would have won. He came very close to winning with the entire Dem establishment and the media completely dismissing him from the beginning. We were several primaries into the season before anybody would talk about him seriously, and even then, he was still downplayed. And, yes, that matters.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.