View Full Version : No President won decisively recently
iris lilies
11-10-24, 6:27pm
Probably we are all sick and tired of post election analysis. But anyway…
i’ve heard in a couple of conservative places that The Donald won decisively. Well OK I guess so. But I’m not sure what they’re basing it on. Do they mean he went well over the minimum requirement of 270 electoral votes? If so, all the winners since 2016 have gone over that number decisively.
The winners of the popular vote whether winner of the election or not, only differ a few points. In fact, Joe Biden had the biggest spread of the last three elections winning by 4% of the popular vote.
I guess my take away is this: these elections are all pretty close. No one has a mandate.
Year: 2024
Winner: Trump with 312 electoral votes, 74,708,910 popular votes with 50.5 % of the vote
Loser: Harris with 226 electoral votes, 70,980,000, 381 popular votes for 48% of the vote
I hear millions of votes are yet to come in, mostly from the West Coast, which will be Harris votes so her percentage of popular vote will go up
Year: 2020
Winner: Biden with 306 electoral votes, 81,284,666 popular votes for 51.3% of the vote.
Loser: Trump with 232 electoral votes, 74,224,319 votes for 47% of the vote
Year: 2016
Winner: Trump with 306 electoral votes, 62,984,825 popular votes for 46% of the vote
Loser: Clinton with 232 electoral votes, 65,853,516 popular votes for 48% of the vote
iris lilies
11-10-24, 6:31pm
One of the funnies I heard after the election was Democrats are now going to go back to look at the results of the 2020 election because maybe it WAS rigged after all! Look at the number of votes Biden pulled in vs the number Harris pulled in. Where did all of them go? Haha.
By way of context, when I engineered an overthrow of a local governmental district last November, I got > 81% of the vote, which I did take as a mandate. This gave me the political capital to reform the organization over the next year, even though the minority was *very* angry(*).
(*) By "angry", I mean they showed up by the dozens to hurl vile insults at the newly elected Commissioners for about 7 months. Interfered with life-critical operations. Nearly shut down administrative functioning of the District with an abundance of public records requests. Threatened Commissioners and those who supported them, to the point where I had to have law enforcement present at meetings and Town Halls. Fun times.
Probably we are all sick and tired of post election analysis. But anyway…
i’ve heard in a couple of conservative places that The Donald won decisively. Well OK I guess so. But I’m not sure what they’re basing it on. Do they mean he went well over the minimum requirement of 270 electoral votes? If so, all the winners since 2016 have gone over that number decisively.
The winners of the vote wherher winner of the election or not, only differ a few points. In fact, Joe Biden had the biggest spread of the last three elections winning by 4% of the popular vote.
I guess my take away is this: these elections are all pretty close. No one has a mandate.
Year: 2024
Winner: Trump with 312 electoral votes, 74,708,910 popular votes with 50.5 % of the vote
Loser: Harris with 226 electoral votes, 70,980,000, 381 popular votes for 48% of the vote
I hear millions of votes are yet to come in, mostly from the West Coast, which will be Harris votes so her percentage of popular vote will go up
Year: 2020
Winner: Biden with 306 electoral votes, 81,284,666 popular votes for 51.3% of the vote.
Loser: Trump with 232 electoral votes, 74,224,319 votes for 47% of the vote
Year: 2016
Winner: Trump with 306 electoral votes, 62,984,825 popular votes for 46% of the vote
Loser: Clinton with 232 electoral votes, 65,853,516 popular votes for 48% of the vote
I think you’re right there. Really decisive wins are pretty rare in modern times. I think LBJ 1964 and Nixon 1972 won by margins exceeding 20%. Reagan in the 1980s won by something like 8-10%. Trump’s 2-3% seems pretty slim to me.
iris lilies
11-10-24, 11:45pm
I quizzed the Trumpster in my house and he did not know why his cronies call this a big win.
I suggested maybe they were impressed with how the Donald won all of the swing states, maybe that’s what they’re thinking of.
TS Eliot said something to the effect that there are no lost causes because there are no gained causes. I think that’s especially true when elections can turn on 1-2% margins. I don’t think anyone is in a position to claim mandates or realignments.
ToomuchStuff
11-11-24, 12:10am
Probably we are all sick and tired of post election analysis. vote.
No but
I think you’re right there.
Yup.
rosarugosa
11-11-24, 8:06am
Well I have idiot FB friends posting pictures of the map showing which states were red and which were blue, as though acreage was somehow more relevant than population. The accompanying claim was that it's a red country, not a divided country.
Not only are the populations of the states somewhat evenly divided, but red and blue seem to be polarized to some extreme. I've wondered if the blue states should organize into a coalition to protect their state's rights from big government interference, as strength in numbers. With Congress, the Supreme Court and POTUS all aligned, states rights might be the only check and balance left.
The last time Democrats organized that kind of coalition was what, 1860?
The last time Democrats organized that kind of coalition was what, 1860?
Of course we are much more civilized now. I'd think of it more like breaking up a monopoly.
Well, you see a few governors making resistance-y noises. Newsom is calling a special session of his legislature. Pritzker is puffing out his chest and saying “If you come for my people you have to come through me”. Very “Untouchables”. A couple of others are talking tough too. Not sure if they have much of a plan yet. Probably at least a few symbolic lawsuits.
I suppose realistically the blue states would be far from forming some version of a new union. Probably the next big battles will be in the courts where there may be a vestige of integrity left. But say for example the GOP, who I may refer to in the future a The Family overturns the ACA. Would it make sense then for the states to coalesce their resources to provide their own version. Or to standardize the state granted rights and medical benefits of abortion. The lesson I've seen in big business is the concept of synergy. One could always bring up the argument that taxes on the wealthy blue states subsidize the benefits of the red states.
If Trump starts imprisoning his enemies on false charges or establishes interment camps reminiscent of WWII I hope people will stand up against the oligarchy in some unified way, but it may not come to that.
iris lilies
11-11-24, 11:52am
Well I have idiot FB friends posting pictures of the map showing which states were red and which were blue, as though acreage was somehow more relevant than population. The accompanying claim was that it's a red country, not a divided country.
Oh, acreage! Now that’s a new one. Ha.
and then I heard it AGAIN last night where some talking internet head used the world “landslide “ for Trump and mentioned 2 things, popular vote and swing states.
Um, Trump got 50% of the popular votes hardly a landslide.
I suppose realistically the blue states would be far from forming some version of a new union. Probably the next big battles will be in the courts where there may be a vestige of integrity left. But say for example the GOP, who I may refer to in the future a The Family overturns the ACA. Would it make sense then for the states to coalesce their resources to provide their own version. Or to standardize the state granted rights and medical benefits of abortion. The lesson I've seen in big business is the concept of synergy. One could always bring up the argument that taxes on the wealthy blue states subsidize the benefits of the red states.
If Trump starts imprisoning his enemies on false charges or establishes interment camps reminiscent of WWII I hope people will stand up against the oligarchy in some unified way, but it may not come to that.
There’s already a gaggle of ambitious Democrats jockeying for position as head of “the resistance”. I don’t know that they could create new state entitlement programs without accelerating the taxpayer exodus many of them have been experiencing. The rich states pay more canard gets repeated a lot by frustrated Democrats; when they’re not demanding the rich need to be paying more as their “fair share”.
As far as organizing some kind of paramilitary resistance to a Trump Gestapo, I think we’re entering the realm of fantasy. Political parties have enjoyed control of both the legislative and executive branches in the past without the constitutional order collapsing.
Oh, acreage! Now that’s a new one. Ha.
and then I heard it AGAIN last night where some talking internet head used the world “landslide “ for Trump and mentioned 2 things, popular vote and swing states.
Um, Trump got 50% of the popular votes hardly a landslide.
I think you’re quite right. Color the map red or blue by county, and red looks dominant even when the GOP gets beaten badly at the polls. I think it’s dumb for either side to view red or blue as some kind of immutable identity group. Voters change their minds, as we have seen in the recent election.
As far as organizing some kind of paramilitary resistance to a Trump Gestapo, I think we’re entering the realm of fantasy. Political parties have enjoyed control of both the legislative and executive branches in the past without the constitutional order collapsing.
Civil disobedience or resistance does require paramilitary. As my financial adviser says, past performance has no guarantee for the future. These are unique times. When trump promises to charge his enemies with treason for no obvious legal reason, or round up immigrants into interment camps he’s inviting organized resistance. Fortunately he is a chronic liar.
iris lilies
11-11-24, 3:29pm
Of course we are much more civilized now. I'd think of it more like breaking up a monopoly.
I would not characterize our current society as “much more civilized.”
iris lilies
11-11-24, 3:30pm
Civil disobedience or resistance does require paramilitary. As my financial adviser says, past performance has no guarantee for the future. These are unique times. When trump promises to charge his enemies with treason for no obvious legal reason, or round up immigrants into interment camps he’s inviting organized resistance. Fortunately he is a chronic liar.
And fortunately, the woke crowd has not succeeded in taking away personal firearms. These are handy tools in resistance to internment camps.
The last time Democrats organized that kind of coalition was what, 1860?
In a twisted sort of way, it might be good that Trump won. Had he lost, but would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power, I think the odds of an 1860 might have been greater.
In a twisted sort of way, it might be good that Trump won. Had he lost, but would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power, I think the odds of an 1860 might have been greater.
That’s one way to look at it. I fully expect that when the Republic is still standing in 2029 people will claim the heroes of the resistance made it possible.
iris lilies
11-13-24, 7:48pm
Listening to Konstantine Kisak today, he used the word “landside “for the Trump win, and detailed it as:
electoral college= win
Popular vote =win
House = win
Senate =win
All of that coupled with winning all swing states does look like a “landslide “ in that all the things that could be won WERE won.
I heard this election compared to a South Dakota flood: a thousand square miles covered three inches deep.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.