2016: Historical Wave Election

[Toro]

Given that the Republicans lost seats in both the Senate and House as well as the popular vote, I wouldn't call this a wave election.

 

[Care4all]

Given that the Republicans lost seats in both the Senate and House as well as the popular vote, I wouldn't call this a wave election.

AMEN to that!

they and media, are trying to spin it that way, but reality says otherwise

 

[peach174]

yes, Trump said the presidential election is rigged due to the electoral college..... now that he won the EV votes, he changed his mind, but that's all fine and dandy, eh?

He was talking about changing the unfair rules that sets both parties for wins.
It makes it almost impossible to run for any other parties.

No he wasn't Peach, he tweeted about the Romney run and on election day early on, he thought romney was winning the popular vote and Obama the electoral college and he vehemently was against the electoral college and said it was a travesty to democracy and the system was rigged, and when he started saying that before this election, it was his set up... to call this election rigged when he thought Hillary was going to win the electoral votes.

The ELECTORAL college is what keeps only the two parties in the race.... Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and the way the system is set up, he earned ZERO Elector votes.... that's just wrong wrong wrong....

Electors need to vote with how their district voted, then the third party candidates would have a chance... (each state gets 1 elector for every voting district that they have a US Congressman, and then they get 2 electors for their 2 Senators...which is what gives smaller populated states their advantage....) If the electors for their two senators... votes with their full state's popular vote, and the other electors given for each congressional voting district, votes with their district....it would give third parties a shot....but the way it is set up now, ONLY the two parties have a shot, it is rigged in their favor... it wasn't always like this and and two states, like mine, has changed it ...my state gives 1 electoral vote to each voting district...

clinton got 3 electors, trump got one....and BECAUSE as a small state, we set it up that way, Trump came to visit us with Rallies at LEAST 3 times in my district....if it was winner takes all, he would not have even visited us once!!!

Well only time will tell for certain.
There is just too much disinformation out there to know for certain.
I hope that they can get the curruption out of it. I dont see them wanting to get rid of the E. C. too many have not been taught about it, let alone understand why its so important to keep it.

Like he said if the E.C. was gone he would have campaigned in different States.

 

[peach174]

Given that the Republicans lost seats in both the Senate and House as well as the popular vote, I wouldn't call this a wave election.

AMEN to that!

they and media, are trying to spin it that way, but reality says otherwise

Dems lost blue states , all of the south and gained control of all three branches. FACT!

 

[NYcarbineer]

.
2016: Historical Wave Election




The only American election that compares to the ass kicking the Democrats suffered in the 2016 election is the election of 1920 when the Republicans took over all branches of government with huge majorities in both the House and Senate.

Check it out here ↴
Wave election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.

The GOP lost seats in the House, seats in the Senate, and the popular vote of the American people. That is not a 'wave' election.

 

[Care4all]

yes, Trump said the presidential election is rigged due to the electoral college..... now that he won the EV votes, he changed his mind, but that's all fine and dandy, eh?

He was talking about changing the unfair rules that sets both parties for wins.
It makes it almost impossible to run for any other parties.

No he wasn't Peach, he tweeted about the Romney run and on election day early on, he thought romney was winning the popular vote and Obama the electoral college and he vehemently was against the electoral college and said it was a travesty to democracy and the system was rigged, and when he started saying that before this election, it was his set up... to call this election rigged when he thought Hillary was going to win the electoral votes.

The ELECTORAL college is what keeps only the two parties in the race.... Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and the way the system is set up, he earned ZERO Elector votes.... that's just wrong wrong wrong....

Electors need to vote with how their district voted, then the third party candidates would have a chance... (each state gets 1 elector for every voting district that they have a US Congressman, and then they get 2 electors for their 2 Senators...which is what gives smaller populated states their advantage....) If the electors for their two senators... votes with their full state's popular vote, and the other electors given for each congressional voting district, votes with their district....it would give third parties a shot....but the way it is set up now, ONLY the two parties have a shot, it is rigged in their favor... it wasn't always like this and and two states, like mine, has changed it ...my state gives 1 electoral vote to each voting district...

clinton got 3 electors, trump got one....and BECAUSE as a small state, we set it up that way, Trump came to visit us with Rallies at LEAST 3 times in my district....if it was winner takes all, he would not have even visited us once!!!

Well only time will tell for certain.
There is just too much disinformation out there to know for certain.
I hope that they can get the curruption out of it. I dont see them wanting to get rid of the E. C. too many have not been taught about it, let alone understand why its so important to keep it.

Like he said if the E.C. was gone he would have campaigned in different States.

I dont want the EC gone either, I just want it to work the way it was intended by Madison and Hamilton who designed it wanted and initially worked....the two parties have manipulated it over the centuries so that it secures a two party system....

States are given 1 electoral vote for each congressional district, and then 2 elector votes for their two senators, which gives the smaller states their advantage over the largest states because they only get 2 electors for their senators as well.....that is how it was designed..... Electors did not and were NOT suppose to collude with the other electors in their state, but were suppose to vote individually for their district....

 

[peach174]

and all without winning the popular vote

Look at the map, see all the red. The blue spots are tiny. We should pass out the vote based on acreage owed and be done with it.

Damn what is wrong with google, how come I can't pull up a 2016 election map?????? they keep going back to 2012 or 2008.

I need to find a new search engine.
Liberals hiding things on me.

Why am I not surprised that a Trump supporter would be in favor of foreign intervention in our -ahem- democracy?
"Foreign investors held an interest in 25.7 million acres of U.S. agricultural land (forest land and farmland) as of December 31, 2011..."


After the Republicans kicked the Democrats to the government curb in the 1920 wave election, the Republicans retained control of all branches of government in the 1924 and 1928 presidential elections.

As a result, the 1920's Republicans accomplished most of their agenda, an agenda that wasn't all that much different from today's Republican party; keep people of color from immigrating to the US, cut taxes, free market approach to government, protective trade tariffs, restricting people's personal freedom. Did I say cut taxes... cut taxes on the wealthiest among us?

.

Oh Brother!
The whole county prospered, including the lower class.
Some even rose to middle class.

Are you historically challenged or is trumpmania eating your mind?

After having their way with American electorate in 1920, the Republican majority was able to pass, unabated, an agenda similar in many ways to today's Republican party agenda. The Republicans kept their majority in the 1924 presidential election... By 1928 income inequality, one of the main drivers of the Great Depression had reached historical levels, not to be seen again until 2007. As money piled up in fewer and fewer hands, cash strapped consumers didn't have the means to spend - by 1929 the Stock Market crashed and the Great Depression was on.
.

It's you that doesn't know our history.
And Dems spun that lie out just like they are donig today, with putting all the blame on Bush in 2008 depression.

 

[martybegan]

yes, Trump said the presidential election is rigged due to the electoral college..... now that he won the EV votes, he changed his mind, but that's all fine and dandy, eh?

He was talking about changing the unfair rules that sets both parties for wins.
It makes it almost impossible to run for any other parties.

No he wasn't Peach, he tweeted about the Romney run and on election day early on, he thought romney was winning the popular vote and Obama the electoral college and he vehemently was against the electoral college and said it was a travesty to democracy and the system was rigged, and when he started saying that before this election, it was his set up... to call this election rigged when he thought Hillary was going to win the electoral votes.

The ELECTORAL college is what keeps only the two parties in the race.... Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and the way the system is set up, he earned ZERO Elector votes.... that's just wrong wrong wrong....

Electors need to vote with how their district voted, then the third party candidates would have a chance... (each state gets 1 elector for every voting district that they have a US Congressman, and then they get 2 electors for their 2 Senators...which is what gives smaller populated states their advantage....) If the electors for their two senators... votes with their full state's popular vote, and the other electors given for each congressional voting district, votes with their district....it would give third parties a shot....but the way it is set up now, ONLY the two parties have a shot, it is rigged in their favor... it wasn't always like this and and two states, like mine, has changed it ...my state gives 1 electoral vote to each voting district...

clinton got 3 electors, trump got one....and BECAUSE as a small state, we set it up that way, Trump came to visit us with Rallies at LEAST 3 times in my district....if it was winner takes all, he would not have even visited us once!!!

Well only time will tell for certain.
There is just too much disinformation out there to know for certain.
I hope that they can get the curruption out of it. I dont see them wanting to get rid of the E. C. too many have not been taught about it, let alone understand why its so important to keep it.

Like he said if the E.C. was gone he would have campaigned in different States.

I dont want the EC gone either, I just want it to work the way it was intended by Madison and Hamilton who designed it wanted and initially worked....the two parties have manipulated it over the centuries so that it secures a two party system....

States are given 1 electoral vote for each congressional district, and then 2 elector votes for their two senators, which gives the smaller states their advantage over the largest states because they only get 2 electors for their senators as well.....that is how it was designed..... Electors did not and were NOT suppose to collude with the other electors in their state, but were suppose to vote individually for their district....

That would have to be changed by each State, as States set up how they select electors.

As far as I know only Maine and Nebraska go with the 2 senator EV's to the State winner and 1 EV to each district winner concept.

Of course, if all States went to that you would have the whole gerrymandering argument taken to a whole new level.

 

[paulitician]

The criminals lost. Amazing times for sure.

 

[Care4all]

yes, Trump said the presidential election is rigged due to the electoral college..... now that he won the EV votes, he changed his mind, but that's all fine and dandy, eh?

He was talking about changing the unfair rules that sets both parties for wins.
It makes it almost impossible to run for any other parties.

No he wasn't Peach, he tweeted about the Romney run and on election day early on, he thought romney was winning the popular vote and Obama the electoral college and he vehemently was against the electoral college and said it was a travesty to democracy and the system was rigged, and when he started saying that before this election, it was his set up... to call this election rigged when he thought Hillary was going to win the electoral votes.

The ELECTORAL college is what keeps only the two parties in the race.... Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and the way the system is set up, he earned ZERO Elector votes.... that's just wrong wrong wrong....

Electors need to vote with how their district voted, then the third party candidates would have a chance... (each state gets 1 elector for every voting district that they have a US Congressman, and then they get 2 electors for their 2 Senators...which is what gives smaller populated states their advantage....) If the electors for their two senators... votes with their full state's popular vote, and the other electors given for each congressional voting district, votes with their district....it would give third parties a shot....but the way it is set up now, ONLY the two parties have a shot, it is rigged in their favor... it wasn't always like this and and two states, like mine, has changed it ...my state gives 1 electoral vote to each voting district...

clinton got 3 electors, trump got one....and BECAUSE as a small state, we set it up that way, Trump came to visit us with Rallies at LEAST 3 times in my district....if it was winner takes all, he would not have even visited us once!!!

Well only time will tell for certain.
There is just too much disinformation out there to know for certain.
I hope that they can get the curruption out of it. I dont see them wanting to get rid of the E. C. too many have not been taught about it, let alone understand why its so important to keep it.

Like he said if the E.C. was gone he would have campaigned in different States.

I dont want the EC gone either, I just want it to work the way it was intended by Madison and Hamilton who designed it wanted and initially worked....the two parties have manipulated it over the centuries so that it secures a two party system....

States are given 1 electoral vote for each congressional district, and then 2 elector votes for their two senators, which gives the smaller states their advantage over the largest states because they only get 2 electors for their senators as well.....that is how it was designed..... Electors did not and were NOT suppose to collude with the other electors in their state, but were suppose to vote individually for their district....

That would have to be changed by each State, as States set up how they select electors.

As far as I know only Maine and Nebraska go with the 2 senator EV's to the State winner and 1 EV to each district winner concept.

Of course, if all States went to that you would have the whole gerrymandering argument taken to a whole new level.

good point on the gerrymandering! But it too, distorts the citizen's vote in a way it was never meant to be by our founders....and secures a two party system.

 

[Care4all]

The criminals lost. Amazing times for sure.

YOU'VE BEEN HAD

your crime map is bull crap...

Maine is the safest state in the Nation with Vermont....your map is FALSE for crime rates.

 

[martybegan]

He was talking about changing the unfair rules that sets both parties for wins.
It makes it almost impossible to run for any other parties.

No he wasn't Peach, he tweeted about the Romney run and on election day early on, he thought romney was winning the popular vote and Obama the electoral college and he vehemently was against the electoral college and said it was a travesty to democracy and the system was rigged, and when he started saying that before this election, it was his set up... to call this election rigged when he thought Hillary was going to win the electoral votes.

The ELECTORAL college is what keeps only the two parties in the race.... Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and the way the system is set up, he earned ZERO Elector votes.... that's just wrong wrong wrong....

Electors need to vote with how their district voted, then the third party candidates would have a chance... (each state gets 1 elector for every voting district that they have a US Congressman, and then they get 2 electors for their 2 Senators...which is what gives smaller populated states their advantage....) If the electors for their two senators... votes with their full state's popular vote, and the other electors given for each congressional voting district, votes with their district....it would give third parties a shot....but the way it is set up now, ONLY the two parties have a shot, it is rigged in their favor... it wasn't always like this and and two states, like mine, has changed it ...my state gives 1 electoral vote to each voting district...

clinton got 3 electors, trump got one....and BECAUSE as a small state, we set it up that way, Trump came to visit us with Rallies at LEAST 3 times in my district....if it was winner takes all, he would not have even visited us once!!!

Well only time will tell for certain.
There is just too much disinformation out there to know for certain.
I hope that they can get the curruption out of it. I dont see them wanting to get rid of the E. C. too many have not been taught about it, let alone understand why its so important to keep it.

Like he said if the E.C. was gone he would have campaigned in different States.

I dont want the EC gone either, I just want it to work the way it was intended by Madison and Hamilton who designed it wanted and initially worked....the two parties have manipulated it over the centuries so that it secures a two party system....

States are given 1 electoral vote for each congressional district, and then 2 elector votes for their two senators, which gives the smaller states their advantage over the largest states because they only get 2 electors for their senators as well.....that is how it was designed..... Electors did not and were NOT suppose to collude with the other electors in their state, but were suppose to vote individually for their district....

That would have to be changed by each State, as States set up how they select electors.

As far as I know only Maine and Nebraska go with the 2 senator EV's to the State winner and 1 EV to each district winner concept.

Of course, if all States went to that you would have the whole gerrymandering argument taken to a whole new level.

good point on the gerrymandering! But it too, distorts the citizen's vote in a way it was never meant to be by our founders....and secures a two party system.

Getting rid of a two party system would require constitutional amendments to change voting from top to bottom.

I am in favor of States using the Nebraska/Maine method, but something would have to be done to normalize congressional districts via a combination of closest match to equal population per district, and use of natural/man made barriers combined with least perimeter/area ratio to prevent winding, ridiculous districts.

 

[Care4all]

No he wasn't Peach, he tweeted about the Romney run and on election day early on, he thought romney was winning the popular vote and Obama the electoral college and he vehemently was against the electoral college and said it was a travesty to democracy and the system was rigged, and when he started saying that before this election, it was his set up... to call this election rigged when he thought Hillary was going to win the electoral votes.

The ELECTORAL college is what keeps only the two parties in the race.... Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and the way the system is set up, he earned ZERO Elector votes.... that's just wrong wrong wrong....

Electors need to vote with how their district voted, then the third party candidates would have a chance... (each state gets 1 elector for every voting district that they have a US Congressman, and then they get 2 electors for their 2 Senators...which is what gives smaller populated states their advantage....) If the electors for their two senators... votes with their full state's popular vote, and the other electors given for each congressional voting district, votes with their district....it would give third parties a shot....but the way it is set up now, ONLY the two parties have a shot, it is rigged in their favor... it wasn't always like this and and two states, like mine, has changed it ...my state gives 1 electoral vote to each voting district...

clinton got 3 electors, trump got one....and BECAUSE as a small state, we set it up that way, Trump came to visit us with Rallies at LEAST 3 times in my district....if it was winner takes all, he would not have even visited us once!!!

Well only time will tell for certain.
There is just too much disinformation out there to know for certain.
I hope that they can get the curruption out of it. I dont see them wanting to get rid of the E. C. too many have not been taught about it, let alone understand why its so important to keep it.

Like he said if the E.C. was gone he would have campaigned in different States.

I dont want the EC gone either, I just want it to work the way it was intended by Madison and Hamilton who designed it wanted and initially worked....the two parties have manipulated it over the centuries so that it secures a two party system....

States are given 1 electoral vote for each congressional district, and then 2 elector votes for their two senators, which gives the smaller states their advantage over the largest states because they only get 2 electors for their senators as well.....that is how it was designed..... Electors did not and were NOT suppose to collude with the other electors in their state, but were suppose to vote individually for their district....

That would have to be changed by each State, as States set up how they select electors.

As far as I know only Maine and Nebraska go with the 2 senator EV's to the State winner and 1 EV to each district winner concept.

Of course, if all States went to that you would have the whole gerrymandering argument taken to a whole new level.

good point on the gerrymandering! But it too, distorts the citizen's vote in a way it was never meant to be by our founders....and secures a two party system.

Getting rid of a two party system would require constitutional amendments to change voting from top to bottom.

I am in favor of States using the Nebraska/Maine method, but something would have to be done to normalize congressional districts via a combination of closest match to equal population per district, and use of natural/man made barriers combined with least perimeter/area ratio to prevent winding, ridiculous districts.

It would not involve a constitutional amendment to make it like Maine and Nebraska have it...it only takes the State to do it themselves like Maine did and Nebraska did.... Each State has manipulated their EV votes with legislation over the years to secure the two party system, and made them, winner take all...they can just as easily, legislate it to where it goes back to congressional district, as it was suppose to be and initially was.... from my understanding of it....?

 

[peach174]

Well only time will tell for certain.
There is just too much disinformation out there to know for certain.
I hope that they can get the curruption out of it. I dont see them wanting to get rid of the E. C. too many have not been taught about it, let alone understand why its so important to keep it.

Like he said if the E.C. was gone he would have campaigned in different States.

I dont want the EC gone either, I just want it to work the way it was intended by Madison and Hamilton who designed it wanted and initially worked....the two parties have manipulated it over the centuries so that it secures a two party system....

States are given 1 electoral vote for each congressional district, and then 2 elector votes for their two senators, which gives the smaller states their advantage over the largest states because they only get 2 electors for their senators as well.....that is how it was designed..... Electors did not and were NOT suppose to collude with the other electors in their state, but were suppose to vote individually for their district....

That would have to be changed by each State, as States set up how they select electors.

As far as I know only Maine and Nebraska go with the 2 senator EV's to the State winner and 1 EV to each district winner concept.

Of course, if all States went to that you would have the whole gerrymandering argument taken to a whole new level.

good point on the gerrymandering! But it too, distorts the citizen's vote in a way it was never meant to be by our founders....and secures a two party system.

Getting rid of a two party system would require constitutional amendments to change voting from top to bottom.

I am in favor of States using the Nebraska/Maine method, but something would have to be done to normalize congressional districts via a combination of closest match to equal population per district, and use of natural/man made barriers combined with least perimeter/area ratio to prevent winding, ridiculous districts.

It would not involve a constitutional amendment to make it like Maine and Nebraska have it...it only takes the State to do it themselves like Maine did and Nebraska did.... Each State has manipulated their EV votes with legislation over the years to secure the two party system, and made them, winner take all...they can just as easily, legislate it to where it goes back to congressional district, as it was suppose to be and initially was.... from my understanding of it....?

Yes that's correct.

 

[BlindBoo]

.
2016: Historical Wave Election




The only American election that compares to the ass kicking the Democrats suffered in the 2016 election is the election of 1920 when the Republicans took over all branches of government with huge majorities in both the House and Senate.

Check it out here ↴
Wave election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.

The Republican's lost seats in the Senate and the House. They held onto a very slim majority in the Senate. The election was Hillary's to lose. She did by ignoring the white middle class and focusing almost exclusively on minority rights.

 

[Auld Phart]

.
2016: Historical Wave Election




The only American election that compares to the ass kicking the Democrats suffered in the 2016 election is the election of 1920 when the Republicans took over all branches of government with huge majorities in both the House and Senate.

Check it out here ↴
Wave election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.

The Republican's lost seats in the Senate and the House. They held onto a very slim majority in the Senate. The election was Hillary's to lose. She did by ignoring the white middle class and focusing almost exclusively on minority rights.

and by ignoring states she thought she had in the bag

 

[BlindBoo]

and all without winning the popular vote

Look at the map, see all the red. The blue spots are tiny. We should pass out the vote based on acreage owed and be done with it.

Damn what is wrong with google, how come I can't pull up a 2016 election map?????? they keep going back to 2012 or 2008.

I need to find a new search engine.
Liberals hiding things on me.

Why am I not surprised that a Trump supporter would be in favor of foreign intervention in our -ahem- democracy?
"Foreign investors held an interest in 25.7 million acres of U.S. agricultural land (forest land and farmland) as of December 31, 2011..."


After the Republicans kicked the Democrats to the government curb in the 1920 wave election, the Republicans retained control of all branches of government in the 1924 and 1928 presidential elections.

As a result, the 1920's Republicans accomplished most of their agenda, an agenda that wasn't all that much different from today's Republican party; keep people of color from immigrating to the US, cut taxes, free market approach to government, protective trade tariffs, restricting people's personal freedom. Did I say cut taxes... cut taxes on the wealthiest among us?

.

Oh Brother!
The whole county prospered, including the lower class.
Some even rose to middle class.

Not really everyone.

• One of the most striking features of the early 1920s was the rapid growth of the second Ku Klux Klan. There is no evidence the Klan played any role in the Tulsa Riot, but thousands of Tulsans joined the KKK in the two years following. The Klan is the subject of an extended treatment on this site — click on link above. A briefer but very useful discussion is at George Mason University. The American Radicalism Archive at Michigan State University contains a variety of documents associated with the KKK in the 1920s of which the most important may be "The Menace of Modern Immigration" and "The Klan's Fight For Americanism," both by Imperial Wizard Hiram Wesley Evans. For an example of Klan humor (sic), read "The Pope's Last Call."
• The Sweet Case: one of the most celebrated murder cases of the 1920s, now largely forgotten, culminated in the trials of Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black physician whose family bought a house in a previously all-white neighborhood in Detroit, for killing a white man who was part of a mob threatening to burn his house.

Race riots, lynchings, and other forms of racism in the 1920s

 

[Care4all]

Given that the Republicans lost seats in both the Senate and House as well as the popular vote, I wouldn't call this a wave election.

AMEN to that!

they and media, are trying to spin it that way, but reality says otherwise

Dems lost blue states , all of the south and gained control of all three branches. FACT!

they didn't gain control of congress or senate...they HAD CONTROL before the election and LOST seats, in both, still leaving them in control only with less representatives and less senators

 

[LordBrownTrout]

and all without winning the popular vote

Look at the map, see all the red. The blue spots are tiny. We should pass out the vote based on acreage owed and be done with it.

Damn what is wrong with google, how come I can't pull up a 2016 election map?????? they keep going back to 2012 or 2008.

I need to find a new search engine.
Liberals hiding things on me.

When you visualize the map and adjust scales by population density, those blue spots aren't small at all.

The blue spots are where the majority of crimes are committed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Given that the Republicans lost seats in both the Senate and House as well as the popular vote, I wouldn't call this a wave election.

AMEN to that!

they and media, are trying to spin it that way, but reality says otherwise

Dems lost blue states , all of the south and gained control of all three branches. FACT!

they didn't gain control of congress or senate...they HAD CONTROL before the election and LOST seats, in both, still leaving them in control only with less representatives and less senators

They gained governor seats and majorities in state house seats everywhere.