Dems should be pouring all their resources into picking up one more seat but thr DNC is sitting on its hands

Lots of people in blue states don't vote cause landslide. Pretty sure Trump loses by even more if it's popular vote.

"I'd have gone to LA to talk about building the wall"! ...

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact replayed as farce!

Grunching (skipped a few pages) but all the talk seems to be about what-if scenarios if Bernie had won the primary... Hillary really should have just made him her VP pick. How arrogant of her to select Kaine (payback, I know) given Bernie's influence on the message, likability, and appeal.

Yeah, he would have came to LA and Chicago and really swayed a bunch of people.

Well, the trickle-up effect would likely create income growth across all jobs, but the Democrats never explained that well.

But didn't Dems gain seats in the Senate and House this election? Coupled with the presidential popular vote lead, how can you claim that Dems aren't connecting?

Of is not a verb.

What you say is correct but misses the point. Some are claiming that Hillary didn't connect with voters, but she did get more voters to pick her. I know strategies would have been different without the EC, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to claim Hillary wasn't connecting given the evidence.

The House is independent every 2 years I guess, but this was a year when the Senate was supposed to be better for Dems - Republicans won a bunch of seats in the 2010 midterms, this year was them playing defense, and they did so successfully. Next up, the opposite situation happens (Democrats play defense with seats they won in 2012) and it is not going to be pretty, unless there's a meaningful backlash against the Trump administration in 2018.

Hillary lost to Donald Trump. I think it's safe to say she didn't connect with voters. If you need more evidence than that, check out her favorability numbers.

That's not the whole truth though (I think it was einbert who posted this originally, if not, whatever):

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/unc...-favour/15/11/

How many voters did she connect with? How many did Donald?

It's safe to say that Donald did more in the states that matter.

It's also (mostly) safe to say that burritos are delicious. I don't know why that's relevant to what I was saying, though.

Like, I'm not trying to claim Hillary won or should have won. But she got more people to vote for her so saying that Trump has a mandate or that she didn't connect to voters is just absurd.

In a couple of years, we might be able to change the title of this thread to "The Tragic Death of American Democracy".

That is until the government finds out about it, hacks the forum, and deletes the thread.

Gerrymandering yo

Wyoming gets the same amount of senators as California

While I agree with this, there is countering evidence. If exit polls are to believed, people who cited the economy as their #1 issue for voting went toward Clinton by a big margin. What did Trump voters say was their #1 issue? Immigration and terrorism.

The discussion about winning an election where the Electoral College rules were not in affect is nonsense on a number of levels.

For starters, there are about 30 states that would try to leave the union.

You'd have a situation where CA and NY would overwhelm the votes in the other ≈ 20 states that chose to remain.

This would cause the people in probably 10 or 12 of the "Urban 20" to consider joining the "Rural 30".

Eventually, you'd be left with ≈ 10 states in the "United States of Concrete", which would have an awesome time trying to figure out how to provide food and energy to the population (boy o boy would CA become a star!). Since these states have lots of coastline, my guess is you'd see offshore drilling visible from land in MD, MA, DE, CA, OR, WA.

There would be ≈ 40 states in the "United States of Fly-over Country" who would probably be glad they didn't have statistics from Baltimore, DC, LA and NYC mucking up their self image.

The only curious part of this to me would be to consider which "nation" would be chosen by FL, MN, MI, VA, PA.

If you think Balkanization of the US would be a good thing, then sure, let's scrap the Electoral College.

lol.

Everyone keeps saying this, but the people who support Ellison. What's funny is the identity politics people are saying he shouldn't be elected because he's black and Muslim and there should be some mid-western white religious Christian guy in charge instead to reach out to the Rust Belt

But Ellison is from a majority white district in the Rust Belt. The guy has support from a lot of white people because he's economically progressive and focused on the working and middle class, not because he's black or Muslim.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-demo...own-1479427359

There's a lot of gold here but maybe the most precious is the vague threat to coastal people that oil derricks will show up in the Hamptons because like somehow without Oklahoma, New York has lost access to the global oil market and Oklahoma doesn't participate in it, but also, retrievable oil arrives off of Long Island now, which they only aren't drilling for due to the Electoral College keeping the fabric of the nation together.

Just saying coastal elites, if you like your pristine beaches, thank the good lord for the Electoral College or else ExxonMobil is moving in.

Hard for Ellison to be an effective DNC chair when he's stuck in one of Trump's internment camps.

Here is an article that might help you:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...es_132383.html

Do we know that exit polls are correct?

If Ellison is DNC Chair and I'm a Democrat, does that make me ISIS Muslim Brotherhood too, and do I have to register for Trump's Mohammedmen list?

Well, there are always more nuclear power plants...

The Russians already have the list no need to take any further steps.