5 ms·

Gerrymandering, and the Citizens United supreme Court decision that let corporations contribute unlimited amounts of money to politicians.

SpikeDad 9y ago
And Trump.
scarface74 9y ago
I don't think either explain Trump's election. For the most part, corporations didn't back Trump and gerrymandering with in states doesn't have any affect on the presidential election. Trump won because of the electoral college, a weak Democratic candidate, and because Trump unlike most mainstream Republican Presidential candidates pandered to people's baser instincts.
- kabdib 9y ago
  Gerrymandering has had a huge effect. I highly recommend reading _Ratf--cked_, it'll probably make you angry though.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    Gerrymandering affects Senate and House races. Electoral votes for president are based on the entire state's population. How could gerrymandering affect the Presidential election?
rayiner 9y ago
Neither gerrymandering nor Citizens United got Trump elected.
- confounded 9y ago
  Was it God?
  - iiiggglll 9y ago
    Funny. But, here's a real answer: Too many people do not like Hillary, and they stayed home instead of voting for her. That's the bottom line. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, she is not well liked enough to get elected. The thing is, that was never a secret. It was obvious even before she got her ass kicked in the 2008 primaries. It was even more obvious afterwards. So why did she run last year? For her own selfish reasons, that's why. She should have known she would lose. If she actually cared about things as much as she claims to, she would have stepped aside and let someone else, run instead. Then we wouldn't be where we are today. But because she couldn't put aside her own wants and do what was best for the nation, here we are. (Even her campaign slogan spelled it out: "I'm with her". Clearly, it was all about her, and not about the country.)
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Clinton whomped Sanders, by something like 10x the margin Obama beat Clinton by. I don't think you can reasonably draw a lesson about 2016 from the 2008 primary. There's something tautological about saying someone "wasn't well-liked enough" to get elected. That's why everyone loses an otherwise fair election. An equally compelling and even simpler narrative is that it's simply rare for the governing party to hold on to the White House for 3 consecutive terms. The opposition party gets to run a "change" election that the incumbent party can't. For a second term in office, where the incumbent party can run the same candidate, they can run a "continuity" election that more often than not beats "change". But they can't do it for a third term, and so the opposition simply tends to win that term.
      - fjdlwlv 9y ago
        Clinton owned the Democratic party, they followed her sinking the ship instead of unifying behind someone electable. Clinton's campaign was 100% continuity and that is what her opposition focused on
        tptacek 9y ago
        This is a just-so story that requires us to believe that Clinton's influence over the party generated millions of extra votes for her. It's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence (emails from the DNC illustrating that they supported her after her victory became a literal foregone conclusion do not count as that), and one for which virtually no evidence is ever presented. The party didn't nominate Clinton. Sixteen million individual American voters did. Clinton came within a hairs breadth of the number of votes Barack Obama, the most popular Democratic politician in modern memory, gained. Sanders missed that mark by four million votes.
eplanit 9y ago
Don't forget the Russians.

SpikeDad 9y ago

And Trump.

scarface74 9y ago

I don't think either explain Trump's election. For the most part, corporations didn't back Trump and gerrymandering with in states doesn't have any affect on the presidential election. Trump won because of the electoral college, a weak Democratic candidate, and because Trump unlike most mainstream Republican Presidential candidates pandered to people's baser instincts.

kabdib 9y ago
Gerrymandering has had a huge effect. I highly recommend reading _Ratf--cked_, it'll probably make you angry though.
- scarface74 9y ago
  Gerrymandering affects Senate and House races. Electoral votes for president are based on the entire state's population. How could gerrymandering affect the Presidential election?

rayiner 9y ago

Neither gerrymandering nor Citizens United got Trump elected.

confounded 9y ago
Was it God?
- iiiggglll 9y ago
  Funny. But, here's a real answer: Too many people do not like Hillary, and they stayed home instead of voting for her. That's the bottom line. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, she is not well liked enough to get elected. The thing is, that was never a secret. It was obvious even before she got her ass kicked in the 2008 primaries. It was even more obvious afterwards. So why did she run last year? For her own selfish reasons, that's why. She should have known she would lose. If she actually cared about things as much as she claims to, she would have stepped aside and let someone else, run instead. Then we wouldn't be where we are today. But because she couldn't put aside her own wants and do what was best for the nation, here we are. (Even her campaign slogan spelled it out: "I'm with her". Clearly, it was all about her, and not about the country.)
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Clinton whomped Sanders, by something like 10x the margin Obama beat Clinton by. I don't think you can reasonably draw a lesson about 2016 from the 2008 primary. There's something tautological about saying someone "wasn't well-liked enough" to get elected. That's why everyone loses an otherwise fair election. An equally compelling and even simpler narrative is that it's simply rare for the governing party to hold on to the White House for 3 consecutive terms. The opposition party gets to run a "change" election that the incumbent party can't. For a second term in office, where the incumbent party can run the same candidate, they can run a "continuity" election that more often than not beats "change". But they can't do it for a third term, and so the opposition simply tends to win that term.
    - fjdlwlv 9y ago
      Clinton owned the Democratic party, they followed her sinking the ship instead of unifying behind someone electable. Clinton's campaign was 100% continuity and that is what her opposition focused on
      - tptacek 9y ago
        This is a just-so story that requires us to believe that Clinton's influence over the party generated millions of extra votes for her. It's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence (emails from the DNC illustrating that they supported her after her victory became a literal foregone conclusion do not count as that), and one for which virtually no evidence is ever presented. The party didn't nominate Clinton. Sixteen million individual American voters did. Clinton came within a hairs breadth of the number of votes Barack Obama, the most popular Democratic politician in modern memory, gained. Sanders missed that mark by four million votes.

eplanit 9y ago

Don't forget the Russians.