5 ms·

> when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person You're not wrong. However the portrayal of a mandate is a bit of a media fiction. He did

by jghn 2y ago

> when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person You're not wrong. However the portrayal of a mandate is a bit of a media fiction. He didn't have notably more votes than any other recent president.

dralley 2y ago
In fact, he had less margin than any election since 2000. Even Hillary in 2016 had a larger popular vote margin of victory than Trump 2024 despite having lost the electoral college.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  So, Trump in 2016, not 2024, was actually the lowest (negative, in fact) margin for a winning candidate since 2000 (and was actually lower—more negative—than 2000’s also-negative margin.)
- jghn 2y ago
  Indeed. And yet with certain previous presidents we've been told that because the margin of victory is so slim, they're already a lame duck. But here, it's a mandate.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  You seem to be fixated on a vote system that we do not use.
  - jghn 2y ago
    Despite what people say, land does vote. And you're right: land voted for Trump. But that's not what's being discussed in this subthread. The media portray Trump as having a popular vote mandate. That's not true
analog31 2y ago
Also, the House can't claim a public mandate due to gerrymandering.
sitkack 2y ago
More people voted against Trump than voted for. • 77,302,580 voted for this administration (49.8%) • 77,935,722 voted against this administration (50.2%) From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191410
- wyager 2y ago
  Out of curiosity, how many weeks/months of late vote counting did that take? At the time the election was called, and for at least a couple weeks after iirc, he was ahead.
  - sitkack 2y ago
    The anti-administration votes are split across many candidates, this isn't a tally of Trump vs Kamala.
  - jghn 2y ago
    Out of curiosity, why does this matter?
  - khuey 2y ago
    Why does it matter how long it took to count all the votes? If you want to allege election fraud, don't beat around the bush.
  - arp242 2y ago
    No, what the previous poster said is that more people voted for other candidates than for Trump, and that's always been pretty clear. 49.8% of the votes went to Trump. That means 50.2% went to other candidates (Harris, Jill Stein, Chase Oliver, etc.)
- arp242 2y ago
  IMHO it's kind of meaningless to count the popular vote as it's not a popular election, which influences the results. Why vote in Texas or California? You already know who will win. Will that balance each other out? Unclear. That said, I do agree with the broader point that a narrow victory shouldn't give full control of the complete (federal) government, especially considering how they're going about things. But fixing that requires serious changes to the democratic system and good luck with that.
wyager 2y ago
But the people who did vote for him explicitly voted for all the stuff he's doing right now. Nothing that he's currently doing is surprising, except maybe for the fact that a politician actually followed through on so many campaign promises.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  I don’t recall “we’re gonna kill science research, cancer research, we’re gonna make a million poor children die of AIDS and tuberculosis” in any campaign ads.
  - seattle_spring 2y ago
    His actions were outlined in Project 2025 throughout his candidacy. Surprised all it took was a simple statement of ignorance for people to completely dismiss what was plainly written what was going to happen (and currently is).
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      "I love the poorly-educated!" was not empty rhetoric. Only a country that gives slow-witted people the same political power as those on the right side of the IQ bell curve could elect a Trump democratically.
      - giardini 2y ago
        So would you would take the vote away from " those on the right side of the IQ bell curve"? (That has been done before, you know. You might be somewhat uncomfortable sitting with those who once did it, however).
      - wyager 2y ago
        Both parties actually target a bimodal IQ distribution. The D distribution covers most of the left tail and the upper-mid, and the R distribution covers the lower-mid and most of the right tail. You generally expect interleaved affiliation like this; it's just a question of how many bands there are. R avg is actually slightly higher, although that doesn't tell the full story. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...

by jghn 2y ago

dralley 2y ago

In fact, he had less margin than any election since 2000. Even Hillary in 2016 had a larger popular vote margin of victory than Trump 2024 despite having lost the electoral college.

dragonwriter 2y ago
So, Trump in 2016, not 2024, was actually the lowest (negative, in fact) margin for a winning candidate since 2000 (and was actually lower—more negative—than 2000’s also-negative margin.)
jghn 2y ago
Indeed. And yet with certain previous presidents we've been told that because the margin of victory is so slim, they're already a lame duck. But here, it's a mandate.
SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
You seem to be fixated on a vote system that we do not use.
- jghn 2y ago
  Despite what people say, land does vote. And you're right: land voted for Trump. But that's not what's being discussed in this subthread. The media portray Trump as having a popular vote mandate. That's not true

analog31 2y ago

Also, the House can't claim a public mandate due to gerrymandering.

sitkack 2y ago

More people voted against Trump than voted for. • 77,302,580 voted for this administration (49.8%) • 77,935,722 voted against this administration (50.2%) From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191410

wyager 2y ago
Out of curiosity, how many weeks/months of late vote counting did that take? At the time the election was called, and for at least a couple weeks after iirc, he was ahead.
- sitkack 2y ago
  The anti-administration votes are split across many candidates, this isn't a tally of Trump vs Kamala.
- jghn 2y ago
  Out of curiosity, why does this matter?
- khuey 2y ago
  Why does it matter how long it took to count all the votes? If you want to allege election fraud, don't beat around the bush.
- arp242 2y ago
  No, what the previous poster said is that more people voted for other candidates than for Trump, and that's always been pretty clear. 49.8% of the votes went to Trump. That means 50.2% went to other candidates (Harris, Jill Stein, Chase Oliver, etc.)
arp242 2y ago
IMHO it's kind of meaningless to count the popular vote as it's not a popular election, which influences the results. Why vote in Texas or California? You already know who will win. Will that balance each other out? Unclear. That said, I do agree with the broader point that a narrow victory shouldn't give full control of the complete (federal) government, especially considering how they're going about things. But fixing that requires serious changes to the democratic system and good luck with that.

wyager 2y ago

But the people who did vote for him explicitly voted for all the stuff he's doing right now. Nothing that he's currently doing is surprising, except maybe for the fact that a politician actually followed through on so many campaign promises.

mullingitover 2y ago
I don’t recall “we’re gonna kill science research, cancer research, we’re gonna make a million poor children die of AIDS and tuberculosis” in any campaign ads.
- seattle_spring 2y ago
  His actions were outlined in Project 2025 throughout his candidacy. Surprised all it took was a simple statement of ignorance for people to completely dismiss what was plainly written what was going to happen (and currently is).
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    "I love the poorly-educated!" was not empty rhetoric. Only a country that gives slow-witted people the same political power as those on the right side of the IQ bell curve could elect a Trump democratically.
    - giardini 2y ago
      So would you would take the vote away from " those on the right side of the IQ bell curve"? (That has been done before, you know. You might be somewhat uncomfortable sitting with those who once did it, however).
    - wyager 2y ago
      Both parties actually target a bimodal IQ distribution. The D distribution covers most of the left tail and the upper-mid, and the R distribution covers the lower-mid and most of the right tail. You generally expect interleaved affiliation like this; it's just a question of how many bands there are. R avg is actually slightly higher, although that doesn't tell the full story. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...