Thank you for pointing this out. I was only aware of the W and the L appearing on the record. I was unaware of another outcome outside of a tie. What are you going to spring on me next? That men can get pregnant? LOL
He's in so nothing anyone can do now. I'm a lifelong GOP with more cred than most. Raised $$$ for Bob Dole. Same for Bush 1. Poll watching for Bush 1 and for W. Money for Kasich. Worked with Haley and her run. Gov Martinez too. Worked on countless city and county campaigns for GOP, putting my money to work. Probably high five figures since starting. How about you? Called military vets like my dad and others in my family suckers Sexually assaulted a woman (while he was married) Judge says E Jean Carroll allegation Trump raped her is ‘substantially true’ Traitor. But he's all yours
lol AS, AA, BS, MS, PHD, etc.? Next time I meet someone my first question will be,,, Did you go to college? If they say no, I’m out of there. Next you’ll tell me my wife is not worth hanging out with.
312-226 is pretty good EC margin. I think Obama beat Romney 332-206 and that was an articulate incumbent winning.
The actual percentage doesn't matter. We elect by the Electoral College to include all walks of life get a true say, not just the big cities. But if you want to talk percentages, Bill Clinton won in 1992 by 5.6% with only 43% of the vote. Even in 1996 Bill Clinton only won by 8.5%, and that was against a Republican candidate in Bob Dole that was a placeholder, a candidate not even Republicans though had a chance. Barack Obama won in 2008 by 7.2% over, again, a Republican candidate in John McCain that had no chance of winning. Barack Obama won in 2012 by 3.9%. Joe Biden won in 202 by 4.5%. Since 2000, for every Democrat that has been Elected, 45% of the electorate rejected them. Now to the Electoral College, which is what really matters. Donal Trump got 312 Electoral Votes, well above the 270 needed. Let's compare to the Democrats: 2008: Obama - 365 Electoral Votes 2012: Obama - 332 Electoral Votes 2020: Biden - 306 Electoral Votes So Trump got more than Biden and was easily within the same general margin of victory as Obama in 2012. Yes Trump had significantly less than Obama in 2008, but again everyone knew McCain had no chance to win. Trump had a sizable victory, won every battleground state and won the House and Senate for the Republicans. Honestly, it was more impressive than either Obama's 2012 victory or Biden's 2020 victory. If the roles were reversed, Democrats on here would absolutely be calling it a mandate. It goes back to the hypocritical double standard: When Republicans win: "They need to reach across the aisle. They need to work with us and pass bipartisan legislation". When Democrats win: "We have a mandate. No reaching out to the other side. We get our way. Elections have consequences." It's so predictable and it's always so stale and hypocritical. Well as your side said, Elections have consequences. 40-45% of the country is always going to vote the other way. The days of a Presidential candidate winning even 60% of the vote are long over. If the roles were exactly reverse, you all as Democrats would call it a mandate. Everything about the 2024 Election was a rejection of Democrats. The American people tried to send Democrats a message in 2016. All the Democrats did, instead of trying to learn, was to denigrate and trash the American people. So now we, as the American people, sent Democrats another message in 2024. And as long as Democrats try to pretend like the U.S., outside of the Northeast, West Coast and a few cities like Chicago, Detroit and D.C., doesn't exist, we'll continue to send messages to the Democrats, in the form of defeats, until they actually get it. I'll admit both sides keep going more and more extreme. The Democrat party has been taken over by the communist radical left. And I'll admit the Republican party has its far right aspect as well. The irony is, if either party would try to moderate back to the center, they would probably dominate. This Election was about rejection the radical left that has taken over the Democrat party. If the Democrat party would go back to the party of Bill Clinton or even Barack Obama, they would probably have significant success. Let's see if the Democrats get the message this time that they didn't get in 2016 and actually tries to moderate. But with this Election, every part of it was a sound victory. So I'll say to Democrats what Democrats said to us in 2008. Elections have consequences and we have a mandate. And we will honor and implement that mandate.
The EC decides who wins the Presidential election, no question, but I don't think it is the best, certainly not the sole, measure of how much "mandate" an elected President has. After all, it's technically possible to win every state election by a single vote, giving one a "landslide" in the EC, but only having won the national popular vote by a salami slice. Going with only the popular vote is also problematic because people in certain states simply don't vote when it makes no difference, given the winner-take-all situation in all but one state. For instance, let's say you're one of the few Republicans in the Bronx. AOC is going to win your district no matter what, and New York state is going blue no matter what, so unless you feel strongly about a local issue, you probably don't bother. There is no concrete, quantifiable definition of a mandate, but I think you can get a good sense of the will of the people by looking wholistically at the EC, the national popular vote, and congressional elections (not just which way the Houses went but also by what margin). In my opinion, all of that together suggests that this was a close election, a Republican win with no doubt whatsoever, but a close win nonetheless. I do not believe Trump ever appreciated how close his win was in 2016, and it cost him. Biden certainly never seemed to accept that he had a close win in 2020, and it cost him, too. It will be just fantastic if Trump has learned something about governing from the center from his last spin as President, but I won't bet the mortgage on it.
Well, he will be far more successful if he is not, but you know the old tale of the scorpion and the frog.
The difference is that if Democrats had just won the 2024 Presidential Election 306 - 226, won all Swing States, won the Popular Vote (even if it was by 0.1%), won the House and won the Senate, don't think for a second that the left wouldn't be considering it a mandate. So if liberals get to consider it a mandate, than so do conservatives.
Liberals get a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority for saving the planet as an added benefit. All conservatives get is a feeling of well being and accomplishment.
asshole squared more like it. all the adults gone, immunity, no threat of impeachment..thinks he has a mandate, getting fluffed daily by billionaires using him
It seems like you're emphasizing the idea that elections reflect broader societal trends and that the Electoral College system ensures a diverse range of perspectives are represented in the outcome, beyond just the larger urban areas. You're also pointing out what you see as a double standard in how different political parties interpret election victories—Republicans are often asked to "reach across the aisle" when they win, while Democrats claim a mandate when they do, regardless of the margin of victory. You make a strong case for the importance of the Electoral College and argue that Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, even with a smaller popular vote percentage, was significant in terms of the Electoral College and the broader political landscape. The point about both parties becoming more extreme and the potential for a center-right or center-left coalition to be more successful is an interesting one. You seem to believe that the radical fringes of both parties have caused a disconnect with the majority of Americans, and a return to more moderate policies might be the key to long-term success. However, I think it's important to consider a few things: The Role of the Electoral College: While the Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states and rural areas have a voice in presidential elections, it can sometimes produce outcomes where the winner of the popular vote doesn't necessarily win the presidency (as in 2000 and 2016). This has led to a debate about whether the system reflects the will of the majority or whether it distorts it. Voter Rejection and Mandates: The idea of “mandates” in U.S. elections is often debated. In a democracy, elections are about reflecting the will of the people, but the nuances of voter sentiment can be complex. A large electoral win does suggest broad support, but as you noted, the fact that a significant portion of voters reject the winner—whether it's 45% or more—shows the deep divisions in the country. In that context, calling any win a “mandate” can be problematic, especially when polarization is high. Moderation and Extremism: It’s undeniable that both parties have seen the rise of more polarized factions. The Democratic Party, especially since 2016, has been grappling with the influence of more progressive and even socialist ideas, while the Republican Party has seen the rise of far-right populism. A return to the center seems to be a logical path to appeal to the broadest group of voters, but it’s challenging in a political landscape where the extreme wings of both parties seem to dominate the discourse. The 2024 Election as a Rejection of Democrats: You seem to argue that the 2024 election was a clear message from the American people to reject the radical left, much like 2016 was seen as a message rejecting the establishment. The key challenge here is how political messaging is interpreted. While the rise of Trump in 2016 was certainly a rejection of many Democratic policies and candidates, it also reflected dissatisfaction with the status quo within the Republican Party. Similarly, Biden’s victory in 2020 was about rejecting Trump’s leadership, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a wholesale endorsement of all Democratic policies. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Lessons from 2016 and Beyond: Your point about Democrats not learning from the 2016 election is significant. Many saw Trump’s rise as a reflection of how disconnected the political elite had become from certain sections of the electorate, particularly in the Midwest and rural America. If the Democratic Party fails to heed these lessons, it may continue to alienate parts of the country. But it’s also worth noting that Trump’s own rhetoric and policies—especially the divisive and often inflammatory ones—have arguably fueled the polarization. The question is whether moderating will restore the broad appeal, or if the base-driven nature of both parties will persist. In conclusion, while I see your argument that the 2024 election was a strong win for Republicans and reflects a rejection of certain extreme left-wing elements, the interpretation of that victory, and how the country moves forward from here, will depend on how both sides engage with the evolving political landscape. The conversation about moderation is important, but it’s equally important to consider how polarized both parties have become, and whether there's a real appetite for reconciliation or whether the partisan divide will only deepen.
