world

Obama vs Trump: Dispute erupts over who would have won

105 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

105 Comments
Login to comment

True, Obama would have crushed Trump, but we get what we deserve as a nation.

Right now what we deserve is to have one more minority-elected Republican president, who cuts taxes to the rich, ratchets up international pressure to support massive defense spending, destroys the environment on behalf of the oil industry, becomes the best friend of both Wall Street and Vladimir Putin, and runs up massive debt and deficits.

It's not like we don't how this upcoming 3rd term of George W. Bush is going to end.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

This is a stupid debate, as no one can ever know who would have won. I am entirely sure it would be Obama, just looking at how many votes Hillary got even as a candidate pretty much everyone was convinced was flawed. But I can't see alternate realities, and no one else can either, so speculation doesn't do anything other than cause more division.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

LOL!

Could've, should've, would've, it's all irrelevant at this point. Obama, the clocks is running out, he can't and won't be president anymore and that's it with the book. We don't want to look back, we want to look forward. I get it, he's supporters want to look back, well, there are a lot of videos on Youtube and on the internet where Dems and libs can relive some of his finest moments and take a walk down memory lane in the meantime. Enough of Obama and his minions not caring about the 46 million on food stamps, the racial division, the deficit, the spending on virtually only entitlements, and seeing people starving, can't feed their families not caring about the growing unemployment benefits, keeps corporate tax records high, hostile towards small business, doesn't care about our declining infrastructures, doesn't care about our borders or legal immigration. 8 years was long enough, time to pack up and take a trip back to Hawaii and live a peaceful life writing books and giving speeches, good for him and great for the rest of us.

-11 ( +9 / -20 )

Like the old guy at the bar saying he could have knocked the guy out in the first round. Obama, please shut your pie hole.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Like the old guy at the bar saying he could have knocked the guy out in the first round.

Sometimes the old guy at the bar is right.

But without a fight, it's entirely speculation.

Better not to even start.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Amusing Rebs having a hissy fit over an off-hand counterfactual, especially considering some of the morons still believe some of their ilk would have done a better job than Obama in getting the economy out of the great recession. Even the dimmest Rubes no longer contest Obama did a far superior job than their best could have

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Obama's approval ratings are near 60%. Obviously the majority of Americans think he did a fantastic job.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Obama's approval ratings are near 60%. Obviously the majority of Americans think he did a fantastic job.

But you forgot to minus 1/3 of them that voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump and don't forget and minus the conservatives that didn't vote for him and that number drops quite significantly. I'm just happy this nightmare will come to a much needed end.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

But you forgot to minus 1/3 of them that voted for Obama twice

Obama's ratings are separate from the vote. Therefore nothing was forgotten - his approval ratings are near 60%.

Your nightmare is not seen by the majority of Americans.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

StrangerlandDEC. 27, 2016 - 08:50AM JST This is a stupid debate, as no one can ever know who would have won

Yes, it is a stupid debate, and look how easy it was to bait the tiny-handed twit-in-chief-elect to get engaged in it. This is the man who is going to represent the US to the rest of the world, and he can't even let one comment that he's not the best go.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Your nightmare is not seen by the majority of Americans.

But the great thing is, he thankfully can't be president, ever again! So actually, my nightmare is about to end. Kudos!

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Right as America's is about to begin.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

bass4funk: Here's the REAL news, as opposed to what you're getting from the Trump-a-ganda machine. Food stamp use is plummeting (http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-people-on-food-stamps-plummeting-faster-than-ever-before-2016-9); American National Election Studies found that whites who are prejudicial toward blacks skew decidedly Republican ("racial division"); the deficit should be placed on the ledger of congress (who control the budget and spending and who have been majority Republican for most of Obama's tenure), on the endemic revenue glut caused by years of Republican tax cuts for the rich, and on an unprecedented recession that required drastic measures to save banks and the auto industry just for starters (if you want to call these expenditures "entitlements" go ahead, but you just end up sounding like a foo--er, um, like Trump); as for poverty ("people starving"), it climbed nearly 3% under Bush, but only about .2% under Obama according to the U.S. Census Bureau (and again, you have to consider the monumental recession Obama was facing). As for corporate taxes, you'll see how all the favors Trump doles out to his big CEO pals WON'T help anyone but his CEO pals, just like they never did under Reagan or Bush. And on immigration, most Americans favor a path to citizenship for those working illegally without a criminal record. It helps to actually understand the world by going to relieable sources, instead of just believing what a guy who stays up all night Tweeting tells you.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Make no mistake. My name may not be on the ballot, but my policies are.

-- Barack Obama

And therein lies the problem. With the majority of Americans saying our country was headed in the wrong direction these past eight years, the November election was a wholesale rejection of his failed domestic and foreign policies. The GOP not only won the presidency, but also majorities in the House, Senate, state governorships and legislatures.

Obama can play the could've, should've, would've card all he wants, but it will take several election cycles before the democrats recover from the drubbing they experienced this year. . . .

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

With the majority of Americans saying our country was headed in the wrong direction these past eight years

What are you talking about? The majority of voters chose Hillary, and the majority of Americans like Obama.

You're spreading post-truthisms.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

@bass LOL! Could've, should've, would've, it's all irrelevant at this point.

Exactly except this

back to Hawaii and live a peaceful life writing books and giving speeches

Should be , "back to Hawaii and plagiarize"

The unpopularity of your comment gives it more validity.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

I think the heart of the issue is how the results played out. Usually you win the popular vote as well as the electoral college. That means you can talk about mandates, the majority of people supporting your party (and therefore your views), the rejection of the opposition, etc.

The numbers didn't play out like that this time. The staggering loss in the popular vote is preventing Republicans from pointing to the elections to validate their political views, and add to that Obama's approval ratings. Instead of being able to talk about the usual majority support they are resorting to confusing, nonsensical statements of support, like "But you forgot to minus 1/3 of them that voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump and don't forget and minus the conservatives that didn't vote for him and". Not quite the same as a simple mandate.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

TexAg With the majority of Americans saying our country was headed in the wrong direction these past eight years

Correction: 'With a minority of Americans saying...' Reality: Trump voters constitute a minority group.

This is the post-truth era, but the fact that Hillary got more votes than Trump cannot be denied. Except by post-truthians, other fringe truth denying minority groups, the benighted and the veracity challenged.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

This is a waste of time. Why did I read it.

Obama was ineffective because he is a racist, and he had no support behind him from congress.

Let's wait and see what Trump can do. I am glad he has surrounded himself with people that are really rich and not accepting salaries, as they will fight for the people.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yeah thanks Obama for continuing to promote your famous brand of divisiveness. Cant just be quiet on the way out can you?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I’m confident that if I had run again . . . I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it -- article

In a narcissist's mind: "I would have won" ; not: "America would have".

In less than a month the worst president ever will fade into history. Jan. 20th cannot come soon enough. . . .

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

*Make no mistake. My name may not be on the ballot, but my policies are.

Barack Obama*

People like Obama, and he probably would be elected President again. Maybe. But Obama's policies were supported by Hillary, and like he said, they were on the ballot. Obama's policies lost.

Obama will now be fondly remembered as an ex-President who's policies helped his political party lose control of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and the Presidency. He'll now spend his time playing golf with people like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, and chasing willing women who want to be caught by anyone famous.

There is no national popular vote for U.S. President and there never has been. Why does this come as such a shock to Democrats? Hillary/Obama won a race that was not run. Congratulations. Trump won the race that was run. Congratulations.

According to the long standing rules, it doesn't matter if a Presidential candidate won a large, or small, majority in one state. The candidate would still only receive the number of Electoral College votes allotted to that state. EVERY candidate, and EVERY political party leader, KNEW this, even if their supporters did not, do not, and never will.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I think it's unlikely Obama would have won. Google images for "change in number of democrats since 2008". You'll find the graph in this WaPo article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/the-decimation-of-the-democratic-party-visualized/?utm_term=.4077d95219f9

The decimation of the Democratic Party, visualized - Nov. 10, 2016

... We tend to focus on the loss of the presidency as the example of Democratic failure. That's blinkered. Since 2008, by our estimates, the party has shed 870 legislators and leaders at the state and federal levels -- and that estimate may be on the low side. As Donald Trump might put it, that's decimation times 50.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Make no mistake. My name may not be on the ballot, but my policies are. - Barack Obama

People like Obama, and he probably would be elected President again. Maybe. But Obama's policies were supported by Hillary, and like he said, they were on the ballot. Obama's policies lost.

Obama will now be fondly remembered as an ex-President who's policies helped his political party lose control of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and the Presidency. He'll now spend his time playing golf with people like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, and chasing willing women who want to be caught by anyone famous.

There is no national popular vote for U.S. President and there never has been. Why does this come as such a shock to Democrats? Hillary/Obama won a race that was not run. Congratulations. Trump won the race that was run. Congratulations.

According to the long standing rules, it doesn't matter if a Presidential candidate won a large, or small, majority in one state. The candidate would still only receive the number of Electoral College votes allotted to that state. EVERY candidate, and EVERY political party leader, KNEW this, even if their supporters did not, do not, and never will.

Perfectly said! 110% agreed!

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The Electoral College has never come under such scrutiny before because it has never failed so grotesquely to perform its one function before. It has to go before the next election.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Trump didn't win the popular vote by 3 million or something? So that would have only gone up since Hillary was not popular. Doesn't matter what the rabid right "think", never has, never will

1 ( +4 / -3 )

turbotsatDEC. 27, 2016 - 02:31PM JST I think it's unlikely Obama would have won.

It's unlikely you would think anything else though, isn't it? Or admit to it even if you did?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Irrelevant! We have term limits on the office of president ( wish there were term limits on congressmen and Supreme Court justices too ).

"The Electoral College has never come under such scrutiny before because it has never failed so grotesquely to perform its one function before."

Au contraire! In this case it enabled us to dodge the bullet that would have ruined the U.S. and quite possibly started a war with Russia. ( see Hillary's Syria no-fly zone plan )

Speaking of Hillary, this is too funny:

How Hillary Clinton Was Feeling Before Election Day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SZN_LnBeJ8

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Uh...Donald...you may have won the Electoral College, but you lost the popular vote - yuuugely. Your future is now dependent on the good will of the GOP congress members, and that's because you are impeachable from day one due to your inherent conflicts of interest - and you know that, and they know that. So just shut up and do what Paul Ryan tells you to do.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I gotta say that while all evidence points to Obama being correct about being able to win, nothing good can come of him saying it - now at least. I'm disappointed in him even bringing it up.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Uh...Donald...you may have won the Electoral College, but you lost the popular vote - yuuugely.

It's like "Ying and Yang"

Your future is now dependent on the good will of the GOP congress members, and that's because you are impeachable from day one due to your inherent conflicts of interest

He's trying to dissolve all of those assets. Give the guy some slack, he's doing it.

and you know that, and they know that. So just shut up and do what Paul Ryan tells you to do.

I think it's the other way around.....

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Man, give up Obama. All them Democrats trying to spin "not my fault" and claim of default win by Trump are just sore losers. Clinton was beaten by Trump, enough said. Let it go.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Serrano:

So in your opinion, the purpose of the electoral college is not to reflect the will of the people, but to reflect the will of certain individual voters, such as you for example? How can that be a good system? And what if it happened to go against your wishes? Would it then be a bad system?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Man, give up Obama. All them Democrats trying to spin "not my fault" and claim of default win by Trump are just sore losers. Clinton was beaten by Trump, enough said. Let it go.

Bingo!

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

@Tom Webb

Trump lost by 3.25 million votes. He's a loser. Your antiquated Electoral College system based on geography won, not the voters

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Trump lost by 3.25 million votes. He's a loser. Your antiquated Electoral College system based on geography won, not the voters

But he's going to be sworn in as president NO MATTER WHAT, so either be depressed for 4-8 years or get over it. If many of us can survive Obama's presidency, you guys can survive Trump's.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Clinton was beaten by Trump, enough said. Let it go.

Yes, she unfortunately lost, even though she was the choice of the people by 2.7 million votes.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Trump lost by 3.25 million votes. He's a loser. Your antiquated Electoral College system based on geography won, not the voters.

Really? Makes perfect sense to me. This should clarify things. This is the only thing that matters and this is our system.

https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Obama shows a real lack of class engaging in such pointless speculation. Please just take your place as a footnote in history Mr Obama.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

"So in your opinion, the purpose of the electoral college is not to reflect the will of the people, but to reflect the will of certain individual voters, such as you for example? How can that be a good system? And what if it happened to go against your wishes? Would it then be a bad system?"

Trump called the electoral college a 'disaster for democracy' after the man Trump thought was an illegitimate president, born outside the US, won the election but lost the popular vote against Romney.

Trump was of course wrong about the popular vote but his sentiment about the electoral college had some merit.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Obama shows a real lack of class engaging in such pointless speculation. Please just take your place as a footnote in history Mr Obama.

While I agree he did lack some class in this theorizing, so did you in your follow to that statement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump called the electoral college a 'disaster for democracy' after the man Trump thought was an illegitimate president, born outside the US, won the election but lost the popular vote against Romney.

Trump says a lot of things, but in the end, he benefited from the system he criticized.

Trump was of course wrong about the popular vote but his sentiment about the electoral college had some merit.

Well, he won. DJT 1/20/17

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

"Obama shows a real lack of class engaging in such pointless speculation"

Yes, it's a good thing that a knob-joke-cracking, disabled-people-mocking, p___y-grabbing man of class is here to restore a semblance of class to the office.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

bass4funkDEC. 27, 2016 - 07:24PM JST

Trump says a lot of things, but in the end, he benefited from the system he criticized.

And now he calls it "genius." Funny the way that works, isn't it. He shoots from the hip, speaks from the heart... and contradicts himself a year or two later.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Jimizo, that's not theoint. Bari was out of line.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Trump called the electoral college a 'disaster for democracy' after the man Trump thought was an illegitimate president, born outside the US, won the election but lost the popular vote against Romney.

Did Trump really say that?

Because in the last 30 years, Republicans have won the US Presidential popular vote twice - in 1988 (George H.W. Bush) and 2004 (George W. Bush). That's it.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"Trump called the electoral college a 'disaster for democracy' after the man Trump thought was an illegitimate president, born outside the US, won the election but lost the popular vote against Romney."

"Did Trump really say that?"

On Twitter no less. One of the few consistent things about him is that he's been churning out trash, misinformation and pure idiocy for years on this medium.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Trump lost by 3.25 million votes. He's a loser

Heh, according to the method we choose our president, Mrs. Bill Clinton lost the election by 77 votes.

The reality challenged cry baby radical alt left needs to comes to grips with the fact that she indeed made history this year by getting owned by President Elect TRiUMPh three different times in one election cycle.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Heh, according to the method we choose our president, Mrs. Bill Clinton lost the election by 77 votes.

You're right, no one can correctly claim Trump lost. He clearly won, even though he got 2.7 million less votes than Clinton.

she indeed made history this year by getting owned by President Elect TRiUMPh three different times in one election cycle.

Can you explain that?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

turbotsat: I think it's unlikely Obama would have won. (posts link with graph)

Simon Foston: It's unlikely you would think anything else though, isn't it? Or admit to it even if you did?

There are some things that we could spin to support Obama's contention that he'd win. There are groups of people who would vote for Obama or sit out the election, if Obama was Trump's opponent instead of Hillary.

But the trends and very recent history indicate some counterpoints to that.

I posted a link to an article with a graph showing the post-2008 peak in Democrats holding office was early in Obama's presidency, followed by a sharp drop, a somewhat level stretch, and recently another sharp drop (four curves shown, for US Senate, US House, governorships, and all state legislatures).

People are touting Obama's "almost 60 percent approval ratings!" (actually one recent poll peaked at 56 percent and others were lower), but those are polls coming from the same media that projected Hillary 275, Trump 215 on election night eve (according to one poll I saw mentioned yesterday), or giving Hillary a 95 or 98 percent chance of winning (I think the NYT's projection on election day started at one of these numbers, the current page is frozen at 10:20 PM election night, giving Hillary only an 85 percent chance).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0

The estimates on this page are based on pre-election polls. ...

Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win.

Last updated Tuesday, November 8 at 10:20 PM ET

... A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal. ...

Also, the polls on how the economy were doing were quite different just before election day. Nov 3rd poll vs Dec 15th, 'Direction of the economy': Getting better 26 pct vs 36 pct, getting worse 30 pct vs 16 pct, staying the same 43 pct vs 46 pct.

The numbers are clearly better over a month later, but we're not talking about a post-election scenario, are we? We're talking about a pre-election scenario. Obama says he would have won the election.

Also, like the Donald said about running for the popular vote, if Obama had been running instead of Hillary, Trump would have been running his race in a way to counter Obama, not Hillary.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

My legacy's on the ballot.

-- Barack Obama

Obama would've lost to Donald Trump:

46 Million on Food Stamps. . . .38% Not Working. . . .both records

The alt left cry babies yammer on and on about to Obama's popularity, but there's a difference between being popular and being an effective leader.

To all of Mrs. Clinton's "Deplorables" posting on this site, check out this link (liberals best better not look as it will leave you running to your safe spaces):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW85ZcswiqM**

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Why does the press have such trouble with including context?

Trump's full tweet was:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/813498739923054593

President Obama said that he thinks he would have won against me. He should say that but I say NO WAY! - jobs leaving, ISIS, OCare, etc.

AP trying to 'splain it for us doesn't have the impact of the full, original tweet.

TAMUAggie: she indeed made history this year by getting owned by President Elect TRiUMPh three different times in one election cycle.

Strangerland: Can you explain that?

Lost on Election Day. Lost the attempts at recounts. Lost more than twice as many electoral votes (5) than Trump lost (2), when the electors met, in spite of attempts to get Trump electors to switch their votes. Would have lost 8 electoral votes, but 3 attempts by Clinton electors to go faithless were prevented by their states.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Clinton got Trumped. Suck it up, Buttercups.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Obama would've lost to Donald Trump

Obama has a 60% approval rating. Hillary was distrusted by both sides, and yet still won the popular vote. Obama would have received way more votes than her, pretty much guaranteed to win the presidence.

Lost on Election Day. Lost the attempts at recounts. Lost more than twice as many electoral votes (5) than Trump lost (2), when the electors met, in spite of attempts to get Trump electors to switch their votes. Would have lost 8 electoral votes, but 3 attempts by Clinton electors to go faithless were prevented by their states.

And yet, the people still wanted her more than him, by 2.7 million votes.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Strangerland: And yet, the people still wanted her more than him, by 2.7 million votes.

You asked 'how three?' ... was that a trick? ...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nope. But the original claim was "she indeed made history this year by getting owned by President Elect TRiUMPh three different times in one election cycle". After understanding what that referred to, I pointed out that even so, the people still preferred her over him by a YUUUUUGE margin.

You have to realize, any time the right tries to spin this false narrative that he somehow is preferable over her, I'm going to point out the truth, that the people rejected him. He got by on the technicality that is the electoral college.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Strangerland: ... the people still preferred her over him by a YUUUUUGE margin ...

2 percent is YUUUUGEE?

They didn't run for Dogcatcher of Podunk, with an electorate of a hundred or so voters. If they had, would you consider a 2-voter margin as YYUUUGGGEEEE?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It isn't about changing who won or lost the presidency, although I'm guessing it would be a lot easier for Republicans here if we were saying that...heh.

It's about correcting Republicans who say they have the support of the majority of voters, or a mandate, or the voters rejected Obama's policies, or they supported GOP policies. I mean you'd have to be pretty nutty to lose the popular vote by 3,000,000 and claim that Americans preferred you.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

2 percent is YUUUUGEE?

It's more than the population of every city in the country with the exception of the top three.

Face it, the people didn't like him. He's just lucky that the system was stacked in his favor, and against the will of the people.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Hmm, comparing the number of people in a country who voted for a given candidate with the number of people inside cities in the that country.

Seems your sight may be getting bad in your old age, as have mistaken an apple for a kumquat.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

They didn't run for Dogcatcher of Podunk, with an electorate of a hundred or so voters. If they had, would you consider a 2-voter margin as YYUUUGGGEEEE?

As if all of that matters, we have 23 more days to hold out before this guy is out of office and Trump is sworn in and if the left and Democrats can get over it, fine, if not, they will have a very long and depressing 4-8 years to deal with, it's not good, nor is it healthy dwelling on what could've, would've or should've been. It's all done and over and now for the changing of the guard in 23 days and Obama will be out and Trump will be in, that's that.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is --Yogi Berra

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Obama vs Trump: Dispute erupts over who would have won

Instead of hammering Hillary, Trump would have hammered the target-rich Obama. Obama's getting a pass on a lot of his issues like Libya, Syria, ISIS, and items such as (listing just what is showing on Breitbart's front page at the moment): "Report: Democrats Lost More than 1,000 Seats Under Obama", "Chicago Gun Deaths on Obama’s Watch Nearly Overtake Iraq War Deaths Under Bush", "Obama Added $7.917 Trillion to the National Debt, 68 Percent Spike", "Under Obama, 10.7 Million More Use Food Stamps—A 32 Percent Jump", "GOP Rep Cole: Obama Israel Policy ‘a Series of Calculated Insults’".

Hillary's Project Veritas and DNC wikileaks problems would have become Obama's. Instead of lightly touching on Bob Creamer's longtime connections to and actions on behalf of Obama, mentioned in passing during the course of Hillary's election effort, it would have become a major issue, especially Creamer's many visits to the Obamas in the White House.

Obama thinks he would have won, but he's benefited in the past from relatively weak opposing candidates in the general elections, Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008.

And imagine if the media tried to take a balanced approach instead of throwing balance to the winds. Obama would have no chance.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yeah, you seem to miss the fact that the guy has a 60% approval rating.

The idea that Trump, with all his bleating, could have beat Obama is about as delusional as it gets.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Yeah, you seem to miss the fact that the guy has a 60% approval rating.

The idea that Trump, with all his bleating, could have beat Obama is about as delusional as it gets.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Strangerland: Yeah, you seem to miss the fact that the guy has a 60% approval rating.

If we were to believe those numbers, we should also believe Hillary won in an electoral vote landslide, 275 to 215, and the last several weeks have been a bad dream. The pre-election polls and presidential approval ratings are coming from the same organizations.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If we were to believe those numbers, we should also believe Hillary won in an electoral vote landslide

You seem to forget that she did get more votes than Trump, by a landslide. And many of the states she lost, she lost by a hair. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, polling is an inexact science.

So the polls, while predicting the wrong outcome, did have a general idea of the way the votes would go.

So let's say that the Obama popularity polls are off. For the sake of argument let's give them a YUUUGE margin of error of +- 10% (which is really quite ridiculous). That still puts him at at least a 50% approval rating. Compare this to Hillary, who was distrusted by people on both sides. She got 3 million more votes than Trump. To think Obama wouldn't have received significantly more votes, tipping him over the hair by which she lots in many states, is absolute delusion.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

you seem to miss the fact that the guy has a 60% approval rating

Heh, according to who? The same pollsters/news organizations that said Mrs. Bill Clinton had a "98 percent" chance of winning the election on Nov. 8th?

Obama spent his entire time in office expounding on what visions he had for America. After eight years, the American voters grew tired of him flapping his gums about his visions and not seeing any concrete results of his TelePrompTer-aided rhetoric. Mrs. Clinton ran on a promise that her administration would be Obama 3.0. The voters let her and the radical alt left controlling the Democratic Party that they had had enough of their "progressive" ideology.

On the campaign stump for Mrs. Clinton, he told those who attended that he'd take it as a personal insult if she lost. Her drubbing in our system that chooses a POTUS compounded by the fact that more than 1,000 seats once held by democrats at state and national levels of government were lost while under his watch is a testament that future generations will remember him as the most polarizing president since fellow democrat LBJ in the mid-1960s. . . .

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Strangerland: You seem to forget that ... a YUUUGE margin of error of +- 10% (which is really quite ridiculous) ...

It's Obama, though. The media loves him much more than Hillary. With Hillary it's more like Stockholm Syndrome.

As far as 'she did get more votes than Trump', I expressly posted the electoral vote polls, not population vote polls. 'Hillary 275 to Trump 215.' Note also: 95 percent chance of Hillary winning, as declared on Election Day, by the same people giving you '60 percent loooves Obama!!!'.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Strangerland-- Yeah, you seem to miss the fact that the guy has a 60% approval rating. The idea that Trump, with all his bleating, could have beat Obama is about as delusional as it gets.

Nicely put

bass4funk-- It's all done and over and now for the changing of the guard in 23 days and Obama will be out and Trump will be in, that's that.

The alt-razis are never going to accept the notion of a Trump loss, so their moving on and stating the obvious is about as close to an agreement that is possible

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Heh, according to who? The same pollsters/news organizations that said Mrs. Bill Clinton had a "98 percent" chance of winning the election on Nov. 8th?

See my above post - I already pointed out how this false equivalency you are spouting is tripe.

Her drubbing in our system

That 'drubbing' where she got 3 million more votes than Trump? 'Drubbing' seems to have a different meaning for you than the dictionary, and therefore the rest of the world.

The voters let her and the radical alt left controlling the Democratic Party that they had had enough of their "progressive" ideology.

No they didn't. The voters let the world know they wanted to continue those polices. The electoral college ignored the will of the people and voted for the guy who got 3 million less votes.

As far as 'she did get more votes than Trump', I expressly posted the electoral vote polls, not population vote polls.

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that the will of the people was to continue Obama's policies with Hillary, as evidence by the fact that she got 3 million more votes than he did.

Note also: 95 percent chance of Hillary winning, as declared on Election Day, by the same people giving you '60 percent loooves Obama!!!'.

I already debunked this false equivalency.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The alt-razis are never going to accept the notion of a Trump loss,

I would if he did, but that didn't happen. Remember, who's face will be on the WH Wall hanging?

so their moving on and stating the obvious is about as close to an agreement that is possible.

Say it with me loud and proud, "Trump 1/20/17!" Yippie ki yay!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You can't point the results of the election to say that Americans agree with your hatred of Obama. Or you party or your policies. The popular vote results contradict that, and the margin was so wide that you should understand that you still have a heck of a mountain to climb. And I know Republicans here tie their self worth to the success of the GOP so you aren't out of the woods yet.

Despite that, Democrats should still reflect on how we can improve as a party. We already have a 3 million vote advantage to build on. In the next election hopefully we can push that ever higher and translate that into an electoral vote victory. It's not enough for us to just expect people to hop back to us in the event of a Trump failure.

On the other side, we will have to go up against a Republican party that will most likely expand the scorched earth tactics that we are seeing in North Carolina. Their rating as a Democracy is now on par with Cuba, and they will probably export that to other states as a way to maintain power even if they lose the support of the majority of voters. We don't want this to become the new normal in America.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You can't point the results of the election to say that Americans agree with your hatred of Obama. Or you party or your policies. The popular vote results contradict that, and the margin was so wide that you should understand that you still have a heck of a mountain to climb. And I know Republicans here tie their self worth to the success of the GOP so you aren't out of the woods yet.

Super, Trump will be sworn in, 22 more days to go, doesn't matter what you guys gamble about, it's going to happen. Kudos!!

Despite that, Democrats should still reflect on how we can improve as a party. We already have a 3 million vote advantage to build on. In the next election hopefully we can push that ever higher and translate that into an electoral vote victory. It's not enough for us to just expect people to hop back to us in the event of a Trump failure.

Personally, I pray to God, the Democrats stay with the same message they have been running on and don't change a thing, that way and at this point, they will never get in office again. With the presidency and congress under the GOP and the GOP having more governors, more Republican legislators, the Dems have a very high mountain to climb.

On the other side, we will have to go up against a Republican party that will most likely expand the scorched earth tactics that we are seeing in North Carolina. Their rating as a Democracy is now on par with Cuba, and they will probably export that to other states as a way to maintain power even if they lose the support of the majority of voters. We don't want this to become the new normal in America.

Yawn. Fascinating, you just make this hilarious stuff up.

...me thinks Obama couldn't wait until after Inauguration of Trump to get back to smokin' weed. This statement shows just how out of touch he is. Can't help but wonder how many Amerikans are aware that the job limits to two terms.

Bingo

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Mostly nonsense above, response not needed.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

IS is mainly a result of the Bush/Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Wolfowitz administration. Obama could have done more or done better on this, but don't pin 100% of this on Obama.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Strangerland: I already debunked this false equivalency.

Where did you do that? Just by repeating "2.7M" over and over?

When poll workers were collecting votes for the Presidency during the general election, did they also collect votes for Presidential approval rating?

As I recall, they didn't, so claiming that approval ratings are valid when they come, not from election tallies, but from pollsters who got the pre-election sentiment massively wrong, 95 to 98 percent chance of Hillary winning vs. the actual result of 0 percent, and a 275-215 = 60 electoral vote points in favor of Hillary versus the actual result of 304-232=72 in favor of Trump, a difference of 132 electoral votes in pollsters estimates vs. actual results.

I've got a couple of posts up there with lists of points against Obama's contention that he would have won, no answers to them.

If you start looking at Obama's weaknesses, it turns out he probably would have been a weaker candidate than Hillary. Hillary had a huge war chest, huge approval levels the media, assumption of the win and manipulation in her favor from the media, and she still lost. If Obama had run the targets would have been his weaknesses, not hers, and Trump's campaign would have run differently. Obama has a list of actions he doesn't have to answer for because he's on his way out and the focus is on Hillary and Trump, not him. That wouldn't be the case if he had been running instead of Hillary.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Mostly nonsense above, response not needed.

Yeah, typical liberal response to facts. Not a bit surprised.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Where did you do that? Just by repeating "2.7M" over and over?

Yep. Between that an the fact that Obama is YUUUUUUGELY more popular than Hillary, there is zero doubt that he would win.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I just hope that we are not going to start a war against Iran...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I just hope that we are not going to start a war against Iran...

Maybe we should start a pool on which country Trump starts a war with first.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

the fact that Obama is YUUUUUUGELY more popular than Hillary, there is zero doubt that he would win.

Heh, he campaigned harder for Mrs. Clinton than Mrs. Clinton did on the platform that a vote for her was a vote for approving his past eight years in office.

The result? On November. 8th the American voters sent both Mrs. Clinton and his legacy packing. . . .

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The result? On November. 8th the American voters sent both Mrs. Clinton and his legacy packing. . . .

The American voters chose Clinton. The electoral college chose trump.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

But, I have been told Democrats got more total votes than the Republicans!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

canadianbento: But, I have been told Democrats got more total votes than the Republicans!

I heard it was 2.7M votes more. If the population of cities were in any way comparable to margins of difference among 120M voters, that'd be more than the entire population of Vancouver metro!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But, I have been told Democrats got more total votes than the Republicans!

They did - around 3 million more. The will of the people was for the Democrats, the will of the Electoral college was for the Republicans.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

canadianbento - But, I have been told Democrats got more total votes than the Republicans!

I've noticed that Parliamentary systems do not elect their nations leader by popular vote. Just as the U.S.A. does not elect it's national leader by popular vote. And it never has. Why is this so shocking to the supporters of Hillary's losing efforts to become President of the U.S.A.?

The head of state appoints a prime minister who will likely have majority support in parliament. While in practice most prime ministers under the Westminster system (including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) are the leaders of the largest party in parliament, technically the appointment of the prime minister is a prerogative exercised by the monarch, the governor-general, or the president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

As far as this thread is concerned, Obama and Trump can claim they would have won a contest that never took place. Obama and Trump supporters can brag that their candidate would have won a contest that never took place. Unfortunately for both sides, no such contest has taken place, and no such contest will ever take place. Brag away, it's fun to watch. But until an actual contest between the two takes place, it's just an exercise in futility.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Last year's election was not the first time the electoral college win was different from the numerical majority: Richard Nixon's first Presidency was a case of losing the popular vote while winning in the electoral college, I heard.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Richard Nixon's first Presidency was a case of losing the popular vote while winning in the electoral college, I heard.

You heard wrong.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I was completely convinced up until about 12:30AM election night that Hillary was going to eek out victories in her blue wall states and crush Trump. Before the election I also would have projected that Obama would beat Trump due to his usual racial "Black-lash" as was seen in 2008 and 2012. But every election is different. If Trump loses his re-election in 2020 then maybe Obama can make a case. Otherwise it's his arrogance talking.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

arrestpaulJAN. 01, 2017 - 05:22AM JST

I've noticed that Parliamentary systems do not elect their nations leader by popular vote.

Well? They've got stupid systems too. Any system that allows the members of legislature to get elected with a plurality that falls short of a majority is basically broken and should be reformed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Any system that allows the members of legislature to get elected with a plurality that falls short of a majority is basically broken and should be reformed.

Why? Is direct democracy the only legitimate form of government? Should every law be passed by popular referendum or else be considered broken and in need of reform?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

WolfpackJAN. 03, 2017 - 12:09AM JST

Why? Is direct democracy the only legitimate form of government?

I'm not talking about direct democracy. By all means let the parties with majorities in legislatures continue to form governments. But change the way legislators get elected so they need majorities of the votes cast in their constituencies to win.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Democrats got more votes than the Republicans, the only problem I see is not using the one vote system where the party with the most votes Wins. I believe the Democtats got more votes than the Republicans. Is that not right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Simon Foston - Well? They've got stupid systems too. Any system that allows the members of legislature to get elected with a plurality that falls short of a majority is basically broken and should be reformed.

Good luck with that. Obama, Trump, and Hillary KNEW they were campaigning for the most Electoral College votes. Many Democrat voters who are now complaining about someone winning according to the long established rules are now being dragged, kicking and screaming, into reality. It's sad, and entertaining, at the same time.

It's interesting that so many people appear to be unaware of how their leaders are elected. In the U.S.A., it's a matter of State's Rights. The individual states that formed the United States NEVER relinquished their individual state's right to hold general elections. Additional states never agreed to give up their right to hold general elections. There has never been a nationwide, federal, central government, popular vote for POTUS.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

arrestpaulJAN. 04, 2017 - 12:15AM JST

Good luck with that. Obama, Trump, and Hillary KNEW they were campaigning for the most Electoral College votes. Many Democrat voters who are now complaining about someone winning according to the long established rules are now being dragged, kicking and screaming, into reality.

And how do you suppose Donald Trump would have responded had it been the other way round and he'd won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College?

There has never been a nationwide, federal, central government, popular vote for POTUS.

There's still no need for one really. What I don't see any justification for is how most States allocate Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis while one or two split them according to how many people vote for each candidate - which looks like a much fairer, more representative thing to do to me.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Simon Foston - And how do you suppose Donald Trump would have responded had it been the other way round and he'd won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College?

If things were different, things would be different. I imagine that Trump would deal with the loss exactly as Hillary is dealing with her 2nd loss for POTUS. Hillary didn't demand a recount. Hillary didn't demand that the Electoral College electors change their vote. Her supporters did. Hillary campaigned to win the most Electoral College votes. Just as Obama and Romney did, just as Obama and McCain did, just as Bush and Gore did, just as Bush and Kerry did. etc.

There's still no need for one really. What I don't see any justification for is how most States allocate Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis while one or two split them according to how many people vote for each candidate - which looks like a much fairer, more representative thing to do to me.

That is still a State's Rights issue. You need to make your case to each, and every, state's legislature. Tell them how unfair their current system is, and tell them what you'll do to help them get reelected. (Just between you and me, I'd include a nice campaign donation, also. That way they'll be sure to remember you.)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

arrestpaulJAN. 04, 2017 - 11:04AM JST

If things were different, things would be different. I imagine that Trump would deal with the loss exactly as Hillary is dealing with her 2nd loss for POTUS.

Given the way he was talking about the Electoral College before it gave him the result he wanted and contesting the result in that last debate, I'm not so sure personally.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Simon Foston - What I don't see any justification for is how most States allocate Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis while one or two split them according to how many people vote for each candidate - which looks like a much fairer, more representative thing to do to me.

Have you done the math? The numbers are available. Let's take California as an example.

Candidate - Party - Votes - Pct. - E.V. (Electoral Votes) Hillary Clinton - Democrat - 8,753,788 - 61.5% - 55 Donald J. Trump - Republican - 4,483,810 - 31.5 - 0 Gary Johnson - Libertarian - 478,500 - 3.4 - 0 Jill Stein - Green - 278,657 - 2.0 - 0 Others - 243,129 - 1.7 - 0

(100% reporting (24,849 of 24,849 precincts) Winner called by The A.P.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california

A total of 14,237,884 votes divided among 55 EC electors. 258870.6182 votes per elector.

If California (a state currently controlled by the Democrat Party) had chosen to divide their Electoral College votes among all of the Presidential candidates (numbers rounded to the nearest whole number):

Hillary would have received 34 votes. A loss of 11 EC votes. Trump would have received 17 votes. A gain of 17 EC votes. Johnson would have received 2 votes. A gain of 2 EC votes. Stein would have received 1 votes.

Hillary would have lost another 20 electors.

Do you really think that the controlling Democrat leadership want to divide California's 55 electoral votes? I suspect that the Republican leadership would love to split the states electors. At least until they are in control of the state. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

paul: Do you really think that the controlling Democrat leadership want to divide California's 55 electoral votes? I suspect that the Republican leadership would love to split the states electors.

The Republicans hold the federal Senate, House, and Executive. Maybe they could split California whether the Dem leadership of California wants it or not.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

turbotsat - The Republicans hold the federal Senate, House, and Executive. Maybe they could split California whether the Dem leadership of California wants it or not.

You need to understand State's Rights in the U.S.A. The federal government does not have the authority (was never given the authority) to alter California's, or any other states, election process. It's up to California, or Illinois, or Texas, etc. to change how those individual states hold their general elections, and distribute their Electoral College electors.

The federal government conducts a census every ten years to determine (among other things) overall census reapportionment of how the total number of electors are divided up. The 2010 population of California warrants 55 electors. The 2010 population of Illinois reduced the number of their electors from 21 to 20. But it's up to Illinois to decide if, or how, their 20 electors divide their vote.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Maybe they could split California whether the Dem leadership of California wants it or not.

Main and Nebraska allow for this, but it is up to each state.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites