When the dust settles and the GOP loses control in both houses, will it prove once and for all time, that Trump's electoral college victory was simply, anyone but Hillary?
63 Million people voted for Donald Trump for president. Sure, with a better Democratic candidate, maybe that would have been 60 million and the Democrat would've won. But this election wasn't about Clinton, it was about morons being morons. The midterms will tell the same story even if the Republicans lose two or three percent of the vote.
You're about 90% correct. Hillary wasn't a very good candidate, but gerrymandering of districts and voter suppression will enable the GOP to hang on to the Senate. The House is already lost and the GOP knows it, they are already crafting their speeches, trying to put the best spin on this. It will be up to the voters in 2020 to undo the damage of our jackass in chief, and his little minions in Congress.
GOP gerrymandering has no effect on the Senate.
The most likely reason the Republicans will hold on to the Senate is that this "class" of Senators has 26 Democrats and 9 Republicans and that many of the Democrats are running in normally deep red States. It seems probable to me the Republicans will have a plus Senate midterm (perhaps up 2) while losing control of the House.
Right, it had nothing to do with Hillary.
It was all Putin's fault.
But it probably was anyone but Hillary anyway insofar as that, IMO, any decent Dem candidate would have won.
I still think that Trump would have creamed Bernie Sanders in 2016.
I just don't see America embracing Bernie's Socialism.
GOP could have run a jackass against Bernie and won.
Hillary absolutely made the difference in an election decided by one percent in some states, and even less than that in others. Those closely contested states probably would've swung in favor of Sanders had he been the choice instead of Clinton.
Still, there's no reason why Trump should've even come close to winning the nomination of a major party. He's an unintelligent, lying, racist buffoon; so much so, that not even Republicans dispute this. He should've been laughed off the campaign trail but won the GOP's nomination. That has zero to do with Hillary.
Still, there's no reason why Trump should've even come close to winning the nomination of a major party. He's an unintelligent, ...[text shortened]... been laughed off the campaign trail but won the GOP's nomination. That has zero to do with Hillary.
Trump beat out 17 polished politicians, then beat the Clinton machine.
If Trump is an unintelligent buffoon, then what are the ones he beat?
Surely this does democracy no good at all?
Roughly the same reason small countries get equal representation in the Council of the EU.
There is disparity in the size, wealth and political system of member states, but all have de jure equal rights. In practice, certain states are considerably more attractive than others. While in some areas majority voting takes place where larger states have more votes than smaller ones, smaller states have disproportional representation compared to their population.
There is disparity in the size, wealth and political system of member states, but all have de jure equal rights. In practice, certain states are considerably more attractive than others. While in some ...[text shortened]... aller ones, smaller states have disproportional representation compared to their population.
I sincerely doubt it's the same.
The council runs parallel with the parliament and most votes need both council and parliament approval.
The parliament votes on what's best for the voters.
The council (consisting per subject of 1 minister from each country) votes along national parliamentary interests.
I'm pretty sure the US system doesn't represent two seperate layers of democracy (national and international interests).
They don't, and shouldn't - even your quote says "smaller states have disproportional representation compared to their population."
Yes. Small EU states have disproportional representation compared to their population. Just like small US states have disproportional representation compared to their population.