Would Obama Have Won Against Trump?

[Rio Cana]

Their health care systems still cost money, the college education isn't as good as American(Unless you pay), there are ways of fixing the problems, but apparently, we can't gut welfare. On top of this, where does the money come from? I'd rather have college that I pay off in forty years, than college that I pay for as long as I live. If you tax the rich and businesses more, they leave. Thus, taking away more tax income.

All health care systems cost money. The difference is, nations with universal health care spend less money per capita on medicine and manage to cover all citizens. Meanwhile, America spends more money for less. Because of this, we can infer that universal health care works. Education in Denmark, Canada, and other nations also ranks higher than the U.S. because they have better support for public schools. Colleges in the U.S. may have a better infrastructure historically, but that's one piece of a very big equation.

It's worth noting that more progressive nations are often ranked higher than the U.S. in terms of economic freedom by the conservative Heritage Foundation -- signifying that higher taxes on the rich don't necessarily slow down economic growth.

Like I once said in another post, the Taiwan national health plan would be a good option for the US - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960712/

[Mavorpen]

Remove affirmative action, let's say that a degree cost $40,000, if one person gets the classes and degree for free, four others are going to be charged $50,000. Scholarships are fine, because some pays for it, when the payment is distributed, among more and more people, the price increases. Also, for some reason roughly 24% of students dropout before the degree is earned, giving them the debt, but not the benefits. College is an investment, you put money in, and get more out of it.

If it's an investment, that means college is a privilege, not a right.

I'm stuck on the part where for some reason only four people will be paying $50,000 people, as if the taxable population consists of only four people.

[Balican]

Remove affirmative action, let's say that a degree cost $40,000, if one person gets the classes and degree for free, four others are going to be charged $50,000. Scholarships are fine, because some pays for it, when the payment is distributed, among more and more people, the price increases. Also, for some reason roughly 24% of students dropout before the degree is earned, giving them the debt, but not the benefits. College is an investment, you put money in, and get more out of it.

If it's an investment, that means college is a privilege, not a right.

No where does the US constitution say that further education is a right. Public education is a right, and it is, up until 12th grade. From there on, you may pursue further education in the form of college or university, or enter the workforce. Unless the government owns the college, then it is not a right. However, if the government were to own the college/university, the taxes would go up to pay for it. People that go to a technical school for two years, or into the military, or into manual labor, shouldn't have to pay for someone else's college, which they may not even complete.

[Outer Sparta]

If it's an investment, that means college is a privilege, not a right.

No where does the US constitution say that further education is a right. Public education is a right, and it is, up until 12th grade. From there on, you may pursue further education in the form of college or university, or enter the workforce. Unless the government owns the college, then it is not a right. However, if the government were to own the college/university, the taxes would go up to pay for it. People that go to a technical school for two years, or into the military, or into manual labor, shouldn't have to pay for someone else's college, which they may not even complete.

Then where would the teachers and doctors if college isn't readily available for everybody? Everyone has potential, but that potential can't be gained if only 50% of people can afford to go to college.

[The Portland Territory]

Let's look at statistics: Obama got 69,498,516 votes in 2008, but only got 65,915,795 in 2012. That is a 5.15% decrease in votes BUT the entire vote itself was down 3.3% in people voting from the '08 election. Now, looking at the comparisons from 2012 vs. 2016, 0.4% more people voted in 2016 than 2012. So, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, we'll say that these 0.4% of people voted for him because of Trump or something. That now gives him an extra 516k people up from 2012, equaling to 66,432,136. Now let's mix this in with what happened over the course of his 2nd term. Rise of ISIS, Rise of Debt, More Scrutiny of Obamacare, Jobs Jobs Jobs, and Illegal Immigration. This would be a big no-no for him, given that this all happened under his watch. Let's say this takes away 5% of his total voters. Now we're down to 63,110,530. Now, given that he had a controversy with intelligence and the fight against ISIS in August of 2016, that's also a no-no for him. Let's say that scares off only 0.2% of his voters. Now we're down to 62,977,666. Now the last noticeable factor, given that we can assume nothing changes for Trump, third parties. Given that most people who voted for Jill Stein, even though in spite of Clinton, are pretty Progressive, they'd probably be very favorable of Obama. So let's say that 90% of people who would've voted for Stein, now vote for Obama. That's an extra 1,311,339 votes, adding to 64,289,005. And now Johnson. Most Johnson voters who aren't Libertarian were probably Republican, and that the third party choice for Democrats would be Stein, and we've already given Obama the benefit of the doubt, so we'll say that only 15% of Johnson's voters go to Obama. That's an extra 673,337 votes, adding up to 64,962,342.

Alright, so the final tally for Obama would be 64,962,342 votes. That would actually be a decrease from Clinton who has 65,844,954 votes. This means that Trump probably would've won anyways

But let's play around a bit and add in a margin of error of about, oh, +/- 4%. Right now, in terms of popular vote, according to my calculations, Obama would be at 47.39%. Still ahead of Trump, but behind Clinton. Adding 4% would now make it 51.39% of the total popular vote, putting Obama at 70,432,007 votes. This is a major increase and would definitely win him back Michigan and Wisconsin while probably winning him back Pennsylvania and Florida. It would also secure his lead in New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, and the New England States.

So overall, without the margin of error, I think Trump could still win. He didn't focus as much on Obama over the election as he did on Clinton, yet he still did some damage to Obama's reputation, a signal that Trump would still be very competitive against the incumbent. Given that the black vote didn't come out as much in 2012 as they did in 2008. I dont see them coming out to flock in huge numbers for Obama, especially because Trump did surprisingly well amongst blacks for a Republican. Not to mention, the women vote wouldn't be as energized with Obama as they would be with Hillary, but they'd still probably go out and vote for Obama.

So, what are your thoughts on this y'all?

[Balican]

No where does the US constitution say that further education is a right. Public education is a right, and it is, up until 12th grade. From there on, you may pursue further education in the form of college or university, or enter the workforce. Unless the government owns the college, then it is not a right. However, if the government were to own the college/university, the taxes would go up to pay for it. People that go to a technical school for two years, or into the military, or into manual labor, shouldn't have to pay for someone else's college, which they may not even complete.

Then where would the teachers and doctors if college isn't readily available for everybody? Everyone has potential, but that potential can't be gained if only 50% of people can afford to go to college.

That's debatable, but I'll play along. Some people don't even want to go to college, and why should they have to pay for someone else's college? You don't pay college on a down payment, it is an investment. You pay it off and at the end you get more than if you never spent it on college. Teachers and doctors(in my area anyways) are in steady supply, but the people moving into the area is people working on the oil rigs. The ground workers didn't go to college, why should they? They can leave high school and get $24 an hour, 72 hours a week. Why should they pay for something they will never use? Why should the teachers and doctors pay for other people's college when, in our current system, they would have paid it off?

[Mavorpen]

Then where would the teachers and doctors if college isn't readily available for everybody? Everyone has potential, but that potential can't be gained if only 50% of people can afford to go to college.

That's debatable, but I'll play along. Some people don't even want to go to college, and why should they have to pay for someone else's college? You don't pay college on a down payment, it is an investment. You pay it off and at the end you get more than if you never spent it on college. Teachers and doctors(in my area anyways) are in steady supply, but the people moving into the area is people working on the oil rigs. The ground workers didn't go to college, why should they? They can leave high school and get $24 an hour, 72 hours a week. Why should they pay for something they will never use? Why should the teachers and doctors pay for other people's college when, in our current system, they would have paid it off?

Because they benefit from it. It's pretty simple, really.

[Balican]

Let's look at statistics: Obama got 69,498,516 votes in 2008, but only got 65,915,795 in 2012. That is a 5.15% decrease in votes BUT the entire vote itself was down 3.3% in people voting from the '08 election. Now, looking at the comparisons from 2012 vs. 2016, 0.4% more people voted in 2016 than 2012. So, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, we'll say that these 0.4% of people voted for him because of Trump or something. That now gives him an extra 516k people up from 2012, equaling to 66,432,136. Now let's mix this in with what happened over the course of his 2nd term. Rise of ISIS, Rise of Debt, More Scrutiny of Obamacare, Jobs Jobs Jobs, and Illegal Immigration. This would be a big no-no for him, given that this all happened under his watch. Let's say this takes away 5% of his total voters. Now we're down to 63,110,530. Now, given that he had a controversy with intelligence and the fight against ISIS in August of 2016, that's also a no-no for him. Let's say that scares off only 0.2% of his voters. Now we're down to 62,977,666. Now the last noticeable factor, given that we can assume nothing changes for Trump, third parties. Given that most people who voted for Jill Stein, even though in spite of Clinton, are pretty Progressive, they'd probably be very favorable of Obama. So let's say that 90% of people who would've voted for Stein, now vote for Obama. That's an extra 1,311,339 votes, adding to 64,289,005. And now Johnson. Most Johnson voters who aren't Libertarian were probably Republican, and that the third party choice for Democrats would be Stein, and we've already given Obama the benefit of the doubt, so we'll say that only 15% of Johnson's voters go to Obama. That's an extra 673,337 votes, adding up to 64,962,342.

Alright, so the final tally for Obama would be 64,962,342 votes. That would actually be a decrease from Clinton who has 65,844,954 votes. This means that Trump probably would've won anyways

But let's play around a bit and add in a margin of error of about, oh, +/- 4%. Right now, in terms of popular vote, according to my calculations, Obama would be at 47.39%. Still ahead of Trump, but behind Clinton. Adding 4% would now make it 51.39% of the total popular vote, putting Obama at 70,432,007 votes. This is a major increase and would definitely win him back Michigan and Wisconsin while probably winning him back Pennsylvania and Florida. It would also secure his lead in New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, and the New England States.

So overall, without the margin of error, I think Trump could still win. He didn't focus as much on Obama over the election as he did on Clinton, yet he still did some damage to Obama's reputation, a signal that Trump would still be very competitive against the incumbent. Given that the black vote didn't come out as much in 2012 as they did in 2008. I dont see them coming out to flock in huge numbers for Obama, especially because Trump did surprisingly well amongst blacks for a Republican. Not to mention, the women vote wouldn't be as energized with Obama as they would be with Hillary, but they'd still probably go out and vote for Obama.

So, what are your thoughts on this y'all?

I agree with the most part, however, the margins would be a little larger. The momentum for Trump was change from Obama, the old system. People were tired of Obama, and Trump capitalized on it.

2008- Obama, by a decent gap

2012- Very close, I couldn't tell you

2016- Trump, by a good margin

[Balican]

That's debatable, but I'll play along. Some people don't even want to go to college, and why should they have to pay for someone else's college? You don't pay college on a down payment, it is an investment. You pay it off and at the end you get more than if you never spent it on college. Teachers and doctors(in my area anyways) are in steady supply, but the people moving into the area is people working on the oil rigs. The ground workers didn't go to college, why should they? They can leave high school and get $24 an hour, 72 hours a week. Why should they pay for something they will never use? Why should the teachers and doctors pay for other people's college when, in our current system, they would have paid it off?

Because they benefit from it. It's pretty simple, really.

They already benefit from it and don't pay for it till they require the services learned from colleges. They would be paying twice for something they currently only pay once for.

[Mavorpen]

Because they benefit from it. It's pretty simple, really.

They already benefit from it and don't pay for it till they require the services learned from colleges. They would be paying twice for something they currently only pay once for.

How would they pay twice by paying once through taxation?

[Telconi]

They already benefit from it and don't pay for it till they require the services learned from colleges. They would be paying twice for something they currently only pay once for.

How would they pay twice by paying once through taxation?

Well if my tax money goes to pay for a lawyer's education, and then when that lawyer graduates, he charges me for his services, then I'm double paying.
Or are you saying all labor performed by a college educated worker should be socialized?

[Farnhamia]

How would they pay twice by paying once through taxation?

Well if my tax money goes to pay for a lawyer's education, and then when that lawyer graduates, he charges me for his services, then I'm double paying.
Or are you saying all labor performed by a college educated worker should be socialized?

All of which has what to do with an Obama versus Trump election?

[Mavorpen]

How would they pay twice by paying once through taxation?

Well if my tax money goes to pay for a lawyer's education, and then when that lawyer graduates, he charges me for his services, then I'm double paying.

Technically speaking, this is true anyway, given the presence of the federal loan.

Or are you saying all labor performed by a college educated worker should be socialized?

Am I saying that right now? No.

In general? Yeah.

EDIT: Whoops, forgot that this isn't the topic. My bad.

[The Black Forrest]

Well if my tax money goes to pay for a lawyer's education, and then when that lawyer graduates, he charges me for his services, then I'm double paying.
Or are you saying all labor performed by a college educated worker should be socialized?

All of which has what to do with an Obama versus Trump election?

It shows the fallacy of all the plans and desires of the Kenyan socialist Obama.

[Oldenfranck]

I think we got a birther in here... this should be interesting...

[The Portland Territory]

I think we got a birther in here... this should be interesting...

Is it little 'ol me?

[Outer Sparta]

Let's look at statistics: Obama got 69,498,516 votes in 2008, but only got 65,915,795 in 2012. That is a 5.15% decrease in votes BUT the entire vote itself was down 3.3% in people voting from the '08 election. Now, looking at the comparisons from 2012 vs. 2016, 0.4% more people voted in 2016 than 2012. So, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, we'll say that these 0.4% of people voted for him because of Trump or something. That now gives him an extra 516k people up from 2012, equaling to 66,432,136. Now let's mix this in with what happened over the course of his 2nd term. Rise of ISIS, Rise of Debt, More Scrutiny of Obamacare, Jobs Jobs Jobs, and Illegal Immigration. This would be a big no-no for him, given that this all happened under his watch. Let's say this takes away 5% of his total voters. Now we're down to 63,110,530. Now, given that he had a controversy with intelligence and the fight against ISIS in August of 2016, that's also a no-no for him. Let's say that scares off only 0.2% of his voters. Now we're down to 62,977,666. Now the last noticeable factor, given that we can assume nothing changes for Trump, third parties. Given that most people who voted for Jill Stein, even though in spite of Clinton, are pretty Progressive, they'd probably be very favorable of Obama. So let's say that 90% of people who would've voted for Stein, now vote for Obama. That's an extra 1,311,339 votes, adding to 64,289,005. And now Johnson. Most Johnson voters who aren't Libertarian were probably Republican, and that the third party choice for Democrats would be Stein, and we've already given Obama the benefit of the doubt, so we'll say that only 15% of Johnson's voters go to Obama. That's an extra 673,337 votes, adding up to 64,962,342.

Alright, so the final tally for Obama would be 64,962,342 votes. That would actually be a decrease from Clinton who has 65,844,954 votes. This means that Trump probably would've won anyways

But let's play around a bit and add in a margin of error of about, oh, +/- 4%. Right now, in terms of popular vote, according to my calculations, Obama would be at 47.39%. Still ahead of Trump, but behind Clinton. Adding 4% would now make it 51.39% of the total popular vote, putting Obama at 70,432,007 votes. This is a major increase and would definitely win him back Michigan and Wisconsin while probably winning him back Pennsylvania and Florida. It would also secure his lead in New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, and the New England States.

So overall, without the margin of error, I think Trump could still win. He didn't focus as much on Obama over the election as he did on Clinton, yet he still did some damage to Obama's reputation, a signal that Trump would still be very competitive against the incumbent. Given that the black vote didn't come out as much in 2012 as they did in 2008. I dont see them coming out to flock in huge numbers for Obama, especially because Trump did surprisingly well amongst blacks for a Republican. Not to mention, the women vote wouldn't be as energized with Obama as they would be with Hillary, but they'd still probably go out and vote for Obama.

So, what are your thoughts on this y'all?

I agree with the most part, however, the margins would be a little larger. The momentum for Trump was change from Obama, the old system. People were tired of Obama, and Trump capitalized on it.

2008- Obama, by a decent gap

2012- Very close, I couldn't tell you

2016- Trump, by a good margin

Actually, Clinton had a good margin, but it was the EC that got in the way.

[Balican]

They already benefit from it and don't pay for it till they require the services learned from colleges. They would be paying twice for something they currently only pay once for.

How would they pay twice by paying once through taxation?

(I assume you're referring to healthcare and education, which is where I'm going, but you know the saying)
Not trying to sound like Marx, but why pay repeatedly for something, that you likely will not use very often? That's like having Netflix for four years, and on the four year watching a brand new show. Unless you have crippling health problems are hit by something like cancer or something similar, you likely aren't going into the hospital very often. My father, who is by no means the picture of health, has only gone to a Hospital for medical reasons twice.(Not cherry picking, just an at hand example) Why should some who only goes to a hospital once every, like, ten years pay as much as someone who goes once a month?

[Balican]

I agree with the most part, however, the margins would be a little larger. The momentum for Trump was change from Obama, the old system. People were tired of Obama, and Trump capitalized on it.

2008- Obama, by a decent gap

2012- Very close, I couldn't tell you

2016- Trump, by a good margin

Actually, Clinton had a good margin, but it was the EC that got in the way.

EC was what I was going by as it is the system used by the US where this election would have taken place.

[The Portland Territory]

I agree with the most part, however, the margins would be a little larger. The momentum for Trump was change from Obama, the old system. People were tired of Obama, and Trump capitalized on it.

2008- Obama, by a decent gap

2012- Very close, I couldn't tell you

2016- Trump, by a good margin

Actually, Clinton had a good margin, but it was the EC that got in the way.

2% isn't much of a margin, tbh

[Outer Sparta]

Then where would the teachers and doctors if college isn't readily available for everybody? Everyone has potential, but that potential can't be gained if only 50% of people can afford to go to college.

That's debatable, but I'll play along. Some people don't even want to go to college, and why should they have to pay for someone else's college? You don't pay college on a down payment, it is an investment. You pay it off and at the end you get more than if you never spent it on college. Teachers and doctors(in my area anyways) are in steady supply, but the people moving into the area is people working on the oil rigs. The ground workers didn't go to college, why should they? They can leave high school and get $24 an hour, 72 hours a week. Why should they pay for something they will never use? Why should the teachers and doctors pay for other people's college when, in our current system, they would have paid it off?

Then why do 42 million people owe $1.3 trillion in student debts? Anyways, we can't realize 100% of our potential when only half can pay off college completely. Debt is pretty crushing, and we need student debt reform.

[Outer Sparta]

Actually, Clinton had a good margin, but it was the EC that got in the way.

2% isn't much of a margin, tbh

Clinton won the popular vote by 2 million.

[The Portland Territory]

2% isn't much of a margin, tbh

Clinton won the popular vote by 2 million.

Yes, it's still 2%. Nothing has changed

[Balican]

That's debatable, but I'll play along. Some people don't even want to go to college, and why should they have to pay for someone else's college? You don't pay college on a down payment, it is an investment. You pay it off and at the end you get more than if you never spent it on college. Teachers and doctors(in my area anyways) are in steady supply, but the people moving into the area is people working on the oil rigs. The ground workers didn't go to college, why should they? They can leave high school and get $24 an hour, 72 hours a week. Why should they pay for something they will never use? Why should the teachers and doctors pay for other people's college when, in our current system, they would have paid it off?

Then why do 42 million people owe $1.3 trillion in student debts? Anyways, we can't realize 100% of our potential when only half can pay off college completely. Debt is pretty crushing, and we need student debt reform.

If you're suggesting we clear all debt:
1. You'll crush the economy
2. You'll put so many people out of jobs
3. You'll destroy the banking/loan industry in America making it impossible to fund hardly anything

On top of that, weren't the Dems freaking out that Trump played that card before for FAR less and that made him a bad person?

[Outer Sparta]

Clinton won the popular vote by 2 million.

Yes, it's still 2%. Nothing has changed

Yet Trump won the EC 304-227. That's not even a close matchup of popular vs electoral votes.