Would Obama Have Won Against Trump?

[The Portland Territory]

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.

We need reform, yes, but making college free or drastically cheaper is not the answer

[The Black Forrest]

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.

We need reform, yes, but making college free or drastically cheaper is not the answer

Then what is?

Human labor is going to be significantly reduced over time......

[The Portland Territory]

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.

Want a fun fact? America as a whole does not elect the president. The states do. Trump won in a majority of the states, who each elected him, therefore he won

[Outer Sparta]

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?

We need it easier to have student debt be paid off.. are you saying student debt is a good thing that shouldn't have any sort of needed reform whatsoever? Going to college is one thing, but paying it off is another story. Also, how would the loan industry be destroyed or the economy be collapsed? If more college students get jobs, then it'll lower the unemployment, and the economy would actually grow.

[Mavorpen]

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?

Because you'll pay for it regardless, only it'll be more expensive.

[The Black Forrest]

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

Want a fun fact? America as a whole does not elect the president. The states do. Trump won in a majority of the states, who each elected him, therefore he won

Relevance?

[Farnhamia]

(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?

Because you'll pay for it regardless, only it'll be more expensive.

And the lot of you are going to pay in ways you will not like at all if you don't get back to the topic. Make a new thread on student loans and who pays for what.

[Outer Sparta]

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

Want a fun fact? America as a whole does not elect the president. The states do. Trump won in a majority of the states, who each elected him, therefore he won

Trump won Pennsylvania by: 44,000 votes (0.7%)
Wisconsin by 23,000 votes (0.7%)
Michigan by 11,000 votes (0.3%)
while Clinton won:
California by 4.3 million votes (30% margin)
Illinois by 900,000 votes (17%)
New York by 1.7 million votes (22.5%)

Trump won a majority of states, but three were overwhelmingly close. Clinton won CA, NY, and IL by huge margins while Trump won PA, MI, and WI by razor-thin margins. Even if you win a state by one vote, you take all of it. It doesn't fit well proportionally with the rest of the population.

[The Portland Territory]

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?

We need it easier to have student debt be paid off.. are you saying student debt is a good thing that shouldn't have any sort of needed reform whatsoever? Going to college is one thing, but paying it off is another story. Also, how would the loan industry be destroyed or the economy be collapsed? If more college students get jobs, then it'll lower the unemployment, and the economy would actually grow.

Well first off, where will the college kids get their jobs? Right now, only 76-81% of graduates have some form of employment, including McDonalds's mind you. The rest are unemployed. Now, according to your sig, you support a free college tuition, correct? So let's say it is. That will cost us about $400-600 Billion per year. Now, we subtract $107 Billion (loans the government already spends, which would now be taken care of) from whatever that amount is. Even with that $107 Billion subtraction, that's still a hell of a lot of money, and the government would need to increase their revenue. This would mostly likely come from Wall Street, Businesses, and also Income Taxes. This would cause companies to have to spend a lot more, A LOT more in taxes causing them to lay off people. That's what happens. So, if companies lay people off to make up for the lost revenue, where will these graduates find work? The basis of your plan is that more working millennial=more tax revenue, which is defiantly true, but at the same time, even though the taxes from new college gradates is a long-term thing, the government still needs a short-term source of stable revenue, which is drastically increasing taxes which so happens to prevent the hirings of new millennials.

[The Portland Territory]

Want a fun fact? America as a whole does not elect the president. The states do. Trump won in a majority of the states, who each elected him, therefore he won

Trump won Pennsylvania by: 44,000 votes (0.7%)
Wisconsin by 23,000 votes (0.7%)
Michigan by 11,000 votes (0.3%)
while Clinton won:
California by 4.3 million votes (30% margin)
Illinois by 900,000 votes (17%)
New York by 1.7 million votes (22.5%)

Trump won a majority of states, but three were overwhelmingly close. Clinton won CA, NY, and IL by huge margins while Trump won PA, MI, and WI by razor-thin margins. Even if you win a state by one vote, you take all of it. It doesn't fit well proportionally with the rest of the population.

Trump also won bigly in other states, like Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia. What is your point? It may not fit with the rest of the country, but it fits with each separate state, which is it's intended purpose.

[The Portland Territory]

Because you'll pay for it regardless, only it'll be more expensive.

And the lot of you are going to pay in ways you will not like at all if you don't get back to the topic. Make a new thread on student loans and who pays for what.

Oh, sorry. Didn't see it until now. Should I move my most about this to somewhere else?

[Farnhamia]

And the lot of you are going to pay in ways you will not like at all if you don't get back to the topic. Make a new thread on student loans and who pays for what.

Oh, sorry. Didn't see it until now. Should I move my most about this to somewhere else?

If someone starts a thread on student loans or whatever, you can quote it into there.

[The Rich Port]

Hillary's biggest problem was her investigations.

I'll give Trump credit, at least he kept his crimes to "sleazy car salesman" levels and not "possible treason" levels.

If she didn't have those, she could have easily won.

Trump's campaign appealed to fear and tradition. You can't beat that, especially with a biased and probably Republican van-guarded criminal investigation looming over your head.

[The Portland Territory]

Oh, sorry. Didn't see it until now. Should I move my most about this to somewhere else?

If someone starts a thread on student loans or whatever, you can quote it into there.

Noted, grazie

[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?

So yeah, any other thoughts on this? ^

[Mavorpen]

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?

So yeah, any other thoughts on this? ^

Like I said, Obama wouldn't be able to replicate 2008 or probably even 2012, because for the people who voted for Trump, his association with "Hope" and "Change" led nowhere. If they believed otherwise, they wouldn't have voted for Trump, because there would be no incentive to vote based on upsetting the "establishment."

[Outer Sparta]

Trump won Pennsylvania by: 44,000 votes (0.7%)
Wisconsin by 23,000 votes (0.7%)
Michigan by 11,000 votes (0.3%)
while Clinton won:
California by 4.3 million votes (30% margin)
Illinois by 900,000 votes (17%)
New York by 1.7 million votes (22.5%)

Trump won a majority of states, but three were overwhelmingly close. Clinton won CA, NY, and IL by huge margins while Trump won PA, MI, and WI by razor-thin margins. Even if you win a state by one vote, you take all of it. It doesn't fit well proportionally with the rest of the population.

Trump also won bigly in other states, like Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia. What is your point? It may not fit with the rest of the country, but it fits with each separate state, which is it's intended purpose.

Let's say in a hypothetical race, Candidate A is running against Candidate B. Candidate A wins State X by 1,000 votes, and State X has 22 electoral votes. Candidate A also wins States Y and Z by 4,000 and 500, respectively, with electoral votes totaling 13 and 17, respectively. States X, Y, and Z were all close races. Candidate B wins State A, B, and C by 3 million, 1 million, and 500,000, respectively, with votes of 40, 26, and 20. Despite Candidate A winning State Z by only 500 votes, A gets all 17 electoral votes from State Z, even though it was a "too close to call" race. My point is with that mock-race, it shows the flaws of the winner-take-all, and proportion doesn't matter, even though you could win a state with 20 electoral votes by one vote and still take all 20 electoral votes. It's flawed because it creates such swing states, and it doesn't always match up proportionally with the national totals. If we were to divvy up electoral votes proportionally, it would represent the popular vote more accurately. The candidate that wins a state gets a plurality of the votes, but the opposing candidate still gets a share of the state, even though he/she loses that state.

[Keskinen]

Want a fun fact? America as a whole does not elect the president. The states do. Trump won in a majority of the states, who each elected him, therefore he won

Trump won Pennsylvania by: 44,000 votes (0.7%)
Wisconsin by 23,000 votes (0.7%)
Michigan by 11,000 votes (0.3%)
while Clinton won:
California by 4.3 million votes (30% margin)
Illinois by 900,000 votes (17%)
New York by 1.7 million votes (22.5%)

Trump won a majority of states, but three were overwhelmingly close. Clinton won CA, NY, and IL by huge margins while Trump won PA, MI, and WI by razor-thin margins. Even if you win a state by one vote, you take all of it. It doesn't fit well proportionally with the rest of the population.

No, it doesn't fit well with the rest of the population, but neither does your comparison. Those three states you listed as Clinton wins, Illinois, Cali and NY, were going to go to Clinton regardless of the amount of campaigning that Trump did in those states. They were blue from day one of the campaign.

Your point falls apart when you look at the fact that the swing states she won, New Hampshire, Nevada and Minnesota, were decided by 3,000 votes, 26,000 votes and 44,000 votes respectively. Saying Clinton won CA, NY and IL is like saying that water is blue, everyone knew that was going to happen. The fact is, voters in swing states didn't seem to see her as a desirable president and they showed that on Election Day.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The fact is, voters in swing states didn't seem to see her as a desirable president and they showed that on Election Day.

Why is one vote better than another vote?

[The Rich Port]

The fact is, voters in swing states didn't seem to see her as a desirable president and they showed that on Election Day.

Why is one vote better than another vote?

The electoral college really needs to be reformed.

Specifically, the whole "state" system.

One vote = one vote, not all of the votes of a state. That invalidates even electoral college votes, for chrissakes.

[Torkalia]

It's meaningless to compare the popular vote because if that's what they were competing for, each campaign would have been radically different.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Why is one vote better than another vote?

The electoral college really needs to be reformed.

Specifically, the whole "state" system.

One vote = one vote, not all of the votes of a state. That invalidates even electoral college votes, for chrissakes.

Agreed.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It's meaningless to compare the popular vote because if that's what they were competing for, each campaign would have been radically different.

But it does mean more citizens of a country voted for one person then the other.

[Giovenith]

Hell the fuck yes.

[The Portland Territory]

It's meaningless to compare the popular vote because if that's what they were competing for, each campaign would have been radically different.

But it does mean more citizens of a country voted for one person then the other.

Personally, I think that the most effective and simple reform that we can do to the electoral college is just require candidates to have minimum of 50% support. No?