PILOT SPIN

Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 18, 2016, 10:37:17 AM

Title: Just because I was curious
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 18, 2016, 10:37:17 AM
Some people are whining about hillary winning the popular vote and losing the election.  Some people are whining about some votes counting more than others - implying that Trump only won the states with a low number of voters per elector.

We've all probably seen maps of the red vs blue states - with Trump winning the most land mass (total acreage of the States he won)

Well, I was curious about population

Using data from Census Bureau (specifically, the 2015 census), and my understanding of which states were won by Trump.... and assuming I correctly cut and pasted from the census bureau:  The total number of voting age citizens (census term) of the states won by Trump was 130,641,485 vs 96,378,002 for the states won by clinton.  If you look at the total population of the states, there is a similar split. 

but at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the EC.

Title: Re: Just because I was curious
Post by: Little Joe on November 18, 2016, 11:32:13 AM
I read recently (possibly here) of Trump praising the Electoral College because of the way it balances large population areas with large geographic areas.

However, he said if the election was based on popular vote, he would have campaigned differently.  He would have spent more time in Florida, New York and California and he would have won by an even  larger margin.

All through the election I read about what a terrible, disorganized campaign he was running.  Some called it "campaign malpractice".  Apparently, it wasn't as terrible or disorganized as some people thought.
Title: Re: Just because I was curious
Post by: Lucifer on November 18, 2016, 11:35:57 AM
I read recently (possibly here) of Trump praising the Electoral College because of the way it balances large population areas with large geographic areas.

However, he said if the election was based on popular vote, he would have campaigned differently.  He would have spent more time in Florida, New York and California and he would have won by an even  larger margin.

All through the election I read about what a terrible, disorganized campaign he was running.  Some called it "campaign malpractice".  Apparently, it wasn't as terrible or disorganized as some people thought.

 His campaign wasn't traditional and certainly rewrote the book on presidential campaigns.

 Hillary had a staff of 800+, Trump had a staff of about 130.  Hillary outspent Trump 3 to 1.

 Hillary ran her campaign like a politician, Trump ran his campaign like a businessman.
Title: Re: Just because I was curious
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 18, 2016, 12:58:56 PM

All through the election I read about what a terrible, disorganized campaign he was running. 

Let me guess where you read that...
Title: Re: Just because I was curious
Post by: Little Joe on November 18, 2016, 01:23:24 PM
Let me guess where you read that...
Your guess would be right, because I heard it everywhere from MSNBC to HUFFPO, to Wall St. Journal to FOX.
Title: Re: Just because I was curious
Post by: bflynn on November 18, 2016, 02:54:55 PM
Your guess would be right, because I heard it everywhere from MSNBC to HUFFPO, to Wall St. Journal to FOX.

Do not mistake the WSJ for a great paper.  Since they've been bought, the quality is way down, their specialty is gone and they are just another media rag. 

Not sure I'd group them with FOX either.
Title: Re: Just because I was curious
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 18, 2016, 04:12:25 PM
I read recently (possibly here) of Trump praising the Electoral College because of the way it balances large population areas with large geographic areas.

However, he said if the election was based on popular vote, he would have campaigned differently.  He would have spent more time in Florida, New York and California and he would have won by an even  larger margin.

All through the election I read about what a terrible, disorganized campaign he was running.  Some called it "campaign malpractice".  Apparently, it wasn't as terrible or disorganized as some people thought.
You read that here; I posted that he tweeted it. He ran a good campaign but he is slipping on this interim phase. He does need to stop making his picks one by one for the media to devour. Bad strategy! Big league!

I agree with whoever said here that he should release the whole list in late December. Maybe even January.
Title: Re: Just because I was curious
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 18, 2016, 04:29:46 PM
Do not mistake the WSJ for a great paper.  Since they've been bought, the quality is way down, their specialty is gone and they are just another media rag. 

Not sure I'd group them with FOX either.
Yep. WSJ front page, same day, different regions. Manipulate much?

(http://)
Title: Re: Just because I was curious
Post by: Little Joe on November 19, 2016, 08:30:39 AM
You read that here; I posted that he tweeted it. He ran a good campaign but he is slipping on this interim phase. He does need to stop making his picks one by one for the media to devour. Bad strategy! Big league!

I agree with whoever said here that he should release the whole list in late December. Maybe even January.
If I hadn't done so before, than thanks for posting that tweet.  I have used it in several conversations with liberals that mention the popular vote and it pretty much makes them start stuttering.

As for his strategy for announcing his picks, I am kind of glad he is announcing them early.  It shows that he is actively working on the transition, and it is helping solidify the conservatives that are worried about who he will pick.  But I wouldn't mind too much if he were to wait till Dec 20 (the day after the EC votes), which is late December as you ask for.