Clinton v Trump...

That riff before the scream, one of the greatest foreshore.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

They are still tallying up the votes but it seems likely that Clinton polled about 1m votes in total more than Trump.

If so this will be the 5th time that the winner of the popular vote lost the US election with the most recent being Al Gore losing to George W Bush.

HERE WE GO AGAIN

Clinton's "winning" margin revised down to about 100,000. Still won more votes though.

be interesting to see how Trump performs as President i'm keen to watch. Clearly USA dont want a corrupt politician like mrs clinton so i see him winning to be like brexit a case of politicians refusing to listen to voters concerns and would rather label them than appease them.

He did far better than i thought he would in some states so fair play to him. At least unlike clinton and Obama, Trump has said many times that he will work with UK after brexit finally is complete.

Maybe in 4 years time Bernie sanders can get the ticket without corrupt democrat rigging the vote so he doesnt win it again.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

My prediction: Clinton 319 Trump 219.

Freathy ?, is that you ?

Slightly un-nerves me a lunatic billionaire with his fingers to on the Red button taking about lunatic billionaires i wonder how he will react the first time when putin that other dangerous midget billionaire kicks trumps arse!!!

Look at how that turned out.......

Lord Melbury wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

My prediction: Clinton 319 Trump 219.

Freathy ?, is that you ?

No, I knew Trump would win. It's the same useless media and pollster muppets who called brexit so wrongly that thought clinton was going to win

If the Democrats had chosen Saunders rather than Clinton I suspect they might have won comfortably. Instead the party machine decided to foist the vastly unpopular Clinton on the electorate, and look how that worked out!

Indictment of the terrible FPTP system both the UK and US has, that all they had was a choice between Trump and Clinton.

I think those trumpeting Trump as an 'anti-establishment' candidate are in for a nasty shock. He may run his mouth, but you'll basically get the same corporate friendly neo-liberalism that you would have got with Clinton, but fronted by a guy who doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.

you know its only been a day but i prefer trump as president than chris webb.

Les Miserable wrote:

Couple days left...Predictions please.

I fancy Trump to nick it.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Clinton's "winning" margin revised down to about 100,000. Still won more votes though.

But out of a total of over 118 million, it is rather inconsequential to everyone but you and a few other sore losers.

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Clinton's "winning" margin revised down to about 100,000. Still won more votes though.

But out of a total of over 118 million, it is rather inconsequential to everyone but you and a few other sore losers.

clutching straws rickler thts all SFD is doing. Much like the Brexit and last years elections he cant accept the verdict.

Angry wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Clinton's "winning" margin revised down to about 100,000. Still won more votes though.

But out of a total of over 118 million, it is rather inconsequential to everyone but you and a few other sore losers.

clutching straws rickler thts all SFD is doing. Much like the Brexit and last years elections he cant accept the verdict.

It actually ended up with Clinton getting around 200K more votes than Trump and I accept that that number is relatively small against the population of the USA. It may even be metaphorically insignificant but in literal significance those 200k votes are emormous because they point out that the system is fundamentally flawed...

Trump is the 5th out of 45 presidents who have been elected despite polling fewer votes than his opponent.

So for more than 10% of the democratically elected presidents the US electoral college system has failed to represent the will of the people. Something of a problem to anybody trumpeting the merits of democracy, surely?

Within the "rules" Trump clearly won but the rules themselves are, at least a little, unsatisfactory.

Delivering winners that didn't win so often can't be acceptable to anybody who feels that an essential part of the democratic process involves winning the most votes, can it?

I have to admit to anticipating the responses to this with some relish as people attempt not to tie themselves up into knots of logic as they make their case.

And yet the Brexit vote where everyone's vote counted was also "unsatisfactory" iirc.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Clinton's "winning" margin revised down to about 100,000. Still won more votes though.

But out of a total of over 118 million, it is rather inconsequential to everyone but you and a few other sore losers.

clutching straws rickler thts all SFD is doing. Much like the Brexit and last years elections he cant accept the verdict.

It actually ended up with Clinton getting around 200K more votes than Trump and I accept that that number is relatively small against the population of the USA. It may even be metaphorically insignificant but in literal significance those 200k votes are emormous because they point out that the system is fundamentally flawed...

Trump is the 5th out of 45 presidents who have been elected despite polling fewer votes than his opponent.

So for more than 10% of the democratically elected presidents the US electoral college system has failed to represent the will of the people. Something of a problem to anybody trumpeting the merits of democracy, surely?

Within the "rules" Trump clearly won but the rules themselves are, at least a little, unsatisfactory.

Delivering winners that didn't win so often can't be acceptable to anybody who feels that an essential part of the democratic process involves winning the most votes, can it?

I have to admit to anticipating the responses to this with some relish as people attempt not to tie themselves up into knots of logic as they make their case.

But no matter how its dressed up a baked potato is just a baked potato and this is still clutching at straws Trump won it fair and square as did the tories last year and the Brexit campaign earlier this year too. Whether people like it or not its called democracy.

I blame all those disgusting uneducated working class people voting for change.

Les Miserable wrote:

And yet the Brexit vote where everyone's vote counted was also "unsatisfactory" iirc.

Sometimes I'm not sure if people are really, really stupid or just pretending to be. This is one of those times.

Of course the referendum result was unsatisfactory. Of course it was! On what level was there any safisfaction?

All I have done is remind people that Farage, patron saint of Brexit so far as I can tell, said that if the result was 52:48 then the matter would be far from settled.

I have also pointed out that, as Rollo has also pointed out, if an absolute majority is required by government by legislation before a union can strike then settling on a little more than a quarter of the population being in favour of something is hardly an over-whelming mandate.

Nowhere have I suggested that it would be right and proper for the side with the fewest votes to claim victory which is what has happened in the US.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

And yet the Brexit vote where everyone's vote counted was also "unsatisfactory" iirc.

Sometimes I'm not sure if people are really, really stupid or just pretending to be. This is one of those times.

Of course the referendum result was unsatisfactory. Of course it was! On what level was there any safisfaction?

All I have done is remind people that Farage, patron saint of Brexit so far as I can tell, said that if the result was 52:48 then the matter would be far from settled.

I have also pointed out that, as Rollo has also pointed out, if an absolute majority is required by government by legislation before a union can strike then settling on a little more than a quarter of the population being in favour of something is hardly an over-whelming mandate.

Nowhere have I suggested that it would be right and proper for the side with the fewest votes to claim victory which is what has happened in the US.

Sometimes I'm not sure if people are really, really arrogant or just pretending to be. This isn't one of those times.


This really, really stupid cnut voted for and was delighted with the referendum result.

A UK party 'could' get the most votes but not the most seats.....

4 million votes = 1 seat iirc, can't remember the moral outcry on that one from a certain person.

Les Miserable wrote:

4 million votes = 1 seat iirc, can't remember the moral outcry on that one from a certain person.

I have long since been in favour of PR. There'll be posts somewhere I'm sure.

The following are tweets from The Donald when he thought Mitt Romney had polled more votes than Obama.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But were you spitting feathers when UKIP got 1 seat for 4 million votes?

Not at all. Laughing like a drain that their supporters were so woefully represented in parliament would be more like it. The same 4m people so concerned that British laws passed by a British parliament are enforced by British judges because that's the British sovereignty as defined by the British constitution they are so passionate about... Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.

Then again who knows how the votes would have been cast? The biggest flaw with FPTP is not the unfair representation of the votes cast but that it renders so many of those votes irrelevant FPTP, in part, actually shapes the outcome but if 10% of the people want to vote Monster Raving Loony, or whatevs, then 10% of the MPs should be Loonies.

Anything else is undemocratic.

Just as winning by polling fewer votes is.