• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

(CNN) Democrats’ flip in California concludes final unresolved US House race

Trump did not win the majority of those who voted, his popular vote total is under 50%.
Yes, I noted that he won 49.9%. Although this is totally irrelevant,.
In 2022, the hyped pre-election Red Wave spin collapsed after Bidren experienced the slimmest first term mideleaction losses in Congress in more than 50 years.
 
By that definition there will never be a "mandate".

I agree with @Luce the candidate who won has the "mandate" such as it is....
I think that definition is too loose. It seems silly that America would have opposing mandates every 4 - 8 years when people are largely voting for the least bad candidate.
 
Its kinda ominous how even after winning a trifecta the right wing still screams "fraud!" At any election they do end up losing.
 
By that definition there will never be a "mandate".

I agree with @Luce the candidate who won has the "mandate" such as it is....
This definition is tricky because it would require you to acknowledge that Biden had the "mandate" in the previous cycle and that is a difficult thing for a MAGA to admit to. That said, you can always do the he-really-didn't-because-he-stole-the-election thing to get out of that jam.
 
It's not voter fraud if it's allowed by state law.

So...in your day, did you try to get people to cure their faulty votes? Did you target voters from a particular party?

That seems to be what was done in CA.

My state doesn't have curing. But we do everything else. And yes, you obviously target only voters supporting your candidate. Why would you help the other candidate? You work for your candidate, not the Election Board!

It all starts with canvassing. You identify your voters, then do whatever - I mean whatever! - it takes to get them registered and to the polls.

My work was primarily performed in the Ward System at the Precinct level, with one of my Precincts being my home Precinct. A city Precinct like mine, had around 400 voters in a densely populated urban neighborhood encompassing 3 or 4 blocks. In my case, these were my friends and neighbors, and I established on-going one-on-one relationships with them.

My election day was usually spent at the polling place greeting my voters and handing them "sample ballot" "palm cards". If it was late in the day on election day, and they still hadn't shown, we'd send one of the vans around to get them.

I would very much like to know what is involved with California GOTV in the curing stage! As time went on (in my county), we could no longer physically handle ballots. If California is the same, the (party) election workers may be knocking-on the doors of those affected, informing them of the need to cure their ballots and perhaps providing other assistance like transportation, forms, and information.

But yes, like you I would like to know exactly what they do?
 
GOPs didn’t have a problem with late counting in California when Democrats lost 7 total seats
in 2020 and 2022 while Repubs gained 6 back, with one lost due to reapportionment. ☕

Excellent point, Linc.
 
Fair. But if one claims that it is not a mandate, one would have to also define the concept.

I do get your point. It is a rhetorical issue, regardless of whether there is a so-called "mandate" that person won by the rules of our system. If defined by electoral votes, which is how we elect the president, winning 312 to 226 is a fairly large margin, especially compared to recent history.

To be even more clear, the majority of those who voted (50.1% to 49.9%) not the majority of the eligible voters.

All fair points from you, as usual.
 
You need to bring evidence of the fraud you're implying, dear sir.

Not really. I was stating my own opinion. You can take it or leave it.

Meanwhile, I will stand by it. :coffee:

P.S.: This response applies to ALL members of the Forum, who are welcome to their own opinions on the subject. :coffee:
 
Were all the votes counted or did they stop when they got the answer they wanted. That is why I like the polls. All votes are counted in real time by We the People. Mistakes are fixed in real time by We the People. The results of the election are posted on the door for all to see when We the People leave that night. No finding and fixing ballots for a month until the people counting get the results they want.

The bolded doesn't reflect reality.

The Elections Board "stops counting" when the curing period ends, and affected citizens no longer come forward. The end-date is legislatively enacted. It is not arbitrary.
 
This definition is tricky because it would require you to acknowledge that Biden had the "mandate" in the previous cycle and that is a difficult thing for a MAGA to admit to. That said, you can always do the he-really-didn't-because-he-stole-the-election thing to get out of that jam.
If the House were reversed, GOPs would enjoy the next two years watching Democrats herd cats.
Who considers 49.78% Trump a mandate?

... especially when 36% of the voting electorate doesn't vote.

Interesting that in-play states had a higher % voting, as we should expect.

I’ll always quote this staff member from kos on the OP.
They’ll be coming out with potus vote by CD soon, which they and D’s learned the hard way from REDMAP 2010.
 
Time is irrelevant. It's the votes that count.
It's the gerrymandered districts that count.

Why is it that California is 40% red, but the GOP only has 23% of the seats there (40-12)? I know, independent redistricting commission. Just a sheer coincidence that they drew districts that overrepresent the Dems by about 10-12 seats.
 
Not really. I was stating my own opinion. You can take it or leave it.

Meanwhile, I will stand by it. :coffee:

P.S.: This response applies to ALL members of the Forum, who are welcome to their own opinions on the subject. :coffee:

If you'd like your "opinion" to carry value, you may consider backing it up with some supporting evidence.
 
It's the gerrymandered districts that count.

Why is it that California is 40% red, but the GOP only has 23% of the seats there (40-12)? I know, independent redistricting commission. Just a sheer coincidence that they drew districts that overrepresent the Dems by about 10-12 seats.

I was responding to your comment regarding the timeline.
 
(CNN) Democrats’ flip in California concludes final unresolved US House race
--



--

With the final federal election tally in, it appears Republicans actually lost seats in the People's House.

With Trump not even getting half the popular vote, only 1-1/2 pts over Harris, and only besting his losing 2020 performance by a bit over 3%, I'm at an absolute loss to understand the vociferous claims of a "mandate".

How can there be a mandate, when the majority of the electorate voted against the candidate?

Oh well . . .
They've been applying the strategy of lying repeatedly until enough people believe them, and it got Trump elected.
 
(CNN) Democrats’ flip in California concludes final unresolved US House race
--



--

With the final federal election tally in, it appears Republicans actually lost seats in the People's House.

With Trump not even getting half the popular vote, only 1-1/2 pts over Harris, and only besting his losing 2020 performance by a bit over 3%, I'm at an absolute loss to understand the vociferous claims of a "mandate".

How can there be a mandate, when the majority of the electorate voted against the candidate?

Oh well . . .
Rigged election!
Election fraud!!
Where's Trump to call California and go "We only need xx votes."
 

(CNN) Democrats’ flip in California concludes final unresolved US House race​

Yeah...it only took them a month and a lot of hard work by people like Pelosi's daughter to scrounge up enough votes to flip a bunch of races from Rep to Dem.
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
How sad.
 
I was responding to your comment regarding the timelines.
Of course. California is a state that allows ballot harvesting and uses the most generous standards for late ballots and ballots that are not filled out or signed correctly.

The Dem supermajority stacked the deck to ensure they would win as much as possible. Confidence in the result be damned,
 
If the House were reversed, GOPs would enjoy the next two years watching Democrats herd cats.
Who considers 49.78% Trump a mandate?

... especially when 36% of the voting electorate doesn't vote.

Interesting that in-play states had a higher % voting, as we should expect.

I’ll always quote this staff member from kos on the OP.
They’ll be coming out with potus vote by CD soon, which they and D’s learned the hard way from REDMAP 2010.
I think of a mandate, by definition, as a popular embrace of a person, a party, a set of policies rather than a broad national "just give us something different" mindset. By that measure, I struggle to see any of the last 8 years or the next 4 as possessing anything like a "mandate." Trump's win in 2016 was after all very much a rejection of Hillary than an embrace of Trump. Biden's win in 2020 was very much a rejection of Trump rather than an embrace of Biden. And I think we can argue that Trump's victory in 2024 was again a reaction of Biden (and Harris by association) than an embrace of Trump.

On the other hand it's a very different thing when a party easily wins a second White House term. By that measure I would say Obama's 2nd term was an actual mandate, as Clinton's 2nd term before Bush. In these cases, voters know exactly what they are getting, and they choose to opt for more. Bush in 2004 would not qualify since it was something of a squeaker, however Reagan's 1984 win absolutely would.
 
Of course. California is a state that allows ballot harvesting and uses the most generous standards for late ballots and ballots that are not filled out or signed correctly.

The Dem supermajority stacked the deck to ensure they would win as much as possible. Confidence in the result be damned,
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
How sad.
 
Of course. California is a state that allows ballot harvesting and uses the most generous standards for late ballots and ballots that are not filled out or signed correctly.

The Dem supermajority stacked the deck to ensure they would win as much as possible. Confidence in the result be damned,

And the problem with the bolded, is?
 
It's the gerrymandered districts that count.

Why is it that California is 40% red, but the GOP only has 23% of the seats there (40-12)? I know, independent redistricting commission. Just a sheer coincidence that they drew districts that overrepresent the Dems by about 10-12 seats.
How about 'cracking' Nashville to give Tennessee an 8-1 delegation?
No doubt there's only 11% Democrats in TN, eh?
Try the 9-5 GOP--GM map in Georgia, in an in-play state; or the 10-4 map in N.C.; 25-13 in Texas; 20-8 in Florida.

Oklahoma City was cracked to give Okie a 5-0 delegation.
Same with cracking Salt Lake City into 4 CDs, or 4-0 in Utah.

We could also play at the state level, which creates the federal apartheid maps.
Check out the 'packing' of blacks in North Carolina.

Take a look at the 'fair' commission maps in VA, MI, AZ and CO that were gerrymandered for R's.
You really have no idea how CA's map works.
 
There was never any mandate to begin with.
 
Back
Top Bottom