Majority of voters refused to cast a ballot for Trump

[iguanaman]

"America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate," Donald Trump declared in the early morning hours of Nov. 6, 2024, after the polls in the presidential election had closed.
Indeed, he claimed that he had won "a political victory that our country has never seen before, nothing like this."
Trump's popular-vote advantage has declined steadily since election night. As of Monday morning, Trump was at 49.96% while Harris was at 48.24%, according to the authoritative Cook Political Report's tracking of results from official sources in states across the country. And the likelihood is that the Republican's total will continue to tick downward. (in Wisconsin, Trump also fell short of a majority, gaining 49.7% to 48.8% for Harris.)

Let's put this in perspective: Trump is winning a lower percent of the popular vote this year than Biden in 2020 (51.3%), Obama in 2012 (51.1%), Obama in 2008 (52.9%), George W. Bush in 2004 (50.7%), George H.W. Bush in 1988 (53.2%), Ronald Reagan in 1984 (58.8%), Reagan in 1980 (50.7%), or Jimmy Carter in 1976 (50.1%).

And, of course, Trump's numbers are way below those of presidents who won what could reasonably be described as "unprecedented and powerful" mandates, such as Richard Nixon's 60.7% in 1972, Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% in 1964, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 60.8% in 1936. As Trump's percentage continues to slide, he'll fall below the thresholds achieved by most presidents in the past century.
Why make note of all the presidents who ran better than Trump? Why discuss the narrowness of his advantage over Harris? Why note, in addition, that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate will be among the narrowest in modern American history? Because it puts the 2024 election results in perspective — and in doing so gives members of both parties an understanding of how to respond when Trump claims that an unappealing nominee or policy should be accepted out of deference to his “powerful mandate."

Trump’s victory was not of “epic” proportions.

There was no "landslide" for the once and future president, as Fox News suggested repeatedly in post-election headlines. The election did not produce the "decisive victory" for Trump that the Associated Press referred to in the immediate aftermath of the voting. Nor did it yield the "resounding defeat" for Harris that AP reported at the same time.

https://captimes.com/opinion/john-n...cle_ed11d342-a5db-11ef-8163-4f03701721bb.html

Based on these numbers the Trump Administration should be concentrating on bipartisan issues not sweeping changes based of the fallacy that he has some sort of "mandate". Over half of voters did not want Trump. That is not a mandate under any definition.

 

[Hello My Son]

"America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate," Donald Trump declared in the early morning hours of Nov. 6, 2024, after the polls in the presidential election had closed.
Indeed, he claimed that he had won "a political victory that our country has never seen before, nothing like this."
Trump's popular-vote advantage has declined steadily since election night. As of Monday morning, Trump was at 49.96% while Harris was at 48.24%, according to the authoritative Cook Political Report's tracking of results from official sources in states across the country. And the likelihood is that the Republican's total will continue to tick downward. (in Wisconsin, Trump also fell short of a majority, gaining 49.7% to 48.8% for Harris.)

Let's put this in perspective: Trump is winning a lower percent of the popular vote this year than Biden in 2020 (51.3%), Obama in 2012 (51.1%), Obama in 2008 (52.9%), George W. Bush in 2004 (50.7%), George H.W. Bush in 1988 (53.2%), Ronald Reagan in 1984 (58.8%), Reagan in 1980 (50.7%), or Jimmy Carter in 1976 (50.1%).

And, of course, Trump's numbers are way below those of presidents who won what could reasonably be described as "unprecedented and powerful" mandates, such as Richard Nixon's 60.7% in 1972, Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% in 1964, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 60.8% in 1936. As Trump's percentage continues to slide, he'll fall below the thresholds achieved by most presidents in the past century.
Why make note of all the presidents who ran better than Trump? Why discuss the narrowness of his advantage over Harris? Why note, in addition, that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate will be among the narrowest in modern American history? Because it puts the 2024 election results in perspective — and in doing so gives members of both parties an understanding of how to respond when Trump claims that an unappealing nominee or policy should be accepted out of deference to his “powerful mandate."

Trump’s victory was not of “epic” proportions.

There was no "landslide" for the once and future president, as Fox News suggested repeatedly in post-election headlines. The election did not produce the "decisive victory" for Trump that the Associated Press referred to in the immediate aftermath of the voting. Nor did it yield the "resounding defeat" for Harris that AP reported at the same time.

https://captimes.com/opinion/john-n...cle_ed11d342-a5db-11ef-8163-4f03701721bb.html

Based on these numbers the Trump Administration should be concentrating on bipartisan issues not sweeping changes based of the fallacy that he has some sort of "mandate". Over half of voters did not want Trump. That is not a mandate under any definition.

The Electoral College is all that matters. The candidates know this and organize their entire campaigns toward winning an E.C. majority, not a meaningless popular vote victory.

No attempt to reframe or redefine the results of the actual election is going to change the way that victory is actually sought out by the candidates and eventually accomplished by the winner. It works the way it works, and everyone participating knows it, including Kamala Harris, and including the voters.

Trump won by a long shot within the framework that is established. It was a blowout by all relevant metrics, period.

 

[dmpi]

Keep recounting until you get the correct answer.

 

[Cosmo]

Majority of voters refused to cast a ballot for Trump​

 

[Bullseye]

"America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate," Donald Trump declared in the early morning hours of Nov. 6, 2024, after the polls in the presidential election had closed.
Indeed, he claimed that he had won "a political victory that our country has never seen before, nothing like this."
Trump's popular-vote advantage has declined steadily since election night. As of Monday morning, Trump was at 49.96% while Harris was at 48.24%, according to the authoritative Cook Political Report's tracking of results from official sources in states across the country. And the likelihood is that the Republican's total will continue to tick downward. (in Wisconsin, Trump also fell short of a majority, gaining 49.7% to 48.8% for Harris.)

Let's put this in perspective: Trump is winning a lower percent of the popular vote this year than Biden in 2020 (51.3%), Obama in 2012 (51.1%), Obama in 2008 (52.9%), George W. Bush in 2004 (50.7%), George H.W. Bush in 1988 (53.2%), Ronald Reagan in 1984 (58.8%), Reagan in 1980 (50.7%), or Jimmy Carter in 1976 (50.1%).

And, of course, Trump's numbers are way below those of presidents who won what could reasonably be described as "unprecedented and powerful" mandates, such as Richard Nixon's 60.7% in 1972, Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% in 1964, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 60.8% in 1936. As Trump's percentage continues to slide, he'll fall below the thresholds achieved by most presidents in the past century.
Why make note of all the presidents who ran better than Trump? Why discuss the narrowness of his advantage over Harris? Why note, in addition, that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate will be among the narrowest in modern American history? Because it puts the 2024 election results in perspective — and in doing so gives members of both parties an understanding of how to respond when Trump claims that an unappealing nominee or policy should be accepted out of deference to his “powerful mandate."

Trump’s victory was not of “epic” proportions.

There was no "landslide" for the once and future president, as Fox News suggested repeatedly in post-election headlines. The election did not produce the "decisive victory" for Trump that the Associated Press referred to in the immediate aftermath of the voting. Nor did it yield the "resounding defeat" for Harris that AP reported at the same time.

https://captimes.com/opinion/john-n...cle_ed11d342-a5db-11ef-8163-4f03701721bb.html

Based on these numbers the Trump Administration should be concentrating on bipartisan issues not sweeping changes based of the fallacy that he has some sort of "mandate". Over half of voters did not want Trump. That is not a mandate under any definition.

Are you on this planet?

 

[Anthony60]

The crybaby thread is here.

 

[iguanaman]

Are you on this planet?

Can you read?

 

[iguanaman]

The Electoral College is all that matters. The candidates know this and organize their entire campaigns toward winning an E.C. majority, not a meaningless popular vote victory.

No attempt to reframe or redefine the results of the actual election is going to change the way that victory is actually sought out by the candidates and eventually accomplished by the winner. It works the way it works, and everyone participating knows it, including Kamala Harris, and including the voters.

Trump won by a long shot within the framework that is established. It was a blowout by all relevant metrics, period.

Wrong. A "mandate" is different from the winning the EC. It is a overwhelming majority of the popular vote not a minority. You can't claim any mandate with less than 50% of the vote sorry. The election was actually the closest since 2000.

 

[nvflash]

You can't claim any mandate with less than 50%

Show me 'mandate' in the Constitution?

I'll wait......

 

[iguanaman]

Show me 'mandate' in the Constitution?

I'll wait......

There is no mandate in the Constitution so it does not exist. It is a term that politicians use when they plan to do unpopular things to we the people. Like billionaires telling us we need to suffer hardships for our own good. That they need to cut "entitlements" to pay for more private jets for the oligarchs. Those are the things Trump is claiming he is "mandated" to do.

 

[nvflash]

There is no mandate in the Constitution so it does not exist. It is a term that politicians use when they plan to do unpopular things to we the people. Like billionaires telling us we need to suffer hardships for our own good. That they need to cut "entitlements" to pay for more private jets for the oligarchs.

That's right, in the legal sense it has no bearing on anything.

Trump won, full stop. Attempts to delegitimize him and his voters also mean nothing.

Trump is going to go about the will of the people who elected him, he doesn't need your silly 'mandate'.

 

[MamboDervish]

Of the 245 million eligible voters in the US this past election, Donald Trump pulled less than 77 million.

That's about 32% of the electorate.

On what planet is 32% considered a mandate?

 

[nvflash]

Of the 245 million eligible voters in the US this past election, Donald Trump pulled less than 77 million.

That's about 32% of the electorate.

On what planet is 32% considered a mandate?

People don't get out and vote, what's hard to understand about that?

So we should just ignore the will of the people who do because you say it is not a 'mandate'.

We already covered this, the word 'mandate' does not appear in the Constitution, it is a legally meaningless term. Having no 'mandate' does not limit the powers of the office of the POTUS in anyway.

Trump has every bit the authorities of his office granted him by the Constitution, Congress, and Court rulings as any and all Presidents do.

He won the election and now he must satisfy the duties of his office to the content of the people, or he will find himself limited by special elections or midterms in his Congress.

If you voted for him or not is of no matter, if those who do vote in upcoming elections are not satisfied with him or his party they can take away his majority in the Congress through elections.

That is the system as it has always been.

 

[Big Brother]

People don't get out and vote, what's hard to understand about that?

I remember when I was a freshman in high school, in 1979, and we discussed voting in a class. Someone asked the teacher why so many people don't vote and he said "Because people don't feel like their vote matters anymore. No matter who wins the system always remains the same. They may be right." That was the first time I heard the words "The Establishment." Fast forward to 1980 and I asked my very wealthy father "Dad, who are you going to vote for?" He replied "The wealthy don't vote for politicians, they buy them." I learned a lot about politics early on. Today it seems like the politics we see is just a big political shitshow to keep the public distracted from following the money and believing in democracy and that the politicians represent them. The real politics happens with Big Donors making campaign donations and Big Money lobbying politicians. Maybe my HS teacher was right.

 

[uptower]

We get it, but he won the popular vote and the electoral college so we're just going to have to suck it up.

Frankly even he was surprised.

 

[nvflash]

I remember when I was a freshman in high school, in 1979, and we discussed voting in a class. Someone asked the teacher why so many people don't vote and he said "Because people don't feel like their vote matters anymore. No matter who wins the system always remains the same. They may be right." That was the first time I heard the words "The Establishment." Fast forward to 1980 and I asked my very wealthy father "Dad, who are you going to vote for?" He replied "The wealthy don't vote for politicians, they buy them." I learned a lot about politics early on. Today it seems like the politics we see is just a big political shitshow to keep the public distracted from following the money and believing in democracy and that the politicians represent them. The real politics happens with Big Donors making campaign donations and Big Money lobbying politicians. Maybe my HS teacher was right.

Truer words have never been spoken.

It's sad, I would say that it has come to this, but this is pretty much the way it has always been. There is no liberty without economic liberty, otherwise you are just free to starve.

Government can and does violate your rights all the time, but without coin to hire a competent lawyer, you have no real way to get justice. Just ask anyone in jail about public defenders.

I always had the silver tongue in court, saved my ass many times, but those not blessed with that and left to the offices of the public defenders, we call them inmate and convict.

 

[VySky]

"America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate," Donald Trump declared in the early morning hours of Nov. 6, 2024, after the polls in the presidential election had closed.
Indeed, he claimed that he had won "a political victory that our country has never seen before, nothing like this."
Trump's popular-vote advantage has declined steadily since election night. As of Monday morning, Trump was at 49.96% while Harris was at 48.24%, according to the authoritative Cook Political Report's tracking of results from official sources in states across the country. And the likelihood is that the Republican's total will continue to tick downward. (in Wisconsin, Trump also fell short of a majority, gaining 49.7% to 48.8% for Harris.)

Let's put this in perspective: Trump is winning a lower percent of the popular vote this year than Biden in 2020 (51.3%), Obama in 2012 (51.1%), Obama in 2008 (52.9%), George W. Bush in 2004 (50.7%), George H.W. Bush in 1988 (53.2%), Ronald Reagan in 1984 (58.8%), Reagan in 1980 (50.7%), or Jimmy Carter in 1976 (50.1%).

And, of course, Trump's numbers are way below those of presidents who won what could reasonably be described as "unprecedented and powerful" mandates, such as Richard Nixon's 60.7% in 1972, Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% in 1964, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 60.8% in 1936. As Trump's percentage continues to slide, he'll fall below the thresholds achieved by most presidents in the past century.
Why make note of all the presidents who ran better than Trump? Why discuss the narrowness of his advantage over Harris? Why note, in addition, that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate will be among the narrowest in modern American history? Because it puts the 2024 election results in perspective — and in doing so gives members of both parties an understanding of how to respond when Trump claims that an unappealing nominee or policy should be accepted out of deference to his “powerful mandate."

Trump’s victory was not of “epic” proportions.

There was no "landslide" for the once and future president, as Fox News suggested repeatedly in post-election headlines. The election did not produce the "decisive victory" for Trump that the Associated Press referred to in the immediate aftermath of the voting. Nor did it yield the "resounding defeat" for Harris that AP reported at the same time.

https://captimes.com/opinion/john-n...cle_ed11d342-a5db-11ef-8163-4f03701721bb.html

Based on these numbers the Trump Administration should be concentrating on bipartisan issues not sweeping changes based of the fallacy that he has some sort of "mandate". Over half of voters did not want Trump. That is not a mandate under any definition.

Yet blacks did vote for Trump. So much so, he obtained the most black votes in 50 years.

Hispanics supported Trump in historic fashion as well. Trump received the most hispanic vote in 48 years.

Let that sink in.

 

[MamboDervish]

People don't get out and vote, what's hard to understand about that?

Nothing. Why would any fool even imply that it is?

So we should just ignore the will of the people who do because you say it is not a 'mandate'.

Where did I say this? Oh .... that's right. Nowhere! What you seem intent on ignoring is the fact that MOST of the American electorate DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP! Which means that his occupation in the Oval Office only represents the will of SOME people. In this case, less than 1/3 of the people.

We already covered this, the word 'mandate' does not appear in the Constitution, it is a legally meaningless term.

Nor have I argued otherwise. Your entire post seems intent on addressing nothing. Was that your intention?

Having no 'mandate' does not limit the powers of the office of the POTUS in anyway.

Show me where I said it does. Or are you just a bot, designed to crank out an army of straw men?

Trump has every bit the authorities of his office granted him by the Constitution, Congress, and Court rulings as any and all Presidents do.

See above -

He won the election and now he must satisfy the duties of his office to the content of the people, or he will find himself limited by special elections or midterms in his Congress.

We should be so lucky. The last time he had to "satisfy the duties of his office", the American people fired him.

If you voted for him or not is of no matter, if those who do vote in upcoming elections are not satisfied with him or his party they can take away his majority in the Congress through elections.

More stating the obvious. I guess you've nothing else to write about?

That is the system as it has always been.

Again, as if I've said anything to contest the system. I have not. I'm having a hard time figuring out why you posted these comments at all. You've managed a very long post that says absolutely nothing.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Of the 245 million eligible voters in the US this past election, Donald Trump pulled less than 77 million.

That's about 32% of the electorate.

On what planet is 32% considered a mandate?

OMG - you did - you actually said that.

Well, here's another take: of the 245 million eligible voters in the US this past election, 76.7 Million voted for Trump while 74.1 voted for Kamala.

That's 150.1 million people - of the 245 million eligibles who voted.

In other words, 94 million voters did not care about the outcome and were content with whomever the 150 million people elected.

94 million + 76.7 million = 170 million who are content with Trump's election.

That's a whopping 70% of the electorate who are content with Trump's win - twice what you're inanely trying to claim here.

 

[nvflash]

Nothing. Why would any fool even imply that it is?

Where did I say this? Oh .... that's right. Nowhere! What you seem intent on ignoring is the fact that MOST of the American electorate DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP! Which means that his occupation in the Oval Office only represents the will of SOME people. In this case, less than 1/3 of the people.

Nor have I argued otherwise. Your entire post seems intent on addressing nothing. Was that your intention?

Show me where I said it does. Or are you just a bot, designed to crank out an army of straw men?

See above -

We should be so lucky. The last time he had to "satisfy the duties of his office", the American people fired him.

More stating the obvious. I guess you've nothing else to write about?

Again, as if I've said anything to contest the system. I have not. I'm having a hard time figuring out why you posted these comments at all. You've managed a very long post that says absolutely nothing.

You completely implied Trump needed to give you your way because you say he 'doesn't have a mandate'.

He does have a mandate, the mandate from the people who elected him and gave his party control of every branch of the federal government. He made promises to get elected and those promises won the election, now he is supposed to try and make good on them.

That is his mandate.

Don't worry, half the shit he promised is unworkable, the other half he will ignore or blame someone else for not getting it done, because the only real promises he is going to keep are not going to be the ones he made in public, but the one's he made in private to win flavor with the monied class and the special interest.

Just like about every other President we have had since JFK, and you do remember what happened to JFK don't you?

That is what will happen to you if you honestly try and do what is right and go against the monied and special interests.

If you don't know it when you get elected, they will make it clear to you very quick, or you will have a very short life after you are sworn in.

 

[MamboDervish]

That's a whopping 70% of the electorate who are content with Trump's win - twice what you're inanely trying to claim here.

Uh .... no. You've drawn the wrong conclusion. There's a difference between 70% being content with Trump, and 40% not being content with either choice. If it's one thing the past 2-1/2 decades have taught us - at least those of us who were paying attention - it is that the American electorate is not content with our politics.

 

[MamboDervish]

You completely implied Trump needed to give you your way because you say he 'doesn't have a mandate'.

I implied no such thing - so since your post proceeds from yet another straw man fallacy, the rest is not even worthy of my reading it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Uh .... no. You've drawn the wrong conclusion. There's a difference between 70% being content with Trump, and 40% not being content with either choice. If it's one thing the past 2-1/2 decades have taught us - at least those of us who were paying attention - it is that the American electorate is not content with our politics.

That's just specious nonsense.

I won't argue the fact that there are many in this country who aren't content with our politics - hell, I'M not content with our politics; and I daresay there are very few people in this country who are - INCLUDING the 150 million people who took the time to vote...

...which is why they voted, and why I voted - because our VOTE is the primary tool we have to correct our politics.

One can ascribe any number of reasons why people who are eligible to vote don't - but the bottom line is that those who don't vote - for whatever reason - don't care about the outcome of that vote. Period. There's no other conclusion to be drawn. They don't care therefore they are content with whatever the outcome may be.

Sure, one might argue that some don't vote by way of protesting the political system - as I think you're trying to do here. But honestly, how practical, how genuinely constructive - to ANY END - is such a protest, such an argument?

 

[Hello My Son]

Wrong. A "mandate" is different from the winning the EC. It is a overwhelming majority of the popular vote not a minority. You can't claim any mandate with less than 50% of the vote sorry. The election was actually the closest since 2000.

"Mandate" has an established definition, and in no way does that definition state that 50% or more of a population needs to approve of something for it to be a mandate.