He’s never achieved a majority vote in any election, FWIW. His claim of a mandate was just as brazen as all the other litany of lies - he’s a lame duck lame duck. The true shame is on the congressional republicans for letting him sully them so deeply and follow him in his self immolation of the entire government and America in the world. The rebuilding will be a major test of the successor, and it’ll be fascinating to see if the Goldwater republicans can become the party of reason again rather than this reality TV idiocracy.
It’s not. It’s because he took inflation to the Moon. If he hadn’t had Hegseth at his side, and hadn’t gone into Iran, he’d probably still be treading water.
And won via a plurality after losing the popular vote in the last election. The least popular president in history can’t win a majority of popular vote. It’s not shocking he’s deeply unpopular, he never was popular. He’s a won twice on a technicality of the republic created to ensure the rural states wouldn’t be dominated by Virginia in the original establishment of the union.
He’s a pariah everywhere on earth, most especially at home. The sad part is the democrats couldn’t mount a successful campaign against someone so unfit to lead. Now there’s nothing left to do but clean up the mess and undo the terrible harm he has caused and repair what can be once he’s finally out of our hair.
"We did vote". Except that an extraordinary number of people that could vote, didn't. So when somebody says "vote, people", they're obviously talking to those people that chose not to vote.
I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast. If there is no clear winner the seat is vacant, but a new election is scheduled for two weeks later. Districts and states that don’t care to vote simply don’t get a say.
> I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast.
This would think out the representation significantly, and applied to presidential voting would be rather dificult. The highest share of eligible voters in US history to support a US President is 42.6% for Ulysees S. Grant (Harrison and McKinley both close behind with +40%). Not one President has ever broken the 50% of eligble voters mark, and even those presidents that won in relative landslides in the EC (Washington, Monroe, Roosevelt, Reagan, Nixon) all had shares of the eligible votes that were in the 30%’s.
It still blows my mind he won the popular vote.
This timeline is fucking _wild_.
The most popular candidate was "I didn't vote"
DNC did a great job endorsing that candidate.
3 replies →
That's definitely why Trump is -27 net approval.
That's just buyers remorse. He told us how he intended to govern. His opponent told us how he intended to govern. The voters were not mislead.
(and his approval would be the same mid 40s it always was if gas prices were reasonable)
He’s never achieved a majority vote in any election, FWIW. His claim of a mandate was just as brazen as all the other litany of lies - he’s a lame duck lame duck. The true shame is on the congressional republicans for letting him sully them so deeply and follow him in his self immolation of the entire government and America in the world. The rebuilding will be a major test of the successor, and it’ll be fascinating to see if the Goldwater republicans can become the party of reason again rather than this reality TV idiocracy.
6 replies →
Americans aren't angry because Trump was wrong, they're angry because it's not working.
After denying project 2025 and then carrying it out almost exactly? They were misled.b
6 replies →
It’s not. It’s because he took inflation to the Moon. If he hadn’t had Hegseth at his side, and hadn’t gone into Iran, he’d probably still be treading water.
Covid spending took inflation to the moon. Just as economic theory predicts.
2 replies →
Inflation under Trump is half that of when Biden was in. https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/article/inflation-u...
12 replies →
And won via a plurality after losing the popular vote in the last election. The least popular president in history can’t win a majority of popular vote. It’s not shocking he’s deeply unpopular, he never was popular. He’s a won twice on a technicality of the republic created to ensure the rural states wouldn’t be dominated by Virginia in the original establishment of the union.
He’s a pariah everywhere on earth, most especially at home. The sad part is the democrats couldn’t mount a successful campaign against someone so unfit to lead. Now there’s nothing left to do but clean up the mess and undo the terrible harm he has caused and repair what can be once he’s finally out of our hair.
[dead]
Eligible voter turnout in 2024 was <50% for 18-24 year olds, and <65% for 25-44 year olds in the US.
Unless 100% of people vote it doesnt count as voting?
People who don't vote don't oppose the winner.
No?
"We did vote". Except that an extraordinary number of people that could vote, didn't. So when somebody says "vote, people", they're obviously talking to those people that chose not to vote.
Any idea is worth entertaining, to avoid the realization the purity spiraling ideology is just as reviled by 90 % of the people as is racism.
I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast. If there is no clear winner the seat is vacant, but a new election is scheduled for two weeks later. Districts and states that don’t care to vote simply don’t get a say.
> I think my idea for this is that a candidate doesn’t win the election unless they get more than 50% of all eligible votes, not 50% of the votes cast.
This would think out the representation significantly, and applied to presidential voting would be rather dificult. The highest share of eligible voters in US history to support a US President is 42.6% for Ulysees S. Grant (Harrison and McKinley both close behind with +40%). Not one President has ever broken the 50% of eligble voters mark, and even those presidents that won in relative landslides in the EC (Washington, Monroe, Roosevelt, Reagan, Nixon) all had shares of the eligible votes that were in the 30%’s.
2 replies →
What if people keep not voting? Surely you'd also have to compel voting to make this work.
And what if there are, say, ten candidates?
2 replies →
Because people in safe demographics (non minority, no care about reproductive rights) love to broadcast 'both sides are the same'.
[flagged]
11 replies →
The New England Patriots lost the 2026 Superbowl, and that list of losers includes all the second and third stringers who didn't play.