Does it matter that Hillary Clinton received 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump?
It does matter.The reason is that winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote is always an accident. No one ever does it because they are trying to lose the popular vote. Everyone understands that the best way to win the electoral college is to win the popular vote in the most competitive states.This is precisely what every campaign actively tries to do. It’s not as though Democrats are actively trying to increase their popular vote margins in California. The vast majority of the time, the EC will reflect what most people in the country want. But every once in a while, for reasons that essentially amount to a fluke, this doesn’t happen.When this occurs, partisans of the winning side succeed in convincing themselves that it was due to a brilliant plan their favored candidate had. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. The theory is that the winning campaign must have invested more money into increasing turnout in non-competitive states. But campaigns have little control over turnout.Let’s look at the states that had the highest turnout in 2016. If the above theory is true, you would expect to have the highest turnout in the most competitive states, since this is supposedly where the campaigns are trying their hardest to increase turnout. You’d expect places like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to top the charts. Instead, the pattern is a lot more complicated:[1]Minnesota tops the chart, followed by New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, and Virginia.It seems to me that what is happening is that states with a strong voting culture have higher turnouts than states where this isn’t the case.The turnout in Minnesota is a full 10 percent higher than that in Florida. Is it because the campaigns were trying to make that happen? Of course not.Trump didn’t lose the popular vote because he thought it didn’t matter. He lost because most people didn’t want him to be president. He became president through a quirk of the system, a quirk everyone was aware of. But not even the Trump Campaign believed he was going to win, let alone win while losing the popular vote.Footnotes[1] Voter turnout in United States elections - Ballotpedia
Who in 2020, do you think can beat Donald Trump in a landslide?
American politics is in a new era now. The polarization is worse than in the Nixon era, and seems more poisonous than at anytime since the 1930s.Nobody is going to beat Trump in a landslide. The Republicans have sold their souls to Trump, and the Republicans will carry most of the red states.The election is probably going to be decided in my state of Florida, which has just—by a very very small margin—elected a very conservative Republican governor. An unknown here is that the recent election passed a Constitutional amendment allowing ex-felons to vote if they have served their full terms, in theory 1.2 million new voters who are likely to be Democrat votes by a large margin. The new governor says we can’t put the Amendment into effect for a couple of months because the legislature has to pass legislation to make it effective. How many of those folks do you think are going to be allowed to vote?Republicans still control more state legislatures than Democrats. They will do what they can to restrict the votes of students, younger people and people of color.We also don’t know if Trump will want to, or even be able to run. Look at pictures of the man: he’s aging rapidly, way overweight, has a nasty temper and is feeling persecuted. I wouldn’t bet on him finishing out the next two years.That would make Mike Pence the probable candidate. Call him Trump lite. He���d have to be the favorite in 2020 (and then if he won, in 2024).Democrats do have a chance in 2020. That is, if they retire the old war horses like Clinton and Joe Biden. I think the Democrats will win the Senate. But the presidency, that’s volatile politically.
What is the biggest problem facing our country today?
I think a lot of problems stem from one often overlooked source. I think we are facing a huge threat from families falling apart and the inability of parents to teach basic and fundamental rules to their children. The way I see children run their parents rather than the opposite scares me. All living creatures must learn the laws of consequence. This basic understanding helps people to make proper and good choices. We are also failing to teach children to not only make choices that are positive for them but also to never make chioces that injure others. Lack of Empathy for others is the major cause of the political caucophny that exists today. Politicians are not conserned with greater good. They only consider their personal gain. I don't think that any problems could not be avoided if we were raising children that have moral integrity. I have a child on the way and no matter how hard it is I will raise a respectable and proper person. Proper persons don't steal, kill, or disrespect. If we were all this way what problems would we ever have?