AIBU to wonder where Hillary is?

[Wookiecookies]

Ok, sorry in advance for posting yet another election thread in AIBU so please hide post if necessary but, after everything thats happened is anyone else really surprised that she didnt at least thank her supporters at the rally? There's been nothing from her at all!

Its just bizarre.

Each state has a number of electoral college votes linked to population - 55 for California, say.

The candidate with 270 or more electoral college votes wins.

Clinton received c200,000 more votes than Trump but did not win a majority in enough states.

Hillary has been hiking in the woods to clear her head today - don't blame her!

Maybe she was off to lead her people, Oleanna!

reductress.com/post/women-retreat-to-the-hills-to-establish-actual-pantsuit-nation/

Well according to South Park, she's hiding under bridges talking to trolls from the Internet

He said he wouldn't accept the decision if he lost.

The Democrats I know are throwing their dummies out the pram and demanding that the electoral college results be ignored. So basically, they are doing the same thing they criticised Trump for saying.

They might be but Hillary isn't

"Hillary has been hiking in the woods to clear her head today - don't blame her!"

there is a good chance this 'hiking in the woods' was stage-managed.

i.sli.mg/FhDQfK.png

Nothing Hillary does is genuine. That's why she lost.

Don't see the point you are making with those screen shots, rosehip.

Woman meets Hillary at high school; woman again meets Hillary ten (or more) years later walking locally. And....?

(Though when I rule it it will be renamed Trouser Nation)

I'm just saying that Hillary has a history of stage-managing shit that doesn't need to be stage-managed.

If you go down to the woods today...

GinAndTunic: "The Democrats I know are throwing their dummies out the pram and demanding that the electoral college results be ignored."

The historical reason for having an electoral college, rather than the much more logical and sensible approach of simply counting up all the votes, is to stop a demagogue from taking power. The idea is that if the American people foolishly vote for someone dangerously unsuitable, the electoral college can pick someone else.

So if ever there was a time that the electoral college should justify its existence, this is it.

I dislike trump intensely but disagree with you, hackmum.

There would be zero legitimacy to any alternate pick

Which bit do you disagree with me about? Do you think that the electoral college should never intervene in the outcome of an election? Or do you think it should intervene in the case of a dangerously unsuitable candidate, but that Trump isn't that candidate?

The time for intervention was when the GOP was selecting its presidential candidate (and there were talks about black balling Trump, but ultimately I guess they worried he would run as an independent and still win)

Hack

I think it would have to be if the candidate was medically unfit to serve, had been jailed or similar

The historical reason for having an electoral college, rather than the much more logical and sensible approach of simply counting up all the votes, is to stop a demagogue from taking power.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

On the origins of the electoral college: "[The electoral college] sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation."

[http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college]

The UK doesn't do a straight count of votes either, except for referenda.

Otherwise UKIP would have a fair number of parliamentary representatives.

Exactly Yonic. So would the Greens. SNP would have a lot less.

I meant fair as in reasonable number if, not as in the opposite of unfair!