We had an election. There was a candidate for both major parties.

[MineralMan]

Suggesting in any way that some person who did not stand for election be named as President by the electoral college is an affront to our entire system of government.

We had an election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.5 million votes. I will accept no substitute Republican for the demon Trump.

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Agree.

After this deal today a Carrier,you are so right.

BTW,how many Carrier Jobs were lost in the Twin Cities,reason I ask is,they were one of my B to B accounts.

[MineralMan]

5. I don't know.

I have done web content work for a Carrier Dealer in the Twin Cities. I haven't discussed any of this with them, though.

[Txbluedog]

2. Are they talking about that?

[MineralMan]

3. Not they. We.

There's a thread in this very forum section that advocates that very thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512636631

I can no longer stomach replying in that thread.

[Txbluedog]

6. That's BS

The electoral college gets together to pick a President from the choices that were on the ballot in the General. They realistic choices are Trump and Clinton. And since Trump got the over 270 EV's he needs to be the winner of the Electoral College vote

[MineralMan]

8. Well, that will probably be the outcome.

A terrible outcome, but probably what will happen.

Not enough Democrats in enough states voted for Hillary Clinton. We failed to elect her in November. Perhaps we'll learn from that, but I don't know any longer.

[Txbluedog]

11. If we want to continue to call ourselves a democracy

That has to be the outcome because that is what resulted when THE PEOPLE voted

[MineralMan]

13. Well, that was the result of our partial democracy, anyhow.

We are not a democracy, actually. We are a constitutional republic. We elect our President in an unusual way that uses electors to balance out the influence of the most populous states. That system was designed when we had far fewer states and a population of about 5 million people. It is outdated and should be replaced, in my opinion, by a national popular vote, taken in a universal election system that occurs in all 50 states, using the same ballots and the same counting system.

But, that is not how we do it, nor how we did it in 2016. We did it according to the Constitution.

We simply failed to elect Hillary Clinton under that system We could have done so, but we did not, by a small margin in about three states. We failed, not Hillary. We failed to get the votes we needed in every state. The shame is on us.

[Txbluedog]

17. I agree

1) We knew the score going in and now have to accept the outcome

2) This is not about Hillary Clinton, alone. Even if we "blame" her for losing the Presidential race she had nothing to do with us not being able to take back the Senate.

Anyhow, not to beat a dead horse but we need to move on and prepare for upcoming state and municipal elections (unfortunately 2018 is not a favorable landscape for us federally)

[MineralMan]

18. If, and that's a big IF, we could turn out the same

percentages of Democrats in 2017 and 2018 for local and statewide elections as we got in 2016, we'd win going away and regain seats. However, our history as Democrats shows that we don't bother with odd-year and mid-term elections. I'd like to work on changing that.

[jake335544]

19. Why didn't people pull up their Ayn Rand bootstraps and sign onto her campaign?

"We failed to elect her in November." "We could have done so, but we did not" "the shame is on us"
The award goes to you for the most Randian interpretation of why Hillary "lost".

[pangaia]

10. god, I just looked at it !!

I don't blame you.

[mtnsnake]

14. That is lower than low that you would sneaky post a link to someone's thread just to shame them

especially when that thread is right there on the 1st page. Why not just tell them what you think about it right in their thread instead of starting another thread just for the purpose of bashing them. Pathetic.

[MineralMan]

15. I did post in that thread. Linking to other threads on

DU is a normal thing to do.

But, thanks for taking the time to reply.

[mtnsnake]

20. Normal? Really? How would you like it if someone did that to you?

[MineralMan]

21. People have linked to posts of mine many, many times.

Sometimes the links were to posts made years before. In almost all cases, the reason was to find something to attack me with.

They were my posts. They exist. I posted them. Why would I object to someone linking to them?

[Amishman]

4. No, it's just coming up occasionally in various fantasies

We need to get our heads on straight and move on to the next fight

I literally see this board going through the 5 stages of grief

The idea of substituting a slightly less awful Republican is representative of moving from denial and anger to bargaining.

The 5 stages

1 denial
2 anger
3 bargaining
4 depression
5 acceptance

[SonofaFidel]

16. :(

Im still in the denial phase. I wish I knew how long this will last. I have never felt so down in my life.

[jalan48]

7. I agree. The precedent it would set would be disastrous for Democrats as well.

[Txbluedog]

9. The precedent it would set is...

No matter who runs and who people vote for, they can pick and choose whoever they want. That is not democracy.

[MineralMan]

12. Indeed. Why even hold an election in the first place, if

electors can choose someone who did not even run? Either we have a Constitutional Republic or we do not. Either we elect those who represent us or we do not. We do not have a system where the President is chosen by a few hundred people. That is not how it was envisioned, and I wouldn't stand for it for an instant.

Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. They were the candidates. Not enough Democrats in enough states voted for Hillary Clinton. In our system, that means she lost. More's the pity. We failed to elect her. Her loss is down to us, the voters. We failed.