Based on his last term, I think it's safe to assume he will be playing a lot of golf. But what reasons are there to believe that competence will be a deciding factor in who he surrounds himself with and who sticks around? It wasn't last time. Also, painting it as an overwhelming landslide is a bit spurious. He still failed to win the majority of the popular vote (he's at 49.8% and ticking down). Does voting really work when the literal majority of voters are getting someone they don't want? It's interesting to contemplate if he would have won in a ranked choice system.
> what reasons are there to believe that competence will be a deciding factor in who he surrounds himself with and who sticks around? It wasn't last time
I'm basing it upon the people he's appointed so far. The ones I'm aware of, including the ones I mentioned in the article, are highly competent. I haven't done a lot of homework on his more recent appointments, I'm actually curious how well he's doing there.
With respect to this time vs. last time, I think the difference is that this time a LOT more competent, experienced people are willing to vocally and actively support Trump vs. last time.
> He still failed to win the majority of the popular vote
The latest figures I see as of today are:
> Trump: 77,237,942 votes (49.9%)
> Harris: 74,946,837 votes (48.4%)
I think that counts as "winning the popular vote" and I'd even argue that it probably counts as a "landslide" given the advantage the Democrats have in terms of population (vs. the Republicans' relative advantage in electoral votes).
> Does voting really work when the literal majority of voters are getting someone they don't want?
The electoral system is working as designed. I'm not saying it's flawless, but it was intentionally designed that way for a reason and I think it's probably better than a direct vote -- and note that I'm saying this as a resident of a non-swing state whose vote doesn't really matter.
Based on his last term, I think it's safe to assume he will be playing a lot of golf. But what reasons are there to believe that competence will be a deciding factor in who he surrounds himself with and who sticks around? It wasn't last time. Also, painting it as an overwhelming landslide is a bit spurious. He still failed to win the majority of the popular vote (he's at 49.8% and ticking down). Does voting really work when the literal majority of voters are getting someone they don't want? It's interesting to contemplate if he would have won in a ranked choice system.
> what reasons are there to believe that competence will be a deciding factor in who he surrounds himself with and who sticks around? It wasn't last time
I'm basing it upon the people he's appointed so far. The ones I'm aware of, including the ones I mentioned in the article, are highly competent. I haven't done a lot of homework on his more recent appointments, I'm actually curious how well he's doing there.
With respect to this time vs. last time, I think the difference is that this time a LOT more competent, experienced people are willing to vocally and actively support Trump vs. last time.
> He still failed to win the majority of the popular vote
The latest figures I see as of today are:
> Trump: 77,237,942 votes (49.9%)
> Harris: 74,946,837 votes (48.4%)
I think that counts as "winning the popular vote" and I'd even argue that it probably counts as a "landslide" given the advantage the Democrats have in terms of population (vs. the Republicans' relative advantage in electoral votes).
> Does voting really work when the literal majority of voters are getting someone they don't want?
The electoral system is working as designed. I'm not saying it's flawless, but it was intentionally designed that way for a reason and I think it's probably better than a direct vote -- and note that I'm saying this as a resident of a non-swing state whose vote doesn't really matter.
I think I could have written this exact piece word for word. Funny how closely our views track