Its almost over!

[mjr]

By stating he wants to abrogate the deal, he's already put himself in a bad negotiation position. Why should Mexico or Canada work with him if he feels he can arbitrarily abandon deals without talking to signatory members first?

That's not necessarily a bad negotiating position.

Remember the key part of negotiations: the Starting Point. In this case, it may be an extreme starting point. I'd guess most of the time negotiation is about starting points. By saying "I'm going to tear up NAFTA", that could be a starting point for a negotiation.

Canada and Mexico could say, "There are X, Y, and Z repercussions to that, so we should re-negotiate it."

Not saying that's going to happen, but it could.

[Kheldarson]

That's not necessarily a bad negotiating position.

Remember the key part of negotiations: the Starting Point. In this case, it may be an extreme starting point. I'd guess most of the time negotiation is about starting points. By saying "I'm going to tear up NAFTA", that could be a starting point for a negotiation.

Canada and Mexico could say, "There are X, Y, and Z repercussions to that, so we should re-negotiate it."

Not saying that's going to happen, but it could.

Or it could mean they're already in conversation between each other or other partners and can cut us out because he's also broadcasted a reluctance to really deal.

[mjr]

Or it could mean they're already in conversation between each other or other partners and can cut us out because he's also broadcasted a reluctance to really deal.

It could be. At this point, though, we just don't know.

[Kheldarson]

It could be. At this point, though, we just don't know.

True. But my larger point was that his inexperience and general attitude are more of a detractor on the larger field.

It's possible he can overcome his deficit, but it doesn't take away that it already exists.

[mjr]

True. But my larger point was that his inexperience and general attitude are more of a detractor on the larger field.

It's possible he can overcome his deficit, but it doesn't take away that it already exists.

Most Presidents are inexperienced, to a point, when they're elected President. It's not like working in Congress or the Senate.

[Kheldarson]

Most Presidents are inexperienced, to a point, when they're elected President. It's not like working in Congress or the Senate.

They have experience talking with other statesmen, including those abroad, experience reading treaties and agreements for their approval, and a number do come from or end up in diplomatic roles.

Not to mention most of them are lawyers. Or have had years of political experience (including executive) at lower levels.

[mjr]

...and Trudeau says he's willing to renegotiate NAFTA.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-pm...165713892.html

[Valinor]

I've switched to watching Trevor Noah.

I think that I am going to be watching a lot of Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee, and Seth Meyers for a while. If I have to listen to horrible news, I might as well get it from somebody who's going to make me laugh while I'm doing it.

So now that the election is over, when are all the "celebrities" going to move to Canada who said they're absolutely for sure I mean it for real going to move?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't people say this about every Presidential candidate? Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush ... Not to mention Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum .. Has there ever been a Presidential candidate who somebody didn't say, "If Candidate X becomes President, I'm moving to Canada" ... ?

Why would anybody ever view this as anything more than hyperbole? The only time I ever heard anybody say something like this and really mean it was when a neighbor told me, "If Sarah Palin ever becomes President, I'm moving back to Toronto."

No, he wasn't kidding. He had family there, and he was financially well enough off that he could afford to do it.

Basically, they were arguing about whose fault it is. Oh, good. I'm sure that's going to be productive.

It would be productive if they actually listened to each other. I think we all know about how likely that is to happen.

From the DNC to Hillary Clinton to the third party candidates to the mismanaged "Stop Trump" movement to the Republican Party bosses who failed to stand up to Trump to James Comey to the media to the voters ... I think that just about everybody was, in some way, at fault for this.

Bush liked becoming President.

Apart from everything else you said, I think that George W. Bush ran for President for all the wrong reasons, including the worst one of all - Revenge.

Bush wanted to avenge his father's 1992 defeat at the hands of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, by running against and defeating Gore for the Presidency.

Not that it matters - it doesn't - but it appears that Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote, albeit by a razor-thin margin of about 200,000 votes.

Actually, it does matter ... kind of.

The fact that Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton means that Trump has no "mandate" to be President. Now, the importance of mandates is overrated, but winning an election with a strong majority of the popular vote does give you a certain amount of political capital to spend.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won a decisive victory in the electoral vote. And while Clinton did win the popular vote, the fact that he only got a 43% plurality (George H.W. Bush got 38% and Ross Perot 19%) gave Republicans some ground to work the public forum against him.

Bob Dole, the Republican leader in the Senate, stated that he and the Republican Party would represent the 57% who didn't vote for Clinton. This, despite the fact that there was no real proof that Perot's supporters liked the Republicans any more than they liked the Democrats. For example, Thomas Golisano, who ran for Governor of New York (as an Independent) two years later, actually said that he held all politicians in so much contempt that he never even bothered to vote until Ross Perot came along.

If you become President without winning a majority of the popular vote, it does make your job a little bit harder, because you don't have the political leverage that a "mandate" can provide. It's not as big a deal as people often make it out to be, but it does exist.

This becomes more significant when the President-elect has actually lost the popular vote to his opponent. In 2000, George W. Bush's failure to best Al Gore in the popular vote made Bush something of a laughingstock.

Yes, I know, Bush was a laughingstock anyway, but this definitely didn't help.

Some pundits are saying that Donald Trump will have tremendous power as President because his party controls both houses of Congress and will also be able to secure a majority of the Supreme Court. The thing is, this will only be true as long as the Republicans can hold together, and Donald Trump has accumulated an unusually long list of enemies in his own party.

So anything that makes Donald Trump's job more difficult might be significant. I don't expect his loss to Hillary Clinton in the popular vote to make a huge impact, but it might make his work just that much harder.

[Valinor]

Well, for whatever this is worth ...

It looks like Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has increased to around 600,000 votes, and they're still counting.

None of this is going to change the outcome of the election, because the provisional and absentee ballots they're counting are mostly from states that Clinton won anyway (California, New York, Washington). However, Democrats might be able to use this news to gain some political leverage. In the public forum ... Hard to say if it would do any real good. Sigh.

I would just like to put this out there, though :

Back in 2012, Donald Trump tweeted several messages about Barack Obama being re-elected after supposedly winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote to Mitt Romney.

(Actually, Obama won both the electoral vote and the popular vote.)



...

[XCashier]

Wow, Trump actually said something that I agree with? (looks out the window to see if any Horsemen are approaching)

[Tanasi]

My brother was complaining about the electoral college a few weeks ago, I told him some times it works for you and sometimes it didn't, remember that in 2000 if it hadn't been for the electoral college we would have got Algore instead. Then Wednesday he was all for the EC.
For me I'm glad this whole mess is over with and maybe folks can calm down some.

[mjr]

I'm not saying the electoral college is a "perfect" system, but you guys do realize what it's for, and what it's supposed to do, right?

I'll give you a hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

I do have a feeling that for some people, this is the first time they've ever heard of the Electoral College.

[Kheldarson]

I do have a feeling that for some people, this is the first time they've ever heard of the Electoral College.

No, they've heard of it. And in four years, they'll have forgotten that they've heard of it.

[Greenday]

For me I'm glad this whole mess is over with and maybe folks can calm down some.

As long as Trump supporters continue to attack blacks/Muslims/etc., we won't stop.

Until Trump denounces those attacks, we won't stop.

Human rights or bust.

[mjr]

No, they've heard of it. And in four years, they'll have forgotten that they've heard of it.

Hearing of it is different than realizing what it's for and what it's supposed to do.