DarkFury
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #1
Really seems to be what the liberal democrats suffer more from then any thing else. So lets take an example by one of the worlds most ignorant people.
This ignorant statement has been parroted by many liberal democrats here as well.
“Well, first of all, I have 2 million more votes than Donald Trump. And I think voters, as opposed to, you know, the kind of back and forth in the public arena, when voters show up to vote, they take that vote seriously,” Clinton said."
I'm not even going to bother naming the names of this sites most ignorant parrots as we members know them well. Lets just go to the fact it means horse sh#t and more important has meant DEFEAT for those saying it. So a quick reminder for liberal democrats is in order....
"But the Smart Politics report found that, since 1976, the candidate who won more votes in the primary lost the popular vote in the general election six out of 10 times.
Here are some examples:
Even in the case of incumbents, leading in the primary is not always a good idea.
"Smart Politics also notes that there were three races where incumbent presidents won the general (1984, 2004 and 2012) after receiving fewer votes in the primary when they ran uncontested for their party's nomination. However, this isn’t surprising given that voter turnout tends to be lower when you know your candidate is coasting unopposed."
So historically speaking those two million votes Hillary and her parrots are bragging about? May not be such a good idea unless of course you are an IDIOT.
Study: Clinton's primary vote lead may not reveal much about November
Fury
This ignorant statement has been parroted by many liberal democrats here as well.
“Well, first of all, I have 2 million more votes than Donald Trump. And I think voters, as opposed to, you know, the kind of back and forth in the public arena, when voters show up to vote, they take that vote seriously,” Clinton said."
I'm not even going to bother naming the names of this sites most ignorant parrots as we members know them well. Lets just go to the fact it means horse sh#t and more important has meant DEFEAT for those saying it. So a quick reminder for liberal democrats is in order....
"But the Smart Politics report found that, since 1976, the candidate who won more votes in the primary lost the popular vote in the general election six out of 10 times.
Here are some examples:
- 1980: President Jimmy Carter got 1.8 million more votes than Ronald Reagan in their primaries, but Reagan beat him in the general.
- 1988: Democrat Michael Dukakis received almost 1.6 million more votes than Republican nominee George H.W. Bush, but lost in the fall.
- 2000: George W. Bush got 217,000 more votes than Al Gore in their primaries. Gore went on to beat him in the popular vote, though Bush ultimately won the Electoral College vote and the White House."
Even in the case of incumbents, leading in the primary is not always a good idea.
"Smart Politics also notes that there were three races where incumbent presidents won the general (1984, 2004 and 2012) after receiving fewer votes in the primary when they ran uncontested for their party's nomination. However, this isn’t surprising given that voter turnout tends to be lower when you know your candidate is coasting unopposed."
So historically speaking those two million votes Hillary and her parrots are bragging about? May not be such a good idea unless of course you are an IDIOT.
Study: Clinton's primary vote lead may not reveal much about November
Fury