Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.If electing a president were simply 50 state elections, the 50 states picking, then what is the purpose of the electors and the electoral college vote?? Each State would just get one vote....
but that is NOT how it works and NOT how the founders created it.
Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?
But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.
What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?
That seems reasonable. And what if no candidate gets both?
Do I believe that political ads on facebook and elsewhere are effective? Yes. Why? Because political campaigns spend millions doing just that. Bloomberg is evidence that campaign ads can and do work.
If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
First of all, he's not my blob. I despise Trump. Second, it doesn't bother me. I'm just pointing out that your claim doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yet here you are arguing about something you claim is meaningless 3 plus years after the fact.
LOL - I'm not arguing about. I'm just pointing out that your supposed "fact" isn't all that.
yea, you said you wanted it for your salad later.and by funny, you mean huge pain in the ever-fucking-ass.The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.
But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.
What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?
It's funny how you people want to change the rules everytime you don't get your way.
That would probably be a cucumber you left there
i don't believe them any more than i do when they say WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS when you know they are. why would this be any different?I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,
YOU WIN STATES.
You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.
So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.
I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?
In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?
I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.
And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.
Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?
Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.
Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.
The 50 US States Ranked By Population
In case anyone wants to check my math.
Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!
Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.
All that math and for what? Clinton still received more votes. Nobody is confused about how the electoral college works or doesn't work. It still doesn't change the fact that as a sitting president more people voted against him than any other in history and just so happened also lost the popular vote by a higher margin than any of the other fluke presidencies that managed to lose the popular vote.
Trump argues this by lying about voter fraud. Because he's a putz but I guess you all have to find your own coping mechanisms.
You say Trump is lying. . . if he is "lying," why won't California PROVE that there is no voter fraud? Why did they just not offer up the forensic proof when asked?
You know, it is hard for a lot of Americans to take this state seriously when they passed a State wide law to become a Sanctuary State, IOW, nullifying and disregarding the authority of ICE. Likewise, the following cities and towns are known as "Sanctuary" in that state;
California
Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Oakland
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County
Watsonville
Most conservatives and moderates do not believe them when they say they kept illegals from voting in presidential elections, when they refuse the Federal Government the ability to audit their voter roles. So. . . with that in mind, yeah, you can tell the other states which way your electoral votes go, but to us? Unless you let us SEE your paper trail on the popular vote?
Nahhh. . . it means absolutely nothing to us.
Once again it does not matter if ever single person in California and New York vote for the same person the popular vote has NEVER elected the President. In fact in the early years most states Legislature picked the Electoral college not even the people.If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
First of all, he's not my blob. I despise Trump. Second, it doesn't bother me. I'm just pointing out that your claim doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yet here you are arguing about something you claim is meaningless 3 plus years after the fact.
LOL - I'm not arguing about. I'm just pointing out that your supposed "fact" isn't all that.
That HRC got more votes than the blob? Yup—it’s a fact
I hadn't thought of that, but you are seriously right on that.The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?
But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.
What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?
That seems reasonable. And what if no candidate gets both?
The same thing that happens today if neither candidate gets 270. The House and Senate get involved.
People don’t realize how precarious the EC by itself is given our increasingly divided nation. A viable 3rd party could really set us on a path to where Congressional involvement in our elections may be the new norm.
Yeahbut, they were all within a few counties.
She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.
Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!
I personally like and endorse the EC over the popular vote.
That doesn’t change the fact that HRC got more votes than the Cheeto
It also doesn't change that fact that that is a meaningless claim. It's like a losing football team saying "Well, we gained yards than the other team" - suggesting that, if the game had been scored on yardage rather than points, they would have one. But it's an empty claim. If the game had been scored on yardage, the other team would have played differently. They would have focused on gaining yards, rather than scoring points. It's very possible they'd have still won.
Sorry about the sports analogy - but hopefully you get the point.
If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
Me thinks that your bothered because it somehow—in your mind—delegitimizes the blob’s Presidency. Grow up
You're right, it's meaningless that she got couple of million votes more. We simply don't care, since she's not president, but it obviously means a lot to you that "she won" something.
By the way, she had more votes than Barry in 2008 Dem primaries, and I don't see you complaining how "she won" back then. Hypocrite.
Democratic Party Primary rules are dumb.
Hillary getting more votes than your blob just triggers you snowflakes so it’s fun to point it out on these threads you consider meaningless.
. . . and yet, you can't prove that so called "fact," can you?If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
First of all, he's not my blob. I despise Trump. Second, it doesn't bother me. I'm just pointing out that your claim doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yet here you are arguing about something you claim is meaningless 3 plus years after the fact.
LOL - I'm not arguing about. I'm just pointing out that your supposed "fact" isn't all that.
That HRC got more votes than the blob? Yup—it’s a fact
Someone on here, I forget who it was, put together the 2016 data by individual precinct and when you break it down Trump absolutely crushed her. She only really handily won like 4 states or something like that, and there are only a few others that she even won at all. The rest of the precinct data shows trump literally destroyed her. It’s simply that they’ve packed the big cities in with so many people that it skews the popular vote total in favor of the democrat candidate. Anyone with a normal brain realizes that an entire nation’s presidential election shouldn’t be decided by only a few big cities. The left will never understand it though because they don’t understand how to lose gracefully, they instead get angry and emotional about it like the immature children that they are.I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,
YOU WIN STATES.
You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.
So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.
I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?
In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?
I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.
And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.
Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?
Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.
Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.
The 50 US States Ranked By Population
In case anyone wants to check my math.
Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!
Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.
If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
First of all, he's not my blob. I despise Trump. Second, it doesn't bother me. I'm just pointing out that your claim doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yet here you are arguing about something you claim is meaningless 3 plus years after the fact.
LOL - I'm not arguing about. I'm just pointing out that your supposed "fact" isn't all that.
That HRC got more votes than the blob? Yup—it’s a fact
The compact could end it. And what used to be anomaly in history has now occurred twice in 5 cycles, so imo it needs to go.Won't happen, either way. The EC is here to stay.Maybe that's the way it should work. After all, if the left can complain about changing the EC, why not us complain about a single state vote count?
But the question should be … can Trump win a simple maj this time? The econ is about as good as it can get, peace is pretty much at hand …. it should be a gop blowout.
What would you think about a rule where the President Elect must get the plurality of the PV as well as 270 EVs?
That seems reasonable. And what if no candidate gets both?
The same thing that happens today if neither candidate gets 270. The House and Senate get involved.
People don’t realize how precarious the EC by itself is given our increasingly divided nation. A viable 3rd party could really set us on a path to where Congressional involvement in our elections may be the new norm.
i don't believe them any more than i do when they say WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS when you know they are. why would this be any different?I am sick of hearing that Hillary won the "popular vote" when that doesn't even count for anything! What counts is the popular vote AT THE STATE LEVEL, after that, it becomes 50 STATE elections. You don't win a country,
YOU WIN STATES.
You'd think democrats and Hillary would KNOW that considering that she was both First Lady, New York Senator and Secretary of STATE.
So I went back and wanted to look at the data a bit different way.
I'm also sick of hearing how pathetic the red states are. So I wanted to know, just what WAS each candidate really up against in 2016 and what did they really win?
In 2016, Hillary won TWENTY states, Trump won THIRTY. To win a state, you have to go up against all voters in a given state; the more people, the more likely voters so, the harder it is to win. And by winning a state, you also win and carry the voice of that state and the people that go in it. So what exactly did the 2016 candidates win?
I looked up the latest tallies of state population, and in the 20 states that Hillary won, her states total population (THE BLUE STATES) was: 2016 BLUE STATE POPULATION = 140,743,676.
And the thirty states that Trump won? 2016 RED STATE POPULATION = 163,435,276.
Yes. Trump's states have 22,691,600 more people in them. A not so small fact I've never seen mentioned before. What is the significance of this?
Trump won 30 states with nearly 23 million more people in them compared to Hillary's 20 states. Not only does that mean you had to carry sway with more people in more states (and by implication, means Trump represented a far greater diversity of the nation!), it means that there are many millions of people who either didn't vote last time or voted against Trump in states he won before who could decide to come out and vote this time or switch their vote to Trump after the recent fiasco of years of Democrats making false claims and accusations all proven wrong and spending tens of millions of dollars of hard earned taxpayer money on silly Russia investigations and a baseless, desperate, petulant, childish impeachment that was nothing more than an abuse of House power resulting in a near Constitutional crisis.
Democrats have stirred up an angry hornets nest, meantime, with the likes of who they have to represent them this time, Democrats may find many of themselves demoralized bowing to the futility.
The 50 US States Ranked By Population
In case anyone wants to check my math.
Trump has 30 states and a potential of up to TWENTY MILLION additional voters this time around, his supporters are pissed, and that is if he doesn't even win any additional states!
Democrats CAN'T feel good about that.
All that math and for what? Clinton still received more votes. Nobody is confused about how the electoral college works or doesn't work. It still doesn't change the fact that as a sitting president more people voted against him than any other in history and just so happened also lost the popular vote by a higher margin than any of the other fluke presidencies that managed to lose the popular vote.
Trump argues this by lying about voter fraud. Because he's a putz but I guess you all have to find your own coping mechanisms.
You say Trump is lying. . . if he is "lying," why won't California PROVE that there is no voter fraud? Why did they just not offer up the forensic proof when asked?
You know, it is hard for a lot of Americans to take this state seriously when they passed a State wide law to become a Sanctuary State, IOW, nullifying and disregarding the authority of ICE. Likewise, the following cities and towns are known as "Sanctuary" in that state;
California
Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Oakland
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County
Watsonville
Most conservatives and moderates do not believe them when they say they kept illegals from voting in presidential elections, when they refuse the Federal Government the ability to audit their voter roles. So. . . with that in mind, yeah, you can tell the other states which way your electoral votes go, but to us? Unless you let us SEE your paper trail on the popular vote?
Nahhh. . . it means absolutely nothing to us.
They fool themselves into thinking "infinite growth" is possible under a "sustainable development" model. It is an illusion that only makes sense on paper.
Which is exactly what you snowflakes do; go nuts anytime anyone reminds you that HRC got more votes than your blob. See this thread for proof.I personally like and endorse the EC over the popular vote.
That doesn’t change the fact that HRC got more votes than the Cheeto
It also doesn't change that fact that that is a meaningless claim. It's like a losing football team saying "Well, we gained yards than the other team" - suggesting that, if the game had been scored on yardage rather than points, they would have one. But it's an empty claim. If the game had been scored on yardage, the other team would have played differently. They would have focused on gaining yards, rather than scoring points. It's very possible they'd have still won.
Sorry about the sports analogy - but hopefully you get the point.
If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
Me thinks that your bothered because it somehow—in your mind—delegitimizes the blob’s Presidency. Grow up
You're right, it's meaningless that she got couple of million votes more. We simply don't care, since she's not president, but it obviously means a lot to you that "she won" something.
By the way, she had more votes than Barry in 2008 Dem primaries, and I don't see you complaining how "she won" back then. Hypocrite.
Democratic Party Primary rules are dumb.
Hillary getting more votes than your blob just triggers you snowflakes so it’s fun to point it out on these threads you consider meaningless.
You people on the left need to learn the definition of "triggered." Discussing your stance on something is not being triggered. It's freaking out over something.
We have nothing to be freaked out over. We won. The system can never change without a constitutional amendment. It's going to be this way until you die, your children die, and your grandchildren die. It's never going to change.
We're actually "triggered" by the idiots that vote Democrat and don't even understand how the country actually functionsYeahbut, they were all within a few counties.
She could have had a BILLION more votes in California but once you win a state, you WON it.
Presidential elections are 50 STATE elections!
I personally like and endorse the EC over the popular vote.
That doesn’t change the fact that HRC got more votes than the Cheeto
It also doesn't change that fact that that is a meaningless claim. It's like a losing football team saying "Well, we gained yards than the other team" - suggesting that, if the game had been scored on yardage rather than points, they would have one. But it's an empty claim. If the game had been scored on yardage, the other team would have played differently. They would have focused on gaining yards, rather than scoring points. It's very possible they'd have still won.
Sorry about the sports analogy - but hopefully you get the point.
If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
Me thinks that your bothered because it somehow—in your mind—delegitimizes the blob’s Presidency. Grow up
You're right, it's meaningless that she got couple of million votes more. We simply don't care, since she's not president, but it obviously means a lot to you that "she won" something.
By the way, she had more votes than Barry in 2008 Dem primaries, and I don't see you complaining how "she won" back then. Hypocrite.
Democratic Party Primary rules are dumb.
Hillary getting more votes than your blob just triggers you snowflakes so it’s fun to point it out on these threads you consider meaningless.
Which is exactly what you snowflakes do; go nuts anytime anyone reminds you that HRC got more votes than your blob. See this thread for proof.It also doesn't change that fact that that is a meaningless claim. It's like a losing football team saying "Well, we gained yards than the other team" - suggesting that, if the game had been scored on yardage rather than points, they would have one. But it's an empty claim. If the game had been scored on yardage, the other team would have played differently. They would have focused on gaining yards, rather than scoring points. It's very possible they'd have still won.
Sorry about the sports analogy - but hopefully you get the point.
If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
Me thinks that your bothered because it somehow—in your mind—delegitimizes the blob’s Presidency. Grow up
You're right, it's meaningless that she got couple of million votes more. We simply don't care, since she's not president, but it obviously means a lot to you that "she won" something.
By the way, she had more votes than Barry in 2008 Dem primaries, and I don't see you complaining how "she won" back then. Hypocrite.
Democratic Party Primary rules are dumb.
Hillary getting more votes than your blob just triggers you snowflakes so it’s fun to point it out on these threads you consider meaningless.
You people on the left need to learn the definition of "triggered." Discussing your stance on something is not being triggered. It's freaking out over something.
We have nothing to be freaked out over. We won. The system can never change without a constitutional amendment. It's going to be this way until you die, your children die, and your grandchildren die. It's never going to change.
Which is exactly what you snowflakes do; go nuts anytime anyone reminds you that HRC got more votes than your blob. See this thread for proof.If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
Me thinks that your bothered because it somehow—in your mind—delegitimizes the blob’s Presidency. Grow up
You're right, it's meaningless that she got couple of million votes more. We simply don't care, since she's not president, but it obviously means a lot to you that "she won" something.
By the way, she had more votes than Barry in 2008 Dem primaries, and I don't see you complaining how "she won" back then. Hypocrite.
Democratic Party Primary rules are dumb.
Hillary getting more votes than your blob just triggers you snowflakes so it’s fun to point it out on these threads you consider meaningless.
You people on the left need to learn the definition of "triggered." Discussing your stance on something is not being triggered. It's freaking out over something.
We have nothing to be freaked out over. We won. The system can never change without a constitutional amendment. It's going to be this way until you die, your children die, and your grandchildren die. It's never going to change.
I don't see anybody going nuts, just trying to point out the obvious which is for one, it doesn't matter. Two, popular vote only counts in a contest of people trying to get the popular vote, and if somebody does by mistake, it was unintentional. Three, what your claim is that you had a great rummy hand, but we were playing pinochle. You had a good rummy hand only because you had terrible pinochle cards.
You're clearly just trolling now, but I do wonder if you understand I what pointed out. We can't assume that the votes cast in an electoral election tell us who would have won if the election had been based on the popular vote.If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
First of all, he's not my blob. I despise Trump. Second, it doesn't bother me. I'm just pointing out that your claim doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yet here you are arguing about something you claim is meaningless 3 plus years after the fact.
LOL - I'm not arguing about. I'm just pointing out that your supposed "fact" isn't all that.
That HRC got more votes than the blob? Yup—it’s a fact
It means something to a lot of Democrats. They think it proves that Hillary should have won, that she would have won if not for the EC. They are wrong.If it’s meaningless...why are you so bothered by the fact that she got millions more votes than your blob?
First of all, he's not my blob. I despise Trump. Second, it doesn't bother me. I'm just pointing out that your claim doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yet here you are arguing about something you claim is meaningless 3 plus years after the fact.
LOL - I'm not arguing about. I'm just pointing out that your supposed "fact" isn't all that.
That HRC got more votes than the blob? Yup—it’s a fact
And it doesn't mean anything, just fact.
That's all we heard -- Hillary SHOULD be president because she got more votes. But the left can't comprehend the fact that people dont elect the president, but STATES. We are NOT a democracy, and yes, words matter.Which is exactly what you snowflakes do; go nuts anytime anyone reminds you that HRC got more votes than your blob. See this thread for proof.You're right, it's meaningless that she got couple of million votes more. We simply don't care, since she's not president, but it obviously means a lot to you that "she won" something.
By the way, she had more votes than Barry in 2008 Dem primaries, and I don't see you complaining how "she won" back then. Hypocrite.
Democratic Party Primary rules are dumb.
Hillary getting more votes than your blob just triggers you snowflakes so it’s fun to point it out on these threads you consider meaningless.
You people on the left need to learn the definition of "triggered." Discussing your stance on something is not being triggered. It's freaking out over something.
We have nothing to be freaked out over. We won. The system can never change without a constitutional amendment. It's going to be this way until you die, your children die, and your grandchildren die. It's never going to change.
I don't see anybody going nuts, just trying to point out the obvious which is for one, it doesn't matter. Two, popular vote only counts in a contest of people trying to get the popular vote, and if somebody does by mistake, it was unintentional. Three, what your claim is that you had a great rummy hand, but we were playing pinochle. You had a good rummy hand only because you had terrible pinochle cards.
You must not have read the whining, childish, rambling incoherent OP about an election over 3 years old.
