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.
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.
So what are you going to bet that Bloomberg doesn't get the nomination? Hillary spent three times as much as Trump, so why is she not President today?
Bloomberg went from nowhere to third place by doing nothing but ads. Clinton, might I remind you actually won the vote and she also had to deal with some really bad news thanks to Comey right before the election.
What we do know is that Russians heavily targeted states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and look what happened.
No, we don't know that at all. Nobody from Russia had any impact on our elections. It isn't possible. I have expert testimony to backup my claim too.
Not what Obama was talking about but thanks for obfuscating.
DC has 3 electoral votes now Just like the least populous State.Newsflash...I... favor keeping the EC
AND making DC a state
Ya know...that representation thing
And no Senators and a non voting CongressmanDC has 3 electoral votes now Just like the least populous State.Newsflash...I... favor keeping the EC
AND making DC a state
Ya know...that representation thing
Good point. Another reason we should keep the EC. I think it should be both the EC and PV but if the choice was one OR the other, I would take the EC every timeI didn't take the time of counting votes, but anyway Clinton and Gore both won the majority vote.
Actually, even that isn't really quite true. In Florida, they wrongly called the vote early for Gore despite the fact that the panhandle was in a different time zone and had another hour before their polls closed, and hearing that Gore had already won, people stopped voting early, no doubt costing GW many votes he should have gotten.
Yet Gore won the popular vote. You can dish it up anyway you want, but its written in history that Gore and Clinton won the popular vote.
And its a GREAT thing that the popular vote does not count for winning an election. If it did, massive voting corruption in any one place could throw the election one way or another. The fact that the election is decided by winning individual states/ electoral votes, means that any corruption in one place is minimized and diluted to some extent.
So how would that work exactly? Please use the last presidential election as an example.
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
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.
Every person elected in his nation from sheriff, mayor, governor, state legislators, senators, congressman, dog catcher, etc, running, the popular vote, is how they win...
So, it's understandable that citizens consider the vote of we the people, as important....
The electoral college process and founder's intent is misunderstood, or not taught in school....
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.
So what are you going to bet that Bloomberg doesn't get the nomination? Hillary spent three times as much as Trump, so why is she not President today?
Bloomberg went from nowhere to third place by doing nothing but ads. Clinton, might I remind you actually won the vote and she also had to deal with some really bad news thanks to Comey right before the election.
What we do know is that Russians heavily targeted states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and look what happened.
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.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
If.
Talking about popular vote in presidential elections is as relevant as how many states were won by the candidate. It just give losing side something to whine about.
A lot of people voted for your blob; more voted for Hillary.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.
That was me. Taking Hillary's 20 states she won and lining them up by size of population against Trump's 30, Hillary on a 1:1 match-up really only beat Trump out on actual number of people voting for her in 3, maybe 4 states, lost to Trump on her other 17, then of course, Trump won 10 more. The actual number of people in the states doesn't really matter.
In every category Trump thwacked Hillary: in the top ten states of each, Trump beat her. In the next ten states, Trump crushed her. And in the third set of ten states, Hillary doesn't even appear. The ONLY state where Hillary hit a home run was California, basically, HER WHOLE ELECTION. Democrats are totally invested in holding, keeping, controlling and building that state by hook or crook. Our next mandate must be to get that state broken up into two states.
Hillary really ran a popular election, appealing to, and TRYING to appeal to, just a few major cities liker SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago. Those cities not only disenfranchised all the other people in their own states (most every one of those states is mostly red everywhere else outside the city limits), but had Hillary not carried just ONE of those cities, her campaign would have been totally in the DUMPER, probably losing 325 EC votes to 220, an annihilation. That is really why all these leftie goons are always crying about the popular vote---- ---- if they could just somehow have that, it would conceal just how weak, isolated and centralized they really are.
Democrats ARE A BLUFF: like a bird that opens it feathers to appear large to a predator. Their weakness is concealed by the fact that they control NYC and LA, the two clearinghouses for most ALL news media.
THE GREAT LIE by the Left is that he (Trump) doesn't carry a mandate, doesn't carry the people; all one has to do is look at his rallies compared to the pathetic shells that their candidates muster up. Every. Damn. Time.
View attachment 310173
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.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
If.
Talking about popular vote in presidential elections is as relevant as how many states were won by the candidate. It just give losing side something to whine about.
Or in this case the winning side. Lol
A lot of people voted for your blob; more voted for Hillary.
The SCOTUS can't change the electoral college. That requires changing the constitution and that's not the SCOTUS's job.
Congress can.
A lot of people voted for your blob; more voted for Hillary.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.
That was me. Taking Hillary's 20 states she won and lining them up by size of population against Trump's 30, Hillary on a 1:1 match-up really only beat Trump out on actual number of people voting for her in 3, maybe 4 states, lost to Trump on her other 17, then of course, Trump won 10 more. The actual number of people in the states doesn't really matter.
In every category Trump thwacked Hillary: in the top ten states of each, Trump beat her. In the next ten states, Trump crushed her. And in the third set of ten states, Hillary doesn't even appear. The ONLY state where Hillary hit a home run was California, basically, HER WHOLE ELECTION. Democrats are totally invested in holding, keeping, controlling and building that state by hook or crook. Our next mandate must be to get that state broken up into two states.
Hillary really ran a popular election, appealing to, and TRYING to appeal to, just a few major cities liker SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago. Those cities not only disenfranchised all the other people in their own states (most every one of those states is mostly red everywhere else outside the city limits), but had Hillary not carried just ONE of those cities, her campaign would have been totally in the DUMPER, probably losing 325 EC votes to 220, an annihilation. That is really why all these leftie goons are always crying about the popular vote---- ---- if they could just somehow have that, it would conceal just how weak, isolated and centralized they really are.
Democrats ARE A BLUFF: like a bird that opens it feathers to appear large to a predator. Their weakness is concealed by the fact that they control NYC and LA, the two clearinghouses for most ALL news media.
THE GREAT LIE by the Left is that he (Trump) doesn't carry a mandate, doesn't carry the people; all one has to do is look at his rallies compared to the pathetic shells that their candidates muster up. Every. Damn. Time.
View attachment 310173
The SCOTUS can't change the electoral college. That requires changing the constitution and that's not the SCOTUS's job.
Congress can.
They were NEVER intended to be a State.And no Senators and a non voting CongressmanDC has 3 electoral votes now Just like the least populous State.Newsflash...I... favor keeping the EC
AND making DC a state
Ya know...that representation thing
Good point. Another reason we should keep the EC. I think it should be both the EC and PV but if the choice was one OR the other, I would take the EC every timeActually, even that isn't really quite true. In Florida, they wrongly called the vote early for Gore despite the fact that the panhandle was in a different time zone and had another hour before their polls closed, and hearing that Gore had already won, people stopped voting early, no doubt costing GW many votes he should have gotten.
Yet Gore won the popular vote. You can dish it up anyway you want, but its written in history that Gore and Clinton won the popular vote.
And its a GREAT thing that the popular vote does not count for winning an election. If it did, massive voting corruption in any one place could throw the election one way or another. The fact that the election is decided by winning individual states/ electoral votes, means that any corruption in one place is minimized and diluted to some extent.
So how would that work exactly? Please use the last presidential election as an example.
Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes
A fact many on the Left have a hard time grasping....They were NEVER intended to be a State.And no Senators and a non voting CongressmanDC has 3 electoral votes now Just like the least populous State.Newsflash...I... favor keeping the EC
AND making DC a state
Ya know...that representation thing
A fact many on the Left have a hard time grasping....They were NEVER intended to be a State.And no Senators and a non voting CongressmanDC has 3 electoral votes now Just like the least populous State.Newsflash...I... favor keeping the EC
AND making DC a state
Ya know...that representation thing
