Clinton’s popular vote lead surpasses two million.

[repoman0]

You're welcome to that opinion but margins are what decide elections.

Okay, I misspoke, trying to work and post. The margin isn't a pointless metric but this metric of California turning the popular vote is a pointless metric. It was a close election in either direction and it's meaningless to complain that the most populous state turned it to the other side. That has nothing to do with California taking complete control and determining the election because it was only able to turn it because the will of a lot more people in the rest of the country was on its side.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Okay, I misspoke, trying to work and post. The margin isn't a pointless metric but this metric of California turning the popular vote is a pointless metric. It was a close election in either direction and it's meaningless to complain that the most populous state turned it to the other side. That has nothing to do with California taking complete control and determining the election because it was only able to turn it because the will of a lot more people in the rest of the country was on its side.

Pretty true, but you forgot that this whole argument about the popular vote is a pointless metric. It doesn't count.

 

[repoman0]

Pretty true, but you forgot that this whole argument about the popular vote is a pointless metric. It doesn't count.

I understand that, never forgot it. I accept the fact that this country has declined so far socially, culturally and educationally that someone like Trump can even come within striking distance of the presidency. Electoral college or not, it was close enough that as a whole, we still would have been dumb beyond redemption even if the small margin had turned the other way in those few states for Clinton. Now, with Trump in office, we can take our rightful back seat in the world.

 

[buckshot24]

Even using your outdated numbers (3.8 million margin in CA for a 1.7 million net win for Clinton) if you get rid of California then it was almost identically close in the other direction.

You just made a colossal error in saying that it was okay if the election was close. You've destroyed the entire basis for your argument.

I used numbers from that spreadsheet I posted a while back, and I have been using my own local spreadsheets since so they could be outdated. I didn't say it was ok if the election was close I told you that you were complaining about something that is the result of a close election. Small changes in close games result in wins or losses. Small vote changes in close elections could swing the entire election. The election wasn't really close outside of California, Trump had a comfortable margin and Hillary has a comfortable margin in popular votes with California.

 

[Blackjack200]

I used numbers from that spreadsheet I posted a while back, and I have been using my own local spreadsheets since so they could be outdated. I didn't say it was ok if the election was close I told you that you were complaining about something that is the result of a close election. Small changes in close games result in wins or losses. Small vote changes in close elections could swing the entire election. The election wasn't really close outside of California, Trump had a comfortable margin and Hillary has a comfortable margin in popular votes with California.

I mean, if you had a shred of integrity you'd throw out Trump's largest margin state too if you wanted to make a "rest of the country" argument, but I think most in this thread see you for who you are.

 

[buckshot24]

I mean, if you had a shred of integrity you'd throw out Trump's largest margin state too if you wanted to make a "rest of the country" argument, but I think most in this thread see you for who you are.

Ok, Take out Texas and Trump STILL would have more votes in the other 48 states. In fact lets take out Texas and Tennessee, Trump would still have more votes in the other 47 states. Outside of California the election wasn't really close.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, Take out Texas and Trump STILL would have more votes in the other 48 states. In fact lets take out Texas and Tennessee, Trump would still have more votes in the other 47 states. Outside of California the election wasn't really close.

No, removing California it was almost exactly as close the other way by your own numbers, which showed the difference as about 1.5% of the total vote. (more recent numbers that incorporate votes from Jersey, etc, show Clinton's lead in excess of 2.2 million now though).

An election decided by 1.5% of the vote is close by just about any metric I've ever seen. You agree that it's okay for a state to tip an election that's close, therefore this is okay. Problem solved!

 

[buckshot24]

No, removing California it was almost exactly as close the other way by your own numbers, which showed the difference as about 1.5% of the total vote. (more recent numbers that incorporate votes from Jersey, etc, show Clinton's lead in excess of 2.2 million now though).

An election decided by 1.5% of the vote is close by just about any metric I've ever seen. You agree that it's okay for a state to tip an election that's close, therefore this is okay. Problem solved!

My spreadsheet has it at 2.1 million. When there is only one state who can do the flipping then I do have a problem with it and so should anybody. Almost all states that might have flipped in 2000 could have changed the outcome because it was a remarkably close election. This election wasn't particularly close outside of California.

And California would be dictating to the rest of the country who the president would be. Obviously something the founders wanted to avoid.

 

[OrByte]

lmao, i wonder why the vote was up 8% in Calif. I'm sure the new motor voting act, Pres. Obama's carte blanche and illegals voting had nothing to do with it.

illegals voting?

do you honestly believe that?

 

[buckshot24]

illegals voting?

do you honestly believe that?

I think any reasonable person thinks some illegals were able to vote. The question is how many.

 

[fskimospy]

My spreadsheet has it at 2.1 million. When there is only one state who can do the flipping then I do have a problem with it and so should anybody. Almost all states that might have flipped in 2000 could have changed the outcome because it was a remarkably close election. This election wasn't particularly close outside of California.

Again, the margin was about the same on the opposite side if you exclude California. If you view it as close on one end then it is close on the other end. 2.1 million amounts to less than 2% of votes cast. Are you saying elections within 2% are not close? If so, then what is close? How many states are the minimum number you need before it's not a problem?

You screwed up when you were forced to justify why California having the ability to flip the election in 2016 wasn't okay but New Hampshire being able to flip it in 2000 was. There's no way to justify that rationally.

And California would be dictating to the rest of the country who the president would be. Obviously something the founders wanted to avoid.

As would have New Hampshire or whoever else in 2000. This is an inescapable fact.

 

[buckshot24]

Again, the margin was about the same on the opposite side if you exclude California. If you view it as close on one end then it is close on the other end. 2.1 million amounts to less than 2% of votes cast. Are you saying elections within 2% are not close? If so, then what is close? How many states are the minimum number you need before it's not a problem?

You screwed up when you were forced to justify why California having the ability to flip the election in 2016 wasn't okay but New Hampshire being able to flip it in 2000 was. There's no way to justify that rationally.



As would have New Hampshire or whoever else in 2000. This is an inescapable fact.

I don't consider a 2.1 million vote win particularly close. New Hampshire, as I already told you, was one of many states that could have flipped the election. That's what happens in close elections, there is nothing ground breaking about that. You're trying WAY too hard here by the way. It's pretty funny.

 

[Zorba]

Ok, Take out Texas and Trump STILL would have more votes in the other 48 states. In fact lets take out Texas and Tennessee, Trump would still have more votes in the other 47 states. Outside of California the election wasn't really close.

Based on the latest CNN numbers if you throw out CA, TX and TN, Hillary would be up by 92.5K votes. So Texas and Tennessee overruled the vote of 48 other states by your logic (47 if you throw out CA).

 

[buckshot24]

In 2000, there were 30 states, that if flipped, could have changed the entire election but in 2016 under a popular vote there was only 1 state that flipped the popular vote and somehow this is similar? Seriously man.

 

[jackstar7]

I think any reasonable person thinks some illegals were able to vote. The question is how many.

We'll never know why this is a reasonable person's starting point.

 

[buckshot24]

Based on the latest CNN numbers of you throw out CA, TX and TN, Hillary would be up by 92.5K votes. So Texas and Tennessee overruled the vote of 48 other states by your logic (47 if you throw out CA).

According to my numbers Trump would still be on top by 262k if you take out all three, but maybe they are out of date. I don't see your point about Texas and Tennessee overriding the rest of the country because they wouldn't.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't consider a 2.1 million vote win particularly close. New Hampshire, as I already told you, was one of many states that could have flipped the election. That's what happens in close elections, there is nothing ground breaking about that. You're trying WAY too hard here by the way. It's pretty funny.

You don't consider a 1.5% margin particularly close? The average presidential election popular vote margin is about 9%, making it 83% smaller than the average margin. It's also the 8th closest presidential election result in history and much, much closer than the average federal election. If that's not particularly close then almost no US elections are. So either you're full of shit or you just made up a convenient, self serving standard.

I'm actually enjoying watching you try and rationalize a clearly irrational position.

 

[buckshot24]

You don't consider a 1.5% margin particularly close? The average presidential election popular vote margin is about 9%, making it 83% smaller than the average margin. It's also the 8th closest presidential election result in history and much, much closer than the average federal election. If that's not particularly close then almost no US elections are. So either you're full of shit or you just made up a convenient, self serving standard.

I'm actually enjoying watching you try and rationalize a clearly irrational position.

If you have an official source determining what is close and what isn't then I'll amend my classification. Do you really want to argue about what is close and what is particularly close and what the best cookie flavor is?

You certainly haven't proven that my position is irrational. Maybe that is you not being objective again?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

illegals voting?

do you honestly believe that?

Do i honestly believe that some illegal aliens voted in California? There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that some did, the only real question is how many?

 

[Zorba]

According to my numbers Trump would still be on top by 262k if you take out all three, but maybe they are out of date. I don't see your point about Texas and Tennessee overriding the rest of the country because they wouldn't.

Your numbers are apparently wrong. But a good way to test logic is to apply it in a different way. Since you don't see the logic of throwing out TN and TX, maybe your logic for throwing out CA is also crap.

 

[fskimospy]

If you have an official source determining what is close and what isn't then I'll amend my classification. Do you really want to argue about what is close and what is particularly close and what the best cookie flavor is?

You certainly haven't proven that my position is irrational. Maybe that is you not being objective again?

You want an official source on what a close election is? What would that even be? And yes, considering you're the one who decided that in 'close' elections having one state decide for the other 49 was okay but not in 'non-close' elections. If you're going to argue that then you need a definition of what close is.

As for my objectivity while nobody's perfect when comparing myself to someone like you it's not even close. In fact comparing you to almost anyone on this board isn't close. You are one of the least rational and least objective people here. Think about what that means, haha.

 

[buckshot24]

You want an official source on what a close election is? What would that even be? And yes, considering you're the one who decided that in 'close' elections having one state decide for the other 49 was okay but not in 'non-close' elections. If you're going to argue that then you need a definition of what close is.

As for my objectivity while nobody's perfect when comparing myself to someone like you it's not even close. In fact comparing you to almost anyone on this board isn't close. You are one of the least rational and least objective people here. Think about what that means, haha.

When an election is close enough where any one of 30 states can turn the result vs another election where one state and only one state could turn the result (in a popular vote) I think we're talking about two entirely different scenarios. You trying to equate them is the height of idiocy. And I don't think you're being objective in comparing your objectivity.

It is also funny that you think your proclamations about me personally mean anything.

 

[buckshot24]

Your numbers are apparently wrong. But a good way to test logic is to apply it in a different way. Since you don't see the logic of throwing out TN and TX, maybe your logic for throwing out CA is also crap.

Throwing out Texas and Tennessee wouldn't flip the popular vote though with or without California, even if we use CNN's numbers (which are not as up to date as mine). You can't show me that my logic is crap by giving incorrect figures that don't add up.

 

[repoman0]

When an election is close enough where any one of 30 states can turn the result vs another election where one state and only one state could turn the result (in a popular vote) I think we're talking about two entirely different scenarios. You trying to equate them is the height of idiocy. And I don't think you're being objective in comparing your objectivity.

It is also funny that you think your proclamations about me personally mean anything.

I don't think we should count Tennessee or Texas, but should count California. Tennessee and Texas are a net drain on the US while California is a net positive. Texas and Tennessee take in government welfare that California helps contribute to them. Therefore, the votes of people in Tennessee and Texas are worth less and we shouldn't count them in this exercise.

/shitty buckshit logic

edit: fine, Tennessee and Texas aren't enough ... add some other state so that the populations of the three equate to the population of California. It doesn't matter, the argument is stupid in this case and is stupid in buckshit's case.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't think we should count Tennessee or Texas, but should count California. Tennessee and Texas are a net drain on the US while California is a net positive. Texas and Tennessee take in government welfare that California helps contribute to them. Therefore, the votes of people in Tennessee and Texas are worth less and we shouldn't count them in this exercise.

/shitty buckshit logic

I knew you were criticizing me for using a screwdriver to loosen a screw while complaining about me using it to do calculus.