- Feb 4, 2009
- 34,553
- 15,766
- 136
Okay we will seeWe're not in 2016 any more, Toto. Trump was an unknown quantity. Now he's not. He's failed us all horribly.
Okay we will seeWe're not in 2016 any more, Toto. Trump was an unknown quantity. Now he's not. He's failed us all horribly.
Has the constitution been changed? If not, then Trump really does represent all fifty states. Even the ones he wants to see burned.Everyone understands what the electoral college is. LOL at the president representing all 50 states. How can you say something so retarded in 2020?
I just answered that, it's because the states elect the president. You keep returning to a point that doesn't exist. The US isn't a simple democracy, it's a constitutional republic. We don't have any federal citizens, everyone is in a state, the district of Columbia, or a territory.
That seems obvious, almost inevitable, and if I was a betting man I'd lay long odds against Trump. But it ain't November yet.
NVM wrong thread
I just answered that, it's because the states elect the president. You keep returning to a point that doesn't exist. The US isn't a simple democracy, it's a constitutional republic. We don't have any federal citizens, everyone is in a state, the district of Columbia, or a territory.
Only three states counted in 2016.... dump the EC and no one would even bother campaigning in forty of them. They simply wouldn't count.
Only three states counted in 2016.
That's because you keep thinking people, and that's incorrect. Think states. The states elect the president. This concept is so simple it blows my mind how few get it. No one squawks about each state having two senators, why is that? Shouldn't California have a couple dozen? It all comes back to the US being a republic, fifty separate states joined as a union. The president is supposed to represent all fifty states, dump the EC and no one would even bother campaigning in forty of them. They simply wouldn't count.
This is entirely incorrect.That's because you keep thinking people, and that's incorrect. Think states. The states elect the president. This concept is so simple it blows my mind how few get it. No one squawks about each state having two senators, why is that? Shouldn't California have a couple dozen? It all comes back to the US being a republic, fifty separate states joined as a union. The president is supposed to represent all fifty states, dump the EC and no one would even bother campaigning in forty of them. They simply wouldn't count.
August 2016 says hello!
Clinton's Big Lead Sticks as Voters Doubt Trump's Temperament
Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 9 points — 50 percent to 41 percent — in the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll.www.google.com
Only three states counted in 2016.
I think it's a fair argument that between SCOTUS stopping the recount, and the ballot design giving an avowed anti-Semite thousands of votes from people who also voted for the Democratic Senate candidate made Florida pretty pivotal in the 2000 election. You can throw the Brooks Brother Riot and the Republican Presidential Candidate's Brother running the state in for good measure. What a fucking shitshow that was, and led to from 2001-2009.Only if you look at the differences. 70,000 votes between them. In 2000 everyone said Florida was the difference. It was TN. A senator that represented TN could not carry TN in his run for the Presidency. That was the difference, not the hanging chads.
Okay you found one with that difference. Here are all the polls for that span.
There are a smattering of polls that see Clinton up by the high single digits and even 10 or 12 points. They are not the norm. You can take whatever position you want with this, but this reminds me of ‘92. People thought I was crazy when I said after the first Democratic primary Clinton was going to win not only the nomination but the Presidency. What told me that? To be dredged for that Paul Jones thing and to show have any showing in Iowa was big. He the. rebound to second in Mass. Iowa showed he was not dead and it steam rolled from there. I think this is similar. A person who did badly in the beginning, then he takes off. Biden was nowhere until SC, but he was in the running. He is also against an incumbent who got worse as the election got closer.
I bet you can find a few more polls that help your pessimism, but like most things, it’s about how you pace yourself. I am concerned, but I don’t wear it on my sleeve. Biden has the ability and political savvy to run this thing out.
I think it's a fair argument that between SCOTUS stopping the recount, and the ballot design giving an avowed anti-Semite thousands of votes from people who also voted for the Democratic Senate candidate made Florida pretty pivotal in the 2000 election. You can throw the Brooks Brother Riot and the Republican Presidential Candidate's Brother running the state in for good measure. What a fucking shitshow that was, and led to from 2001-2009.
Also, if we're just talking about EC votes, you could apply the same argument about TN to New Hampshire. Had the good people of NH voted slightly different, Gore would have won.
I wasn't aware that Republicans had to vote for a candidate because the candidate was from their home state.He was not a Senator from NH. His father was a politician in TN. It amazes me to this day. If the 11 EC points or votes (whatever terminology used) for TN went to Gore, Florida and NH does not matter. The fake riot is useless since the events at Miami-Dade County election canvassers is moot. It’s like Indiana not voting for a ticket that the Vampire of the West Wing is on.
I wasn't aware that Republicans had to vote for a candidate because the candidate was from their home state.
That's incorrect. It's not an unintended consequence as that's how the system was designed. Everyone knew it was a possible outcome since the day it was written down. What we're seeing in recent elections is greater political polarization, not a failure of the system.True. OTOH, it's important to acknowledge that the EC & the popular vote gave the same outcome between 1888 & 2000. When the EC gives a different result, that's an anomaly, an unintended consequence.
If California had gone red would that have changed the outcome? What if Texas went blue, you think that would have made a difference? By your logic we can say that any state with enough EC votes to change the election is the only one that mattered. You can chop the numbers any way you want, but the bottom line is the EC worked exactly as it was intended to.Only three states counted in 2016.