Electoral College Favors Republicans

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Barely won? Trump got 304 to Clinton's 227. that is 77 votes. So in terms of the only thing that matters .. the electoral college .. Trump crushed Clinton. in what sport is losing by 77 not getting whipped?


do you recall the Madcow bloviating that Trump couldn't win even if he got every swing state? well that bitch doesn't know math. He did get every one which is in itself was improbable but Trump did it. a 77 vote edge is not close. Not a landslide either but that's not the point.

Three states decided the election for the most part and those 3 states were won by a very small percentage of the vote -- Michigan by 3/10s of 1 percent. Wisconsin by 1 percent. Pennsylvania by 1.2%. That is NOT being crushed by any stretch of the imagination. It is easy to see that there is a good possibility of those 3 states turning blue in 2020.

If Trump "crushed" Clinton, then what would you call Obama's victory by 192 electoral votes in 2008 and by 126 electoral votes in 2012?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Three states decided the election for the most part and those 3 states were won by a very small percentage of the vote -- Michigan by 3/10s of 1 percent. Wisconsin by 1 percent. Pennsylvania by 1.2%. That is NOT being crushed by any stretch of the imagination. It is easy to see that there is a good possibility of those 3 states turning blue in 2020.

If Trump "crushed" Clinton, then what would you call Obama's victory by 192 electoral votes in 2008 and by 126 electoral votes in 2012?

Ummm ... a lucky break by a community organizer against a RINO (McCain) and a putz (Romney)?


BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

Lol! Y'all suffer from cognitive dissonance. The USA is a Republic where the November General Election determines which Electors from the Electoral College will officially install the President of the USA. This creates a dilemma where the winner of the popular vote may lose the Electoral College vote. This means that "States" rather than the "People" in essence are the entities that elect the President of the USA. On the other hand, transition to a purely democratic system where each citizen is afforded a vote would more accurately reflect the will of the "People" rather than an Electoral College system of "Electors". Elector's whose vote may or may not reflect the will of the people where goverment is supposed to be for the people... by the people.

The Electoral College is heavily influenced by identity politics and the financial wealth of non-voting corporate citizens in a winner take all proposition. This is significant because eliminating the Electoral College would also eliminate the dilemma of a Presidential candidate winning the popular vote but losing the Electorial College vote. Moreover, a trajectory toward a purely democratic Presidential system would require dismantling the Southern infrastructure of voting laws that restrict voter's rights rather than enhance a natural citizens constitutional right to vote. The Electoral College along with traditionally restrictive Southern voting laws are the last inappropriate ramients of America's institution of chattel slavery, Black Codes and the post Reconstruction Jim Crow Era.

Last of all, the Trump Presidency is the only American Presidential administration that has received help from the sucessful counter-intelligence initiative of a hostile foreign nation. This is separates the Trump administration from others that won the Presidency by the Electoral College vote but lost the popular vote. The perception of the Trump Presidency being illigitimate is supported by the criminal conviction of members of Trump's campaign and administration for inappropriate contact with known Russian spies. Any other natural citizen without the protection of a corrupt Congress loyal to the President rather than the US Constitution would be in prison already. Change my mind with empirical facts not opinion pieces, foul language or bringing up Secretary Clinton's emails. I'll wait!

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

Lol! I disagree. The President is a pathological lier who continues to obstruct justice and abuse his office for personal gain (influence peddling, fraud, money laundering). That is what the evidence shows when a critically thinking person is not blinded by identity politics confusing blind nationalism for patriotism. When Republican members of congress publically state that they do not care if the President broke the law and refuse to hold 45 accountable then Congress' ability to provide oversight to the executive branch is broken. I guess I all comes down to who you believe....Mueller and the American Intelligence community or a President who constantly lies, and misleads the American people while be courted by Dictators.

Yassup we know that's you

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Just because they couldn't prove a conspiracy between the trump campaign and Russia doesn't mean there wasn't Russian interference in the election. Not to mention that trump publicly asked for Russian to intervene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...ates_elections

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump said in a July 27, 2016 news conference.

If Team Mueller couldn't bring a case against Trump utilizing $30 million and two years of investigations employing a full team of partisan and biased hildebeest minions like McCabe, Wiesmann, etc., it means there is no evidence to bring such cases ... not to mention that there's actually a money trail showing that hildebeest paid foreign agents to produce Russian misinformation on Trump.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If Team Mueller couldn't bring a case against Trump utilizing $30 million and two years of investigations employing a full team of partisan and biased hildebeest minions like McCabe, Wiesmann, etc., it means there is no evidence to bring such cases ... not to mention that there's actually a money trail showing that hildebeest paid foreign agents to produce Russian misinformation on Trump.

As Al Gore would say ... "An inconvenient truth".

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Three states decided the election for the most part and those 3 states were won by a very small percentage of the vote -- Michigan by 3/10s of 1 percent. Wisconsin by 1 percent. Pennsylvania by 1.2%. That is NOT being crushed by any stretch of the imagination. It is easy to see that there is a good possibility of those 3 states turning blue in 2020.

If Trump "crushed" Clinton, then what would you call Obama's victory by 192 electoral votes in 2008 and by 126 electoral votes in 2012?

And you do notice that he specifically said it was not a Trump landslide, and the 77 vote difference was not close, which it really isn't. But yeah, focus on the use of the word "crushed".

And if you go back to 2012, it would have only required a fairly small shift in votes in a couple key states and Romney was POTUS.

We are in for another close race in the end I think. Right now as we've said before, it's way too early to prognosticate on only a blue flip of three states to make your ideal condition for a Dem.

[bigwill832]

We're not going to a straight democracy. That would require a consitutional convention propose the changes and then it would require 3/4 of the states to approve it. I don't see a bunch of states voting away their power to elect a president. Ain't gonna happen.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Ummm ... a lucky break by a community organizer against a RINO (McCain) and a putz (Romney)?


BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And Trump was running against one of the most unliked politician of our time and eked out a victory.

BTW. getting back to the closeness of the 2016 election, do you think it's coincidence that the last 4 rallies by Trump were in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and Pennsylvania? The Trump re-election team realizes how important those 4 states are for Trump in 2020 and will be focusing on them in the many months to come before the November 2020 election.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And you do notice that he specifically said it was not a Trump landslide, and the 77 vote difference was not close, which it really isn't. But yeah, focus on the use of the word "crushed".

And if you go back to 2012, it would have only required a fairly small shift in votes in a couple key states and Romney was POTUS.

We are in for another close race in the end I think. Right now as we've said before, it's way too early to prognosticate on only a blue flip of three states to make your ideal condition for a Dem.

I'm not going to take the time to go back and look at the 2012 election results by state but since YOU made the statement about a small shift in votes in a couple of key states, which states would they be?

The only state I've predicted will flip at the current time is Michigan. Pennsylvania a good chance. Other states like Wisconsin and Arizona are the next best good bets. All I've done is lay out the most likely scenario that must come to be in order for Democrats to regain the presidency. Not saying it will happen. 2016 was close. 2020 could be closer.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Read Donna Brazille's book. She said she was handicapped with a know it all who claimed he could predict the outcome of any precinct within a handful of votes. Brazille was worried about PA, MN, WS, and Michigan. He told her not to worry because Hillary would win by a percentage point. They didn't need to spend money (every penny spent had to be approved by Hillary), make any campaign stops (which Hillary hated), or buy any time (why waste money they could use for the inaugural).