why trump won
Comments
-
in a democratic primary.2001400ex said:
That's how amazing Trump supporters are. They were cheering Trump in the lead forgetting that rural areas are conservative and are less populous, therefore counted quicker. And you know, the west coast is populous and fairly liberal.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
Not to mention that Hillary beat Bernie in the popular vote too.
Populists who hate the system and republicans who are fucking sick of stagnant wages aren't voting in dem primaries. Not to mention all the election fuckery that they did to suppress the vote, not only that we know about, but what we don't know about. -
he was polling better vs trump than Clinton by every objective measure. explain that
-
Just stop. From the moment you've plagued this bored, you'e been nothing but a yuge disaster.2001400ex said:
That's how amazing Trump supporters are. They were cheering Trump in the lead forgetting that rural areas are conservative and are less populous, therefore counted quicker. And you know, the west coast is populous and fairly liberal.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
Not to mention that Hillary beat Bernie in the popular vote too. -
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise. -
If it becomes a national election, who cares about state votes?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
The better argument is that the Electoral College distributes power across states rather than clustering power in cities. -
That's how Safeco and Century Link got built on a micro-level in the State of Washington.RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
And #dinorossi -
When Trump talks, people listen. He inspires people. And that's what people want in a leader. That is why he was elected.
-
Puppy has a good write-up too. 95% of you re-re's didnt want to part with Sark. Steel2, Fireman and Pup celebrated till the morning light when the news broke. Still the difference between us 3 and you bonios. A short and sweet write-upFenderbender123 said:When Trump talks, people listen. He inspires people. And that's what people want in a leader. That is why he was elected.
-
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise. -
Because it helps Trump IMO.ThomasFremont said:
So what? Theoretically a candidate could win several states by 1 vote and get ALL of the electoral college for those states, get crushed in the popular vote, and still win because they narrowly won those few states. How is that better?RaccoonHarry said:
In CA/NY combined she won by 5 million votes. Which is the reason the electoral college should never be eliminated, and never will. Theoretically, without the electoral college, it's possible for a candidate to win ONE large state by a huge margin (CA, for instance), lose every other state by narrow margins, and win the presidency. Imagine a president taking office after winning only a single state? Another thing the founding fathers got right. Of course they were smarter than us, and it still shows.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
She is winning the popular vote.DerekJohnson said:I think the majority did see what a bad candidate she was, but the political machine had decreed that she would be the next president, which was why the primaries were rigged against Bernie for example.
Agree otherwise.
