Reply With Quote
All the butthurt Democrats only have Hillary to blame for this. Thanks to wikileaks we know getting the media to promote Trump during the primaries was all part of her Pied Piper strategy. http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-...iper-strategy/
All the butthurt Democrats only have Hillary to blame for this. Thanks to wikileaks we know getting the media to promote Trump during the primaries was all part of her Pied Piper strategy. http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-...iper-strategy/
Unfortunately, it's a fake. She did say she wanted more successful businesspeople to run, but she didn't mention Trump and she was responding to a question about Michael Bloomberg.
MALE ATTENDEE: My question is, as entrepreneurs, we risk a lot. And Mike Bloomberg had 30 billion other reasons than to take office. Do we need a wholesale change in Washington that has more to do with people that don't need the job than have the job?
SECRETARY CLINTON: That's a really interesting question. You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don't have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there's that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought. And I think it's important to have people with those experiences.
https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails//fileid/11011/2875
Just stop, ducks.
ing nutbar.
It makes sense, tbh... she would've been destroyed by any of the other more moderate GOP candidates. She was that terrible of a candidate.All the butthurt Democrats only have Hillary to blame for this. Thanks to wikileaks we know getting the media to promote Trump during the primaries was all part of her Pied Piper strategy. http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-...iper-strategy/
You gotta give credit to Trump especially in not sticking with the conservative talking points on free trade around the rust belt. While Shillary and her VP flip flopped on the TPP, Donald stuck to his guns, and I feel that was the difference maker here in a pretty close race.
The real hope here is that he continues being his nasty twitter self to the GOP congress when they try to push the TPP again...
Such a disgrace. I can't imagine how badly Crooked Hillary would have gotten wrecked by Kasich or especially Rubio. Trump won just because Clinton was so horrible and couldn't turn out her base. This election with a GOP challenger who excited his base would have been a massacre.
That's easy to say now that Trump won.
Those "GOP challenger"(s)" were fine taking an ass beating with the promise of a marker they could use some where else-some other time.
I have been saying Hillary would get wrecked by Kasich or Romney for months and probably lose to Rubio too.
They'd a went to their doom like the Jews who hopped into the gullies even before they were shot.
I don't see it. Oh well, Trump won. Hopefully Clinton gets pneumonia again.
Lol you still haven't learned a damn thing. No basic cookie cutter cuckservative could have competed in the rust belt the way trump did. People like me stay home for mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. The reason trump won the primaries is because of a disgust with cuckservatism in the GOP base. The only reason people even held their noses on Romney is because his opponent is or they felt is a black Muslim. GOP is going to have to embrace Trumpism if they want to compete going forward. The average republican doesn't care about trickle down economics he just doesn't want his 2nd amendment or any rights violated and doesn't want trannies in his daughters restroom. He is also sick of immigration and doesn't want open borders.
Because (they'd) a fought/fight fair. Hillary/Trump? They had no such intention. She thought she was the only one with a bloody knife. And actually appalled that he pulled one and switched the blade. Yeah, the ing nerve. He had no intention of hopping into that lime covered gully, shot, or no shot.
- "How do you think they got all that money, Laura, from doing good?"
- "The Verdict"
Those two do their own wet work. Trump is just more lethal.
Drop the mouse, Axe.
I learned Trump is almost 600,000 votes behind Romney 2012 in a nation with 10.5 million more people than it had in 2012, which says Republican voters weren't as excited for Trump as they were Romney.
And Clinton was >10m or so behind 2nd term GWB but almost 8 million ahead of Ronald Reagan. Popular vote is terribly misleading since it's known ahead of time that it's not the deciding factor nationally. You might as well be counting FG% instead of point total in a basketball game.
Clinton is about a million votes behind what Bush pulled in 2004, where did you pull that stat from? Being ahead of Reagan isn't surprising since the nation had almost 90,000,000 fewer people in 1984. I don't see what's misleading about using popular vote to indicate how well a candidate motivated his base, it is literally the number of people the candidate convinced to vote for him.
Trump had the message he was just a little rough around the edges with his delivery and the media demonized him in the eyes of all but his most dedicated supporters. In 4 years he is going to break 70 million votes
stfu
The numbers are wrong however GWB still out performed Hillary, on his second term, 16 years ago. What's the population difference between then and now?
It's misleading because in every state voters know that their state is either a battle ground state or its not. There's no battle ground election, only battle ground states. If you live in Texas, you could decide to not vote because you were going to vote Republican and you know your state is going to swing that way anyhow. That's also true in California and plenty other states. Voters know it's not a popular vote contest. If it was, you'd probably have >80m votes for each side. Maybe even 100m for one side. Half the population doesn't even vote. Knowing your vote doesn't really matter is why much of the time.
Bush was great energizing his base. You couldn't find a Republican voter who didn't like him until 2008.
He couldn't finish it. Got there and refused to dance, nor go home with who brung him.
And that's what was left would've done this go round if T hadn't bullied his way to it.
Do you disagree that a national popularity vote would likely have a greater overall turnout than the current system?
California has 30 million people. Plenty of those are likely either non residents or incarcerated. Of the remainder, those that can legally vote are likely doing so at ~50%. Now imagine you know your vote will be added to the national total to determine the outcome instead of just competing intrastate. Basically it's like the Warriors last year. They kept trying to win RS games and broke the record. There are teams that could have challenged before but rested guys late in the year. If the championship was about RS record, don't you think the RS win totals would be higher on average for good teams?
I think you get the idea.
That was true for Mitt Romney as well yet more people voted for Mitt Romney than for Donald despite the fact that there were more eligible voters in 2016. Your argument that the popular vote is not a good barometer for a candidate's ability to energize the base makes zero sense.
So then then what are the odds that two candidates with 10's of millions of votes all across the nation come down to just a small percentage of difference in popular vote? 120 million votes between 2 candidates, and what, 600K difference?
Would Cali have more or fewer votes if they knew that their total was added to the national total which decides the president, ignoring the EC? Wouldn't they run up the score? Wouldn't they feel they needed to since you don't know what other states are going to do?
I don't think either candidate "excited" their voter base. I think both basically disgusted their user bases. I just think there was enough coverage of each candidate's personal failures to create a panic in the opposite voter base.
So, having people vote against you isn't the same as you exciting your voter base, and people voted against Hillary. This much I'm pretty certain of.
That's all fine and good, but you were arguing the popular vote was terribly misleading because of the electoral college while comparing voter turnout to previous elections, all of which were conducted under the electoral college system.
I'm not quite sure why your arguing at this point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
