But the polls bro...so scientific....
-
By the way tour out of hundreds of prognosticators a few of them will get the NFL scores pretty close.
And they still call it gambling.
WSS
-
I know people that predicted 330 electoral votes for Hillary
Our musical works to date http://www.arielsatticmusic.com/ -
It doesn't matter Woody . Seems to me the consensus of every pore had Donald Trump losing by 4.
The last few days Democrats have been on MSNBC taking an early Victory lap.
WSS
This seems like an anomaly. if anything, a chance to rework the formula
Though many will take it as validation of their anti science / anti academic beliefs.
"they say Clinton would win, why should I believe them about the climate?"
This seems like an anomaly. if anything, a chance to rework the formula
Though many will take it as validation of their anti science / anti academic beliefs.
"they say Clinton would win, why should I believe them about the climate?"
Scary dark people......
-
I know people that predicted 330 electoral votes for Hillary
LA Times predicted 350+ yesterday morning, but they said Ohio might be close
-
The real America polls or the liberal cuck polls?
Ha- they didn't do enough polling in Hicksville USA, Farmer City, Illinois, or Mount Olive, North Carolina. & don't forget without that real America, you'd need your own victory garden out back, as well as a few chickens to survive.
I was jumping back and forth between Fox and the Communist News Network, and it was almost comical (at least if you were pulling for Trump). It was like- how can this be happening? As state after state went red. They had all but given HRC the presidency as a done deal last week. Waited for 30-60 minutes to call a state for Trump after every other news outlet had. Around what was it 2:30 or so? She's not giving up- there's still a chance. Then- oh, HRC just called Trump to concede- our bad.
-
LA Times predicted 350+ yesterday morning, but they said Ohio might be close
Well she won the popular vote, and there were a lot of very tight states. It doesn't take a ton of votes to swing a ton of electoral college votes, in the grand scheme of things.
-
Well she won the popular vote, and there were a lot of very tight states. It doesn't take a ton of votes to swing a ton of electoral college votes, in the grand scheme of things.
Granted- but it's not the first time someone has won the popular vote, and lost the election. I'm sure the crybabies are going to push for getting rid of the electoral college after this one.
I'd be in favor of breaking up California's 55 votes. Hillary won Cali and NY- those 2 states put you 31% on your way to 270.
-
Well she won the popular vote, and there were a lot of very tight states. It doesn't take a ton of votes to swing a ton of electoral college votes, in the grand scheme of things.
Granted- but it's not the first time someone has won the popular vote, and lost the election. I'm sure the crybabies are going to push for getting rid of the electoral college after this one.
I'd be in favor of breaking up California's 55 votes. Hillary won Cali and NY- those 2 states put you 31% on your way to 270.
Granted- but it's not the first time someone has won the popular vote, and lost the election. I'm sure the crybabies are going to push for getting rid of the electoral college after this one.
Even though they've been saying the Democrats have a ridiculous advantage with the electoral map due to shifting demographics.
Without the electoral college honestly California might as well be the only state that votes for the president - I'm up for reform but there has to be some kind of system to represent the rest of America too (like the electoral college)
Unlike 2000 though, Trump won the electoral college in a landslide.
-
Well she won the popular vote, and there were a lot of very tight states. It doesn't take a ton of votes to swing a ton of electoral college votes, in the grand scheme of things.
Granted- but it's not the first time someone has won the popular vote, and lost the election. I'm sure the crybabies are going to push for getting rid of the electoral college after this one.
I'd be in favor of breaking up California's 55 votes. Hillary won Cali and NY- those 2 states put you 31% on your way to 270.
Granted- but it's not the first time someone has won the popular vote, and lost the election. I'm sure the crybabies are going to push for getting rid of the electoral college after this one.
I'd be in favor of breaking up California's 55 votes. Hillary won Cali and NY- those 2 states put you 31% on your way to 270.
Well why should a vote in a big city essentially count for less?
It is also funny that the founding fathers created the electoral college to basically prevent this exact type of thing from happening.
-
wrong.
if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations
would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote
be counted for nothing?
http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-the-founders-created-the-electoral-college/
-
wrong.
if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations
would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote
be counted for nothing?
http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-the-founders-created-the-electoral-college/
wrong.
if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote
be counted for nothing?
http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/07/why-the-founders-created-the-electoral-college/
I know there's a new electoral college thread, but...
Wrong question, cal. The correct one is why should the smallest states' citizens' votes count disproportionately more than the largest's?
Your reference is very selective in its citations of Hamilton's intent and ignores his actions when he saw the Electoral College being bastardized, but one thing it does do is say your position is incorrect:
The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers.
But as much as I love it when your own references support the opposite of your posts, I'll get into that in the new thread... so there's no reason for you to tell me how I'm wrong here.
Even though they've been saying the Democrats have a ridiculous advantage with the electoral map due to shifting demographics.
Without the electoral college honestly California might as well be the only state that votes for the president - I'm up for reform but there has to be some kind of system to represent the rest of America too (like the electoral college)
Unlike 2000 though, Trump won the electoral college in a landslide.
Ditto on the "see you in the other thread", bb... including some information you apparently may lack for a change.
-
The polls in the states trump won were off by 7 points when compared to the actual results (on average)
-
Here is what I said, Tour:"wrong.if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR votebe counted for nothing?
Wrong question, cal. The correct one is why should the smallest states' citizens' votes count disproportionately more than the largest's?Your reference is very selective in its citations of Hamilton's intent and ignores his actions when he saw the Electoral College being bastardized, but one thing it does do is say your position is incorrect:The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers.But as much as I love it when your own references support the opposite of your posts, I'll get into that in the new thread... so there's no reason for you to tell me how I'm wrong here.*************************************oh, yes there is. Look at what I said, and what you said. In effect, we are saying the same thing. The electoral collegelends still-important status to states with less population, away from population centers like giant cities, so presidential candidatesstill need to take them into account.Tell me, how is it that you think your are correct, and I was wrong?
-
The constitution is set up to avoid decisions based on simple majorities. Consider what it takes to ratify an amendment. Or to pass a bill, it has to go through both legislatures and be signed by the president, and takes a super majority to over ride a presidential veto.
I mean if simple majorities ruled and everything was based off of a simple majority of the vote our country would be much different today.
-
Here is what I said, Tour:"wrong.if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR votebe counted for nothing?
Wrong question, cal. The correct one is why should the smallest states' citizens' votes count disproportionately more than the largest's?Your reference is very selective in its citations of Hamilton's intent and ignores his actions when he saw the Electoral College being bastardized, but one thing it does do is say your position is incorrect:The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers.But as much as I love it when your own references support the opposite of your posts, I'll get into that in the new thread... so there's no reason for you to tell me how I'm wrong here.*************************************oh, yes there is. Look at what I said, and what you said. In effect, we are saying the same thing. The electoral collegelends still-important status to states with less population, away from population centers like giant cities, so presidential candidatesstill need to take them into account.Tell me, how is it that you think your are correct, and I was wrong?
Here is what I said, Tour:"wrong.if it was by popular vote alone - the states with comparatively small populations would be insignificant in every presidential election. Why should THEIR vote be counted for nothing?Wrong question, cal. The correct one is why should the smallest states' citizens' votes count disproportionately more than the largest's?Your reference is very selective in its citations of Hamilton's intent and ignores his actions when he saw the Electoral College being bastardized, but one thing it does do is say your position is incorrect:The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers.But as much as I love it when your own references support the opposite of your posts, I'll get into that in the new thread... so there's no reason for you to tell me how I'm wrong here.*************************************oh, yes there is. Look at what I said, and what you said. In effect, we are saying the same thing. The electoral collegelends still-important status to states with less population, away from population centers like giant cities, so presidential candidatesstill need to take them into account.Tell me, how is it that you think your are correct, and I was wrong?Because your Dailer Caller argues that moving to a popular vote would cause smaller states' vote to be "counted for nothing".
Popular vote determination would count all votes the same.
I still have to get into the Electoral College thread... but too late tonite...
-
but collectively, it would negate the legitimacy of sparsely population states in the process.
NY, Cal., could easily rule the day, along with Philly, Chicago and Boston.
The huge population of those few states would render alllllll the other states meaningless,
and dominated forever, with the cities' interests much different that the sparsely populated states.
Saying "all votes count the same", is meaningless when "giant population centers are the only interests
that matter in the electoral process".
It's like tyranny by giant cities. All those other states don't matter. That is the danger of the idea of
a popular vote rule.
-
Most certainly, YES. Saying "no" doesn't make you correct. That's just an old liberal mind trick. No workee.
and I didn't say smaller states. Smaller populations per state.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login