Dems Shift Messaging on Voting by Mail
-
That might have something to do with Trump's strategy of plugging his ears and going "nahnahnahnah" when the vote by mail votes get tallied
Solid chance we don't know the winner on election night.
Solid chance the initial numbers look better for Trump
Solid chance foreign agents and others (Trump) will do a they can to cast doubt on the results
Argue argue. Yell fraud. Etc. Get it to the SCOTUS and hope your new judge votes your way
That might have something to do with Trump's strategy of plugging his ears and going "nahnahnahnah" when the vote by mail votes get tallied
Solid chance we don't know the winner on election night.
Solid chance the initial numbers look better for Trump
Solid chance foreign agents and others (Trump) will do a they can to cast doubt on the results
Argue argue. Yell fraud. Etc. Get it to the SCOTUS and hope your new judge votes your way
-
-
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
One of the worst polls in 2016 was the @FoxNews Poll. They were so ridiculously wrong. Fox said they were going to change pollsters, but they didn’t. They totally over sample Democrats to a point that a child could see what is going on. Rasmussen, which was accurate, at 52%.
-
If we're taking about accepting results.... has Trump accepted that he lost the popular vote in 2016 yet?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
If we're taking about accepting results.... has Trump accepted that he lost the popular vote in 2016 yet?
If we're taking about accepting results.... has Trump accepted that he lost the popular vote in 2016 yet?
Yes. Have the Democrats accepted the fact that that's not how presidential elections are settled?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
If we're taking about accepting results.... has Trump accepted that he lost the popular vote in 2016 yet?
Yes. Have the Democrats accepted the fact that that's not how presidential elections are settled?
WSS
Yes. Have the Democrats accepted the fact that that's not how presidential elections are settled?
WSS
Idk, you'd have to ask one.
The system does need reformed though. Not where it's the popular vote. But better than what it is now.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Yes. Have the Democrats accepted the fact that that's not how presidential elections are settled?
WSS
Idk, you'd have to ask one.
The system does need reformed though. Not where it's the popular vote. But better than what it is now.
Idk, you'd have to ask one.
The system does need reformed though. Not where it's the popular vote. But better than what it is now.
-
Yes. Have the Democrats accepted the fact that that's not how presidential elections are settled?
WSS
Idk, you'd have to ask one.
The system does need reformed though. Not where it's the popular vote. But better than what it is now.
Idk, you'd have to ask one.
but you didn't ask Trump if he accepted the results right? You asked members of the Browns board. So...
The system does need reformed though. Not where it's the popular vote. But better than what it is now.
everybody wants reform when it benefits their side or hurts the side they don't like. The term reform doesn't necessarily mean better.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
If we're taking about accepting results.... has Trump accepted that he lost the popular vote in 2016 yet?
If we're taking about accepting results.... has Trump accepted that he lost the popular vote in 2016 yet?
That’s President Trump.
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
Idk, you'd have to ask one.
but you didn't ask Trump if he accepted the results right? You asked members of the Browns board. So...
The system does need reformed though. Not where it's the popular vote. But better than what it is now.
everybody wants reform when it benefits their side or hurts the side they don't like. The term reform doesn't necessarily mean better.
WSS
I don't care which side it helps or hurts. It's a fundamentally outdated "winner take all" system where at best some votes count 7+ times more than others and at worst are completely worthless.
-
If we're taking about accepting results.... has Trump accepted that he lost the popular vote in 2016 yet?
Yes. Have the Democrats accepted the fact that that's not how presidential elections are settled?
WSS
Yes. Have the Democrats accepted the fact that that's not how presidential elections are settled?
WSS
We all know how presidents are elected, just pointing out that most of the people that voted did not want Chump as president. It's the reality of things, something Trump supporters have no concept of.
-
If we're taking about accepting results.... has Trump accepted that he lost the popular vote in 2016 yet?
That’s President Trump.
That’s President Trump.
yeah. "RESPECT THE OFFICE" goes both ways -
for honest democrats anyways.... (oxymoron there?)
-
I don't care which side it helps or hurts. It's a fundamentally outdated "winner take all" system where at best some votes count 7+ times more than others and at worst are completely worthless.
I don't care which side it helps or hurts. It's a fundamentally outdated "winner take all" system where at best some votes count 7+ times more than others and at worst are completely worthless.
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
-
I don't care which side it helps or hurts. It's a fundamentally outdated "winner take all" system where at best some votes count 7+ times more than others and at worst are completely worthless.
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
-
If you say you don't care whether it benefits the side you prefer, let's say that doesn't quite ring true but I'll let that slide.
The idea of our federal government is that we were 50, well not 50 when it started out, but a bunch of States with at least a degree of autonomy. I realize some people would like to eliminate that facet altogether. There are probably people who would like to see one world government. Oh well.
I personally think we have weakened the autonomy of the states too much as it is.
WSS
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
Why would that not ring true? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
One person from Vermont has a vote that counts 3x more than a vote in Texas.
Montana is 4x more than Cali.
Candidates have no reason to campaign in states that they can't win, and they don't. That's the issue with a winner take all system.
You can win the electoral college with 22% of the vote.
Etc etc etc
Are you really an engineer?
-
Ha, Prager U. The right wing think take that likes to pretend it has some ties to the academic world to make it more legitimate... though it'll also tell you Universities don't matter.
You gotta love all of the half truths and uncited info
Ex: "Texas used to vote Dem, so all states matter!" Texas hasn't voted Dem in over 40 years. Safe states exist. They don't get campaigned in.
The last point is that the Electoral College makes it harder to cheat. Without it, stealing a vote anywhere could change the election! That's literally admitting votes would matter more without it...
Vambo, I know you can't actually respond to anything directly since you're some broken bot or foreign agent (at least I hope, otherwise that's pretty sad), but neither of those videos directly addressed the hard numbers I provided. Nothing was refuted.
Math is math and what the EC does is clear.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Ha, Prager U. The right wing think take that likes to pretend it has some ties to the academic world to make it more legitimate... though it'll also tell you Universities don't matter.
You gotta love all of the half truths and uncited info
Ex: "Texas used to vote Dem, so all states matter!" Texas hasn't voted Dem in over 40 years. Safe states exist. They don't get campaigned in.
The last point is that the Electoral College makes it harder to cheat. Without it, stealing a vote anywhere could change the election! That's literally admitting votes would matter more without it...
Vambo, I know you can't actually respond to anything directly since you're some broken bot or foreign agent (at least I hope, otherwise that's pretty sad), but neither of those videos directly addressed the hard numbers I provided. Nothing was refuted.
Math is math and what the EC does is clear.
Ha, Prager U. The right wing think take that likes to pretend it has some ties to the academic world to make it more legitimate... though it'll also tell you Universities don't matter.
You gotta love all of the half truths and uncited info
Ex: "Texas used to vote Dem, so all states matter!" Texas hasn't voted Dem in over 40 years. Safe states exist. They don't get campaigned in.
The last point is that the Electoral College makes it harder to cheat. Without it, stealing a vote anywhere could change the election! That's literally admitting votes would matter more without it...
Vambo, I know you can't actually respond to anything directly since you're some broken bot or foreign agent (at least I hope, otherwise that's pretty sad), but neither of those videos directly addressed the hard numbers I provided. Nothing was refuted.
Math is math and what the EC does is clear.
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