Was Clinton hurt by no shows?
November 14th, 2016 at 1:51:55 PM permalink | |
Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 | Was it Harrison or Hayes who interrupted Cleveland's term(s)? The man actually won the popular vote in 3 consecutive general elections. I suppose he's second only to FDR. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
November 14th, 2016 at 2:09:21 PM permalink | |
pew Member since: Jan 8, 2013 Threads: 4 Posts: 1232 | You're not getting it. Neither Trump or Mrs. Bill Clinton campaigned for the popular vote. They campaigned for the electoral vote because that's the only vote that matters. If President Trump campaigned for the popular vote he still would have won. Big league. And those losers out there would be just as sore. |
November 14th, 2016 at 2:13:06 PM permalink | |
pew Member since: Jan 8, 2013 Threads: 4 Posts: 1232 | I just wanted to reiterate (it was so much fun the first time I want to type it again) El Presidente DONALD J. TRUMP. |
November 14th, 2016 at 3:51:17 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18212 |
It is a perfect comparison. In the World Series you just need to win 4 games. Score in the others does not matter. In the EC you need 270. The EC makes the election fair for all there regions of the USA. It is the system. Even with all the "experts" laughing at Trump for not having a big campaign structure he did what he needed to do. Just like the Pirates in 1960. The President is a fink. |
November 14th, 2016 at 4:47:07 PM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
The elections of 1884/1888/1892 were marked by strong North-South divisions. Harrison had very strong opposition in the South where he was slaughtered in states like Texas. On the other hand he only one tiny Vermont by more than 60% and won all the most populous states by small percentages. |
November 14th, 2016 at 4:47:33 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
Yes. The Series is exactly like the EC. It's not how many runs or votes you get over the period of the event, it's how you did in each game or state. It's a perfect analogy. If the election was changed to total number of votes, the west and east coast would decide every election, just what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
November 14th, 2016 at 4:53:54 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18212 |
And Pennsylvania settled both! GO MAZEROWSKI! GO TRUMP! The President is a fink. |
November 14th, 2016 at 5:00:51 PM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
But the allocation of one EC vote per congressional district and the 2 final EC votes to the majority winner of the total state would probably make voters much more motivated in the two thirds of the states where there are no campaigns. Campaigning was only done in the following states this year
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin alone would have given Trump the presidency. Florida, Iowa, and the congressional district in Maine were bonus points. |
November 14th, 2016 at 5:01:42 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
It's why Obama and Hillary are so illegal friendly. Bus them to every state, which is happening, and eventually every state will vote Dem every time. It's a plan to undermine what the country was built on, to get away from European one monarch rule. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
November 14th, 2016 at 5:17:39 PM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 | Using the congressional district system for allocating EC votes that is currently in place in Nebraska and Maine might well have changed the results in 1960 and 1976, where Nixon and Ford could have won. It would almost certainly have given Romney the win over Obama in 2012. But in 2016 it remains to be seen what the final outcome would have been. I suspect it probably would not have changed the outcome, but Democrats would have gotten some EC votes out of PA, MI, OH, FL, WI, and IA. But it is a known fact that participation is higher in battleground states since people are much more aware that they may be casting pivotal votes. Who knows what the effect of increased turnout may do? |