It's the turnout, stupid

cawacko said:
Trump got less votes than McCain and Romney did. Shows how unpopular these two candidates were
Click to expand...

As of Nov 20

Trump 61,914,058
Romney 60,933,504
Mccain 59,948,323

This is with a significant chunk of both republicans and democrats sticking with their never trump and never hillary stances.
 
Thing1 said:
That's the point of the OP; they really don't need to evolve. I hope they do become more inclusive, but they don't need to.

107,000 votes in 3 states, with turnout for Hillary WAY down from what it was for Obama in 2012. They really just need a candidate that the base likes more. And demographics are rapidly changing in their favor, as well.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is you're assuming Trump will fail on the economy and jobs. Democrats needs to wake up to the new reality: minorities will cease to vote based on their ethnicity once they realize job growth is priority Number One.
 
philly rabbit said:
The globalists like the commie above want to abolish the electoral college. That would mean that New York and California would dominate and control every general election.

The electoral college was given to us by the founding fathers ( not founders .. they love founders because it's inclusive of women and minorities). The system gives the states with smaller populations the same clout as states with larger populations. This is one reason each state has two senators each.

They whine on in shock. They cannot believe that Trump captured the white middle class blue collar workers in the rust belt AND white college educated voters all over the place.
Click to expand...

Its fair to want the EC removed both arguments (pro EC and against EC) have their merits. My only requirement is that you tell people beforehand what standard you are using instead of waiting until after the results are complete then selecting which standard you want to apply from there.

For instance swing states this election had a turnout of 60-70% while none swing states had a turnout in the low 50's to 40's. Tell people beforehand that all votes matter and that changes. The 6 million other candidate votes cast may have changed as well.
 
Another brilliant post by Thing.

I'm an independent, but if the dems do what he suggests, I would vote for a dem.

If the dems had run anyone but Hillary, Trump would not have won.
 
Comrade Watermark said:
If not for Texas, it would've been a blowout for the Democrats in 2004. You can't just subtract parts of the country you don't like until you get the results you want. Like it or not, California is part of America. I'm tired of the right delegitimizing blue states and acting as if it's ok to ignore them. We're part of America too.
Click to expand...
You're retarded. You want a few blue states to decide the election for the rest of the states.
tsuke said:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/K2AQR

This is most likely what democrats are looking at right now in strategy meetings. Double down on illegal immigration to bring more of the hispanics to your side to swing the neccessary states and just keep shouting race and bigotry over and over again. It would also be the one they can win while banging the free trade drum to placate their donors.

To counter it I would make sure Virginia gets a higher than normal share of the defense contracts Trump will be giving out and try and make inroads to IL and MN. I would also encourage more retirees in AZ to keep the state red.
Click to expand...
 
Yaya said:
Another brilliant post by Thing.

I'm an independent, but if the dems do what he suggests, I would vote for a dem.

If the dems had run anyone but Hillary, Trump would not have won.
Click to expand...

Well, you might say, if Republicans had run anyone but Trump, Hillary would have won.....
there is always more than one perspective to view and consider every issue, sad you liberals don't seem to ever see anything but from the far left....
 
NOVA said:
Hillary is a proven liar, it was exposed years ago....and its undeniable
the Poll takers were supporting the left
the news media was in the tank for the left and still is
the news media lied and spun everything they reported on, against Trump and in support of Hillary
some of the minorities even saw it....the question 'what do you have to lose" hit home to a lot of them
The money and play for pay was finally taken seriously
the Iran deal
the invasion of illegals and their nerve to make demands on the US as if they belonged here
sanctuary cities
The list is almost endless
Voters had no where else to turn and they are starting, just starting to pay attention
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. What good does it do us to have the polls based in our direction? If the polls has been unbiased, Hillary Clinton would've known she was weak in Wisconsin and campaigned there. The inaccurate polls were something that favored trump, by feeding Clinton by information.
 
Yaya said:
You're retarded. You want a few blue states to decide the election for the rest of the states.
Click to expand...

You're retarded. It's the cities the system is biased against. It's the cities that the republicans ignore because the system let's them get away with it. There is no demographic in the country more ignored than the blue states by our federal convergent. They just sit around and pander to the hicks all day.
 
campaigns have their own internal polling. It's why the Trump campaign went to MI/WI and PA when all the polls didn't see it..

Con way said they saw a late surge for Trump....i can't remember her exact words, but that was it.

The Clinton machine was a juggernaut - go figure why they didn't see it -overconfidence?
 
Comrade Watermark said:
You're an idiot. What good does it do us to have the polls based in our direction? If the polls has been unbiased, Hillary Clinton would've known she was weak in Wisconsin and campaigned there. The inaccurate polls were something that favored trump, by feeding Clinton by information.
Click to expand...

the campaign activity actually showed they had the right polls. Look at clinton's campaign stops before the election. She even did 2 morning radio shows in NC the day of. The one state that caught everyone off guard was WI and at the end of the day it was more of an afterthought since trump is getting over 300. Remember as well the entire Klinton Kavalry Kabal was in Michigan one day before the election.

The biased polls serve as ammunition so the entire news media can run 24/7 news on how the trump campaign is a wreck and no one supports it.

Private polls give direction to the campaigns. Public polls are used as propaganda.
 
Furthermore, trump only has narrow majority in many of the states he won. The voices of the minority in those states were nullified by the system, the majority was allowed to cast the votes of the minority.
 
Look who's ignoring vast swaths of the country, it's not the Democrats. We get at least 30%-40% of the vote even in rural districts. We have at least some appeal there. The republicans, on the other hand, they throw the cities in the shitter and totally ignore them, leaving democrats as the only option.

But apparently we are to blame for this, we are "self-sorting", and the Republican political elite that ignores us just lambasts us for not voting more for those that have failed to make themselves in any way appealing to us. In the countryside, it is the fault of the politicians for failing to make themselves appealing to the people, but in the cities, it is the fault of the people for failing to find the politicians appealing. At every turn, we are ignored, delegetimized, and treated as if we're not truly party of America by the rural elite that dominates this country.
 
Just look at the results of an election which ignored the will of urbanites. Fantastic, people say, that's what the system is for. To ensure the voices of people who happen to live at places with a high population density are ignored.

Just imagine the inverse, where an urban based candidate lost the popular vote but won anyway. People would be up in arms.

It's only acceptable if the cities are ignored.
 
Comrade Watermark said:
Look who's ignoring vast swaths of the country, it's not the Democrats. We get at least 30%-40% of the vote even in rural districts. We have at least some appeal there. The republicans, on the other hand, they throw the cities in the shitter and totally ignore them, leaving democrats as the only option.

But apparently we are to blame for this, we are "self-sorting", and the Republican political elite that ignores us just lambasts us for not voting more for those that have failed to make themselves in any way appealing to us. In the countryside, it is the fault of the politicians for failing to make themselves appealing to the people, but in the cities, it is the fault of the people for failing to find the politicians appealing. At every turn, we are ignored, delegetimized, and treated as if we're not truly party of America by the rural elite that dominates this country.
Click to expand...

I think if you average the city votes trump would get 25-40% as well. Which is close enough to what clinton is getting in rural areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top