Cancel 2018.1
New member
Apparently it's some kind of a record. As long as you're OK with that , then good.
And things aren't looking any better.
Last edited:
Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
And things aren't looking any better.
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
No doubt he would have won a third term, Russia would have found it harder to hack his correspondences, FBI would have been more jurisprudential about releasing implied imformation, and if nothing else, those Democrats that sat out the election would have turned out in droves, it would have been a landslide, but it's here nor there
On supposedly losing seats, it's called gerrymandering, proof being a bad Democrat with outside forces working against her still got close to three million more Americans voting for her than the other guy. Plus, the GOP legislators in places as Mass and NY are more attuned with their State Democrat Party than that of the National GOP, generalizing all of them in one group is misleading, FOX style "news"[/QUOTE]
How does Gerrymandering explain the lost governorships and senate seats and state legislatures?
This is like the "Hillary won the popular vote" thing
President Obama would have easily beat Trump. Consider that 25 years of hate, assumptions, lies, misogyny and constant phony investigations and Hillary still came close, and won the popular vote by over two million and it is clear Obama would have beat him.
Gerrymandering has helped republicans at the local level, and too many people don't vote at midterms etc. The people who do vote are diehard republicans especially among senior citizens who have the time. This will change as people realize the harm republicans do. People miss the power of racism and BS, the one thing democrats need to get on board with is calling a spade a spade. Look for instance at Fox media and its total BS. Draft dodger Donnie won because hate won. The focus now will be on the republicans and they have failed every time they have had the presidency.
Gerrymandering has helped republicans at the local level, and too many people don't vote at midterms etc. The people who do vote are diehard republicans especially among senior citizens who have the time. This will change as people realize the harm republicans do. People miss the power of racism and BS, the one thing democrats need to get on board with is calling a spade a spade. Look for instance at Fox media and its total BS. Draft dodger Donnie won because hate won. The focus now will be on the republicans and they have failed every time they have had the presidency.
Cancel 2018.1
New member
Who, Hillary?
People are stupid because Trump is president.
Sorry dumbshit. "Would haves" never happen. But if you're looking for validation of policies, you don't look at the EC. That does NOT represent popular sentiment. But you know that, don't you?
cawacko
Well-known member
The article is about the 1,000 seats Democrats lost during Hillary's term.
Cancel 2018.1
New member
People are also stupid because the alternative was hrc. Either way, people are stupid.
I did..he was flawed,but he wasn't a paranoid war criminal like Dick Nixon. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.HAHA, you voted for McGovern!
GazzaQueen
Verified User
You look to the EC for electoral votes. You look to down ballot losses to see Obama's worth.
cawacko
Well-known member
What do you look at then? Candidates for President aren't running a campaign to win the popular vote.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
You're right about the EC. Take California for example, Hillary received 55 electoral votes from California but she didn't win that many districts. Horrible, just horrible robbing voters of their voice like that
I'll try to slow it down for you. The measure of whether a particular set of policies is supported or not is the poplular vote. (Are you still with me?) The popular vote was SIGNIFICANTLY more in favor of Clinton than Trump. (still here?). You can go on all you want about the EC, but it is not the measure of national sentiment. It is the METHOD in which we elect our President. Two different animals. Comprende, moron?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You're right about the EC. Take California for example, Hillary received 55 electoral votes from California but she didn't win that many districts. Horrible, just horrible robbing voters of their voice like that
I made a similar point earlier: Obama's policies play well in the Hyper Blue precincts but they were rejected by the country at large.
One writer said the democrats have become a bi-Coastal party. I wish I would have thought of that one lol.
You're right about the EC. Take California for example, Hillary received 55 electoral votes from California but she didn't win that many districts. Horrible, just horrible robbing voters of their voice like that
Popular vote? Close to a 30% ass kicking.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm a moron because the way our is system is set up candidates don't run a campaign to compete for the popular vote? Ok.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
And what you fail to grasp is that your *measely* 3 million vote margin came from some narrow regions of the country.
Mostly from several counties just in CA. The EC is pure genius for a presidential election.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Excuse me lol? Try close to 3%.
If it were 30% you cry babies might have a case for doing away with the EC.
The entire west coast, almost all of New England. MN, NM, CO, IL. Lost by a measly 11,000 in Michigan. A few more in Wisconsin. A total of 77,000 votes in 3 states put Trump in office. Versus 3 million more that didn't want him in office.
Sorry, you won the election, but the plurality of Americans wanted someone else. Counting 3rd party, majority.