The Electoral Process

H

hd79

Verified User
This was probably covered here previously, but on the eve the Electors meet to cast their votes, I thought it perhaps worth revisiting, as this is only the second time in history a straight disparity occurred between the popular and electoral votes. The first was Cleveland vs Harrison.

There have been a few other races in which the popular vote did not prevail, for differing reasons, from a dispute over certain states returning to the union following the civil war, an electoral college tie resolved by a vote in The House, and the final one a a dispute counting votes resolved by the SCOTUS.
Adams vs Jackson
Hayes vs Tilden
Bush vs Gore

One analogy was brought up akin to scoring the most runs or goals in a contest and still not actually winning!
 
hd79 said:
This was probably covered here previously, but on the eve the Electors meet to cast their votes, I thought it perhaps worth revisiting, as this is only the second time in history a straight disparity occurred between the popular and electoral votes. The first was Cleveland vs Harrison.

There have been a few other races in which the popular vote did not prevail, for differing reasons, from a dispute over certain states returning to the union following the civil war, an electoral college tie resolved by a vote in The House, and the final one a a dispute counting votes resolved by the SCOTUS.
Adams vs Jackson
Hayes vs Tilden
Bush vs Gore

One analogy was brought up akin to scoring the most runs or goals in a contest and still not actually winning!
Click to expand...

This isn't the second time.
 
hd79 said:
If you care to read the post, I mentioned the others, but as per above, it's only the second time what may be considered a straight disjunction occurred.
Click to expand...

I read your post and i found it lacking, in more ways than one. Fix it or shut the fuck up ignorant bitch.
 
Guille said:
I read your post and i found it lacking, in more ways than one. Fix it or shut the fuck up ignorant bitch.
Click to expand...
How about you provide facts to disprove anything I stated, or look in the mirror and take and your own advice!
 
Guille said:
This isn't the second time.
Click to expand...

The analogy is quite reversed. With the correct analogy you are breaking no constitutional rules and still make a comparative point of reference even a dumbed down voter can understand.

:)The correct analogy would be comparing a football team that has gained hundreds of yards more while on the field but could not quite get into the end zone every time they were inside the 20...they often and frequently caused their own downfall with careless ball handing resulting in fumbles and errant passes that were picked off. The final Score resulted in the team with the fewest yards by about half blowing their opponents away in a landslide score of something like 35 -10 A landslide victory...because the winning team had no trouble in the red zone and scored every time they had the opportunity because they were not so careless, incompetent and confident of a victory, as was the loser who had just beaten that same team TWICE previously during the regular season. 08/12

Conclusion: A 3 peat is very difficult....the writing was on the wall way back in June 2016 when the home team was in a virtual tie with the away team in the polls. History repeated itself....when the incumbent party can't get over 50% in the polls and stays within the margin of error long after the primaries are over. THE PEOPLE DEMAND CHANGE. Its the center voter who does not care about Rs or Ds that win elections...and they always swing toward change if they are unhappy and these folks sure were pissed. Mr. Reagan called them the "silent majority".
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
The analogy is quite reversed.

:)The correct analogy would be comparing a football team that has gained hundreds of yards more while on the field but could not quite get into the end zone every time they were inside the 20...they often and frequently caused their own downfall with careless ball handing resulting in fumbles and errant passes that were picked off. The final Score resulted in the team with the fewest yards by about half blowing their opponents away in a landslide score of something like 35 -10 A landslide victory...because the winning team had no trouble in the red zone and scored every time they had the opportunity because they not so careless and incompetent.
Click to expand...

Are you stupid or evil?
 
Ralph said:
The analogy is quite reversed. With the correct analogy you are breaking no constitutional rules and still make a comparative point of reference even a dumbed down voter can understand.

:)The correct analogy would be comparing a football team that has gained hundreds of yards more while on the field but could not quite get into the end zone every time they were inside the 20...they often and frequently caused their own downfall with careless ball handing resulting in fumbles and errant passes that were picked off. The final Score resulted in the team with the fewest yards by about half blowing their opponents away in a landslide score of something like 35 -10 A landslide victory...because the winning team had no trouble in the red zone and scored every time they had the opportunity because they were not so careless, incompetent and confident of a victory, as was the loser who had just beaten that same team TWICE previously during the regular season. 08/12

Conclusion: A 3 peat is very difficult....the writing was on the wall way back in June 2016 when the home team was in a virtual tie with the away team in the polls. History repeated itself....when the incumbent party can't get over 50% in the polls and stays within the margin of error long after the primaries are over. THE PEOPLE DEMAND CHANGE. Its the center voter who does not care about Rs or Ds that win elections...and they always swing toward change if they are unhappy and these folks sure were pissed. Mr. Reagan called them the "silent majority".
Click to expand...

Some very valid points, but it still doesn't quite hold to what a actually occurred. One team, the one you state as being careless, were those who actually scored more often and had more points overall, at least this time around.

To a certain degree, I'll agree that many of the swing voters were not happy, indeed even angry. But we've already witnessed some "buyers remorse" from those who recently voted based on emotion.
 
hd79 said:
Some very valid points, but it still doesn't quite hold to what a actually occurred. One team, the one you state as being careless, were those who actually scored more often and had more points overall, at least this time around.

To a certain degree, I'll agree that many of the swing voters were not happy, indeed even angry. But we've already witnessed some "buyers remorse" from those who recently voted based on emotion.
Click to expand...

What 'buyers remorse' have 'we witnessed'?

We've seen lots of TARD, from dim wit Democrats and their state run media, n' never Dumpster types.
 
Guille said:
Evil it is.
Click to expand...

Hey...it your opinion, and you are welcome to it. And it effects me how? If ever you social leftists and so called social libertarians agree with me...its time to back up ten yards and punt Rainman. :):clink:

FYI: Its over....Trump has 265 EC votes and Texas with its 38 votes are being cast as we speak. Better luck in 24 or 28
 
Ralph said:
The analogy is quite reversed. With the correct analogy you are breaking no constitutional rules and still make a comparative point of reference even a dumbed down voter can understand.

:)The correct analogy would be comparing a football team that has gained hundreds of yards more while on the field but could not quite get into the end zone every time they were inside the 20...they often and frequently caused their own downfall with careless ball handing resulting in fumbles and errant passes that were picked off. The final Score resulted in the team with the fewest yards by about half blowing their opponents away in a landslide score of something like 35 -10 A landslide victory...because the winning team had no trouble in the red zone and scored every time they had the opportunity because they were not so careless, incompetent and confident of a victory, as was the loser who had just beaten that same team TWICE previously during the regular season. 08/12

Conclusion: A 3 peat is very difficult....the writing was on the wall way back in June 2016 when the home team was in a virtual tie with the away team in the polls. History repeated itself....when the incumbent party can't get over 50% in the polls and stays within the margin of error long after the primaries are over. THE PEOPLE DEMAND CHANGE. Its the center voter who does not care about Rs or Ds that win elections...and they always swing toward change if they are unhappy and these folks sure were pissed. Mr. Reagan called them the "silent majority".
Click to expand...

I like it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top