Why democrats cannot take winning the popular vote as a "consolation prize"

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
Here is the basic facts. Hillary is winning by the absolute slimmest of margins, statistically, it is insignificant. We are talking 1/10th of 1%. Paltry numbers.

I will use liberals own words and own beliefs, I will accept what they have been saying for the past year at face value, and it is this:

1) Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, most experienced, most capable candidate the nation has ever had. She helped needy children, she was first lady, she was a senator, and secretary of state. She had 30 years of public service. She had an impeccable ground game, a rockstar legacy name, extreme public recognition, everyone in the DNC owed her favors. She was the A+ candidate. You said it yourselves. Democrats could not have a better person running for office. This is what you all said.

Concurrently:

2) Donald Trump is the anti-christ. He is mean, he is a bully. He made fun of a handicapped reporter. He made fun of war veteran john mccain and picked a fight with the grieving father Khan. He made fun of women's menstrual cycles, called a miss america contestant miss piggy, he had women lining up claiming they were sexually assaulted by him. He called mexicans rapists, called for a ban of muslims. He talked about grabbing women by the pussy. He was the most evil, racist, xenophobic, fascist, hitler-esque candidate ever put forth by the republicans. He was a man that divided his own party, with #nevertrumpers popping up, former presidential candidates calling him a fraud and a phony. By every measure, you claimed Trump was the biggest joke of a candidate the republicans ever put forth. See the liberal reaction here just one year ago to get a sense of the level of disrespect you had for trump:


Liberals, by their own words and beliefs have declared they had an "A+" candidate vs. the Republicans "F" candidate. The match could not be anymore unequal.

And even with all that, liberals could only win the popular vote by 1/10th of 1%. That is fucking pathetic

That is a rebuke, whether you want to admit it or not, and I will elaborate why.

What happens the next time republicans put forth a candiate that uses the same dog whistle politics, but doesn't grab women by the pussy, and doesn't insult the father of dead kids? What happens when they don't nominate someone that gets into twitter wars - in short, what happens when republicans nominate a more polished 'C' level candidate?

If your A+ candidate can only win by 1/10th of 1% of the popular vote (while still losing where it counts, mind you.. lest we forget), then what happens the next time you don't have the most qualified and experienced person running for office? (Because you do realize, candidates like that don't come around very often, right)?

If you can't even win the electoral college with your A+ vs. the Republicans F, and can only have the absolute infestessmail of victories in the popular margin, what happens with your B vs. a republican F?

or your C vs. a Republican B?

Or your B vs. a Republican B?

Liberals got fucking wrecked. If you can't even win with your best vs. your opponents worst, then you can't fucking win, period.

But hey! You won the popular vote! Give yourselves a pat on the back!
 
More Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump. That denies Trump popular legitimacy. He is a minority occupier, from the flyover states. He's not a legitimate ruler. He's a dictator who ignores the will of the people.
 
Mr. Meeseeks said:
Here is the basic facts. Hillary is winning by the absolute slimmest of margins, statistically, it is insignificant. We are talking 1/10th of 1%. Paltry numbers.

I will use liberals own words and own beliefs, I will accept what they have been saying for the past year at face value, and it is this:

1) Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, most experienced, most capable candidate the nation has ever had. She helped needy children, she was first lady, she was a senator, and secretary of state. She had 30 years of public service. She had an impeccable ground game, a rockstar legacy name, extreme public recognition, everyone in the DNC owed her favors. She was the A+ candidate. You said it yourselves. Democrats could not have a better person running for office. This is what you all said.

Concurrently:

2) Donald Trump is the anti-christ. He is mean, he is a bully. He made fun of a handicapped reporter. He made fun of war veteran john mccain and picked a fight with the grieving father Khan. He made fun of women's menstrual cycles, called a miss america contestant miss piggy, he had women lining up claiming they were sexually assaulted by him. He called mexicans rapists, called for a ban of muslims. He talked about grabbing women by the pussy. He was the most evil, racist, xenophobic, fascist, hitler-esque candidate ever put forth by the republicans. He was a man that divided his own party, with #nevertrumpers popping up, former presidential candidates calling him a fraud and a phony. By every measure, you claimed Trump was the biggest joke of a candidate the republicans ever put forth. See the liberal reaction here just one year ago to get a sense of the level of disrespect you had for trump:


Liberals, by their own words and beliefs have declared they had an "A+" candidate vs. the Republicans "F" candidate. The match could not be anymore unequal.

And even with all that, liberals could only win the popular vote by 1/10th of 1%. That is fucking pathetic

That is a rebuke, whether you want to admit it or not, and I will elaborate why.

What happens the next time republicans put forth a candiate that uses the same dog whistle politics, but doesn't grab women by the pussy, and doesn't insult the father of dead kids? What happens when they don't nominate someone that gets into twitter wars - in short, what happens when republicans nominate a more polished 'C' level candidate?

If your A+ candidate can only win by 1/10th of 1% of the popular vote (while still losing where it counts, mind you.. lest we forget), then what happens the next time you don't have the most qualified and experienced person running for office? (Because you do realize, candidates like that don't come around very often, right)?

If you can't even win the electoral college with your A+ vs. the Republicans F, and can only have the absolute infestessmail of victories in the popular margin, what happens with your B vs. a republican F?

or your C vs. a Republican B?

Or your B vs. a Republican B?

Liberals got fucking wrecked. If you can't even win with your best vs. your opponents worst, then you can't fucking win, period.

But hey! You won the popular vote! Give yourselves a pat on the back!
Click to expand...

You will come to learn how fucked the nation and the world is right now.
You put a WWE wrestling promoter with an infantile mind in the most powerful drivers seat in the world.
The funny part is you stupid bastards think you "won" something.
 
the vote isn't contested like it was in Florida..it's freak result from the electoral college vs. popular.
This isn't a democracy, it's a republic
 
Grind, Douchebag Donald is the biggest joke of a candidate the GOP has ever put forward. Even Goldwater was pretty serious by comparison. He just wasn't as un-electable as Crooked Hillary.
 
Thing1 said:
You're really not nearly as intelligent as you think you are.

I mean, not even a fraction.

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
sorry but you are the stupid one, you have no baseline with which to judge intelligence. Nice rebuttal though, as always.
 
Threedee said:
Grind, Douchebag Donald is the biggest joke of a candidate the GOP has ever put forward. Even Goldwater was pretty serious by comparison. He just wasn't as un-electable as Crooked Hillary.
Click to expand...

it's very possible, but that would only mean one of two things

A) clinton being the most qualified candidate and qualified person to run for president ever couldn't beat the biggest joke of a candidate

B) democrats were delusional to ever claim (A) in the first place. Perhaps they need to really have some self reflection.

They can't have it both ways. If Clinton as great and trump was garbage, then what does that say about their future prospects?

So either Their A's can't be republican F's, or they need to admit to themselves how dumb they were to nominate the ultimate insider in an election where the people wanted change by overwhelming numbers.

either answer confronts them with their cognitive dissonance.
 
Popular vote is fucking meaningless. Wow more people in Cali voted for Hilary that ppl in Wyoming.

Guess what? Doesn't mean jack shit! We have a constitution, and we have states rights. This is a republic, and the united STATES. Not united random morons in california.

The electoral college was actually implemented to help northern small states.
 
Mr. Meeseeks said:
sorry but you are the stupid one, you have no baseline with which to judge intelligence. Nice rebuttal though, as always.
Click to expand...

No problem at all.

But if you could step back from your anti-lib fervor for a moment, you'd see that people making WAY to many sweeping generalizations about what this election means. Trump won by very thin margins (PA, MI, FL, etc.), and LOST the popular vote, to a candidate who most saw as a criminal by the end of the campaign.

And yet we're hearing all of this proselytizing about heeding the "movement" and Democrats being out of step and the new paradigm.

Color me unimpressed. Hating Hillary Clinton isn't a sustainable movement.
 
I think you miss the point of my entire post. It's not that he "lost" the popular vote, (which is insignificant and almost a dead tie in every statistical manner of speaking) but that if he was really as bad as you claim, and clinton was as good as many liberals claimed, then it's still a completely embarrassing finish. If an A+ nominee can't trounce an F nominee, then you'll be hopeless with B and C level candidates against average republican candidates.

Either that or people will have to be honest with themselves that clinton was a garbage pick, and trump maybe wasn't such a bad pick, strategically. People go on and on about how any other candidate would have troucned clinton but I am not sure of that. I don't see Jeb or Rubio taking WI and MI. They are for free trade and trump won those people over with protectionism. Elitest globalist jeb or rubio or kasich wouldn't have done that.
 
A+ Hillary is a flawed premise. While I have heard a lot of people use the "most qualified" thing, there has been far more hand-wringing about her baggage & how weak she was as a candidate. Democrats were almost as reluctant to vote for her as a lot of Republicans were to vote for Trump. And the polls bear that out - both had near 60% disapproval ratings.

If you didn't hear the Dem concern about Hillary, you weren't paying attention.
 
in fairness to you thing1 even though you are biased as fuck I will give you credit for recognizing hillary's weaknesses
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
You will come to learn how fucked the nation and the world is right now.
You put a WWE wrestling promoter with an infantile mind in the most powerful drivers seat in the world.
The funny part is you stupid bastards think you "won" something.
Click to expand...
You are not fooling anybody Twatsky, you are obviously too cowardly to come on here, so you use your sock instead.

Poor Twatsky.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
You will come to learn how fucked the nation and the world is right now.
You put a WWE wrestling promoter with an infantile mind in the most powerful drivers seat in the world.
The funny part is you stupid bastards think you "won" something.
Click to expand...

the presidency :)
 
Mr. Meeseeks said:
Here is the basic facts. Hillary is winning by the absolute slimmest of margins, statistically, it is insignificant. We are talking 1/10th of 1%. Paltry numbers.

I will use liberals own words and own beliefs, I will accept what they have been saying for the past year at face value, and it is this:

1) Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, most experienced, most capable candidate the nation has ever had. She helped needy children, she was first lady, she was a senator, and secretary of state. She had 30 years of public service. She had an impeccable ground game, a rockstar legacy name, extreme public recognition, everyone in the DNC owed her favors. She was the A+ candidate. You said it yourselves. Democrats could not have a better person running for office. This is what you all said.

Concurrently:

2) Donald Trump is the anti-christ. He is mean, he is a bully. He made fun of a handicapped reporter. He made fun of war veteran john mccain and picked a fight with the grieving father Khan. He made fun of women's menstrual cycles, called a miss america contestant miss piggy, he had women lining up claiming they were sexually assaulted by him. He called mexicans rapists, called for a ban of muslims. He talked about grabbing women by the pussy. He was the most evil, racist, xenophobic, fascist, hitler-esque candidate ever put forth by the republicans. He was a man that divided his own party, with #nevertrumpers popping up, former presidential candidates calling him a fraud and a phony. By every measure, you claimed Trump was the biggest joke of a candidate the republicans ever put forth. See the liberal reaction here just one year ago to get a sense of the level of disrespect you had for trump:


Liberals, by their own words and beliefs have declared they had an "A+" candidate vs. the Republicans "F" candidate. The match could not be anymore unequal.

And even with all that, liberals could only win the popular vote by 1/10th of 1%. That is fucking pathetic

That is a rebuke, whether you want to admit it or not, and I will elaborate why.

What happens the next time republicans put forth a candiate that uses the same dog whistle politics, but doesn't grab women by the pussy, and doesn't insult the father of dead kids? What happens when they don't nominate someone that gets into twitter wars - in short, what happens when republicans nominate a more polished 'C' level candidate?

If your A+ candidate can only win by 1/10th of 1% of the popular vote (while still losing where it counts, mind you.. lest we forget), then what happens the next time you don't have the most qualified and experienced person running for office? (Because you do realize, candidates like that don't come around very often, right)?

If you can't even win the electoral college with your A+ vs. the Republicans F, and can only have the absolute infestessmail of victories in the popular margin, what happens with your B vs. a republican F?

or your C vs. a Republican B?

Or your B vs. a Republican B?

Liberals got fucking wrecked. If you can't even win with your best vs. your opponents worst, then you can't fucking win, period.

But hey! You won the popular vote! Give yourselves a pat on the back!
Click to expand...

Outstanding summary of what happened. I would like to add that idiots who whine about the popular vote in this country are illustrating their incredible ignorance of the Constitution and what makes our process so brilliant.

This election illustrated the genius of our founders who, over 200 years ago, created such a brilliant document for man Governing over his fellow man. It is an example how some very populous blue cities could have forced their will on the rural states and how our process prevents that from happening.

Only complete uneducated dolts can argue to eliminate this process.
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
You will come to learn how fucked the nation and the world is right now.
You put a WWE wrestling promoter with an infantile mind in the most powerful drivers seat in the world.
The funny part is you stupid bastards think you "won" something.
Click to expand...

^This is a leftist retard on steroids; don't be one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top