U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-12-2018, 07:42 PM
 
44,493 posts, read 17,771,709 times
Reputation: 18718

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Donít forget Pennsylvania. Even the dead voters in Philly couldnít push the old lady over the line.

That was the crusher.

You could hear them all crying at ABC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and NBC when Hillary lost NC.


This after Hillary spending a literal fortune to win the state.



She was pretty much done after that. Some of us said here for a long time she was going to lose it including Penn. She lost Pennsylvania when she claimed she wanted to shut down the coal industry. Of course the drunkard must not have realized what coal means to that state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2018, 05:07 AM
 
78,291 posts, read 33,358,137 times
Reputation: 15667
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
You could hear them all crying at ABC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and NBC when Hillary lost NC.


This after Hillary spending a literal fortune to win the state.



She was pretty much done after that. Some of us said here for a long time she was going to lose it including Penn. She lost Pennsylvania when she claimed she wanted to shut down the coal industry. Of course the drunkard must not have realized what coal means to that state.
I don't go to Pennsylvania that often but I did happen to be there the summer of 2016. Now granted it was in the Eastern part but there were Trump signs everywhere. Not a Hillary sign to be seen anywhere.

It's why I did say that unless Hillary had a huge turn out in the East she was going to lose in Pennsylvania. One would think that someone, anyone, in her organization would have came to this same conclusion and tried to see that it happened by showing up on occasion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2018, 05:29 AM
 
2,963 posts, read 3,045,615 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
there were Trump signs everywhere. Not a Hillary sign to be seen anywhere.

It's why I did say that unless Hillary had a huge turn out in the East she was going to lose in Pennsylvania. One would think that someone, anyone, in her organization would have came to this same conclusion and tried to see that it happened by showing up on occasion.
I don't live in PA either, but a deep red state (SC). Trump signs everywhere - a few Clinton signs here and there - but I could probably count the Clinton signs I saw on one hand. Clinton not campaigning in my state was no surprise. My state was in the bag already for Trump.

But it is interesting that what you are saying about PA seems to have been mirrored in SC. Clinton's campaign didn't think for a second that they had to spend any money in SC or PA to alter the outcome. Of course, the difference is that she never expected to win SC. Yet, I think everyone was surprised she lost PA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2018, 08:03 PM
 
18,744 posts, read 7,281,503 times
Reputation: 8010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy View Post
I don't live in PA either, but a deep red state (SC). Trump signs everywhere - a few Clinton signs here and there - but I could probably count the Clinton signs I saw on one hand. Clinton not campaigning in my state was no surprise. My state was in the bag already for Trump.

But it is interesting that what you are saying about PA seems to have been mirrored in SC. Clinton's campaign didn't think for a second that they had to spend any money in SC or PA to alter the outcome. Of course, the difference is that she never expected to win SC. Yet, I think everyone was surprised she lost PA.
Pa did not surprise me. the rural vote roared-great turnout. Now they recognize the power they hold.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 12:19 PM
 
326 posts, read 115,407 times
Reputation: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
Pa did not surprise me. the rural vote roared-great turnout. Now they recognize the power they hold.
Yeah it's funny. Hillary and her supporters thought she had it in the bag. How many less voted for her compared to Obama?

Trump supporters are like a pack of ravenous wolves and I expect no less turnout in 2020.

As far as signs... every sign I saw from Spokane to the Cascades was (obviously) a Trump sign. On this side of the mountains in liberal Seattle I saw Bernie signs... I don't recall seeing anything Hillary other than 1 bumper sticker and a sign that a guy had in the back of his truck with an expletive indicating he didn't like her that much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2018, 07:43 AM
 
2,963 posts, read 3,045,615 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by arresmillao View Post
So what? a vote is a vote, yes dj chump was able to squeeze a very tight electoral college win, good for him, ain't going to happen again, whatever gop candidate runs in 2020 will take a beat from whoever runs for democrats...
It isn't that simple. Incumbents hold an advantage. A lot of people prefer the "devil you know." Of course, they didn't do that in 2016 - but that also wasn't an incumbent running.

I think the key question that will be answered in Nov 2020 is how much of a fluke (or not!) that 2016 was, specifically in PA MI and WI. Did Trump flip votes or did Democrat supporters just not show up? It is hard to be sure. Of course, it isn't a binary decision here. Trump could have flipped some, he could have increased turn-out of normally abstaining voters and he/Clinton could have turned-off Democratic supporters.

If Trump needed Democrat turn-out to be low AND Republican turnout to be very high - it may be hard for him to repeat. He already got the "swing votes" in those states possibly. Even if he retained those but Democrats show up at the polls to support their candidate, he might have a hard time winning.

A lot can happen between now and 2020. Who knows? The 2020 elections might not even mention North Korea, Russia, caging toddlers, etc. There may be other crises at the top of the list instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2018, 08:12 AM
 
9,229 posts, read 4,250,942 times
Reputation: 11010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.
Thats why the left hates it, the Electoral College because it makes things fair and equal.
While I support the EC (always have since I was a kid), these figures presumably come from somewhere. So does your email have a source for it's purported stats?


`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2018, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
6,349 posts, read 4,149,593 times
Reputation: 5659
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy View Post
It isn't that simple. Incumbents hold an advantage. A lot of people prefer the "devil you know." Of course, they didn't do that in 2016 - but that also wasn't an incumbent running.
In this case most people knew one "devil" more than the other, and decided they didn't like the one that they knew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2018, 05:53 AM
 
2,963 posts, read 3,045,615 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat View Post
In this case most people knew one "devil" more than the other, and decided they didn't like the one that they knew.
And that's their right.

Who knows how that will play out in 2018 and 2020. I think the key worry that Congressional Republicans in 2018 should have is that they have not acted as a "check" on the President's power. They are pretty much beholden to him; a bunch of "yes-men" if you will. I was hoping they'd keep him in line, but apparently you either have unending loyalty to the man or you lose your primary like Mark Sanford (SC) did.

I'd be more supportive of the GOP if they grew a spine and stood up to the man. They caved to Trump (like last week when he floundered about between throwing our intelligence community under the bus, then supporting them, and then back to throwing them under the bus) worse than Trump caved to Putin and Kim Jong Un.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2018, 07:33 AM
 
66,328 posts, read 30,210,361 times
Reputation: 8625
Quote:
Originally Posted by arresmillao View Post
So what? a vote is a vote, yes dj chump was able to squeeze a very tight electoral college win, good for him, ain't going to happen again, whatever gop candidate runs in 2020 will take a beat from whoever runs for democrats...
It wasn't tight. Wasn't even close. It was an EC landslide. 304 to 227.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top