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.
Hillary got millions and millions more votes than trump!
She should have been president if there was any justice
An old topic that gets explained again and again and again. Fortunately our founding fathers were smarter than you - it is not justice for a few population centers to decide the vote for the rest of the country. Wouldn't it be great if they thought of a compromise? Taking both population AND the diverse needs of individual states into consideration - guess what, that's exactly what we have today.
By the way, no one candidate got the majority vote (over 50%).
An old topic that gets explained again and again and again. Fortunately our founding fathers were smarter than you - it is not justice for a few population centers to decide the vote for the rest of the country.
By the way, no one candidate got the majority vote (over 50%).
So rural and southern states get to decide the vote for the rest of the country? You only think it's fair because that favors your preferences. But what would really be fair is a vote that reflect the will of all voters regardless of where they live. More people = more votes and it should not matter where they live.
So rural and southern states get to decide the vote for the rest of the country? You only think it's fair because that favors your preferences. But what would really be fair is a vote that reflect the will of all voters regardless of where they live. More people = more votes and it should not matter where they live.
Did you edit my response and leave out the part about compromise? That's a bit scum-bagish. Yes it should matter, we are the United STATES, that's the entire foundation of our country, not "United California and New York with some nobodies in between". The founding fathers devised a compromise between urban population and rural states that had their own needs and interests (California has 55 votes, Montana has 3), which was fair to all. Not fair to YOU, but fair to all. It indeed favors population while still giving the states a fair vote.
But this generated many threads as I remember back after the last election. Revisit them if you wish. But you lost that argument once the civics lessons were given - the electoral process remains and the topic is dead, kaput, finished. Look for another topic as I don't think anyone will waste time going over this again.
Edit: actually I see a current topic open on the issue, knock yourself out, maybe learn some things: Electoral College
Did you edit my response and leave out the part about compromise? That's a bit scum-bagish. Yes it should matter, we are the United STATES, that's the entire foundation of our country, not "United California and New York with some nobodies in between". The founding fathers devised a compromise between urban population and rural states that had their own needs and interests (California has 55 votes, Montana has 3), which was fair to all. Not fair to YOU, but fair to all. It indeed favors population while still giving the states a fair vote.
But this generated many threads as I remember back after the last election. Revisit them if you wish. But you lost that argument once the civics lessons were given - the electoral process remains and the topic is dead, kaput, finished. Look for another topic as I don't think anyone will waste time going over this again.
I didn't edit out anything, I can only guess you edited your post after I had already quoted it and was writing mine. Rude to call it scum-bagish based on an incorrect assumption on your part.
But no, the EC is not taking population into account, esp. when the total number of EC votes is capped and doesn't reflect increasing population numbers. MT voters have 3.6 times more power per vote than CA voters That is not equitable or fair, period.
Obviously MT is going to keep their 3 EC votes, but the only fair thing would be to add more votes to the EC so that Californians are represented at the same rate as other states. Other states are not nobodies, they simply don't deserve outside representation compared with states where more people happen to live.
And no, I haven't lost that argument, there has been a push to eliminate the EC for decades now, and eventually fairness will prevail. One person, one vote will mean something, even if people in smaller states lose their small state privilege of controlling elections.
ETA: I see you do have a habit of editing posts, so once again you added to your post after I had quoted it. This time with another insult. How civil of you. Right, isn't that what the GOP is demanding, that Democrats be more civil? Yet obviously you feel free to insult me multiple times in one post.
Hillary needs to call it a day. Yes, there have been recent presidents who came from devastating defeat, Nixon in 1960 and Reagan against Ford in 1976 in the Republican primaries, to eventually win.
Bill will always be a liability. The Clinton brand is in the tank.
Her time has come and gone. Move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tillman7
Why not? Hillary won in 2016 and knows Donald Trump knows she did. The demographics are in her favor in 2020, but Putin is in Donald Trump's favor in 2020.
Two diametrically opposing views from democrats. As a non committed centrist, I feel that the democratic party needs to get its act together if they have any chance of winning in 2020.
I agree that it is time to put the Clinton era behind and groom a centrist politician. But if there are still voters like the latter poster, I feel a bit sorry for the democratic party's future.
Why not? Hillary won in 2016 and knows Donald Trump knows she did. The demographics are in her favor in 2020, but Putin is in Donald Trump's favor in 2020.
Very warped way to look at it, especially since she clearly lost in an election stacked for her in every possible way.
Hillary's best chance to have been president was in 2008, but she lost to her left flank when Obama got the nomination. Had she won the nomination, she would have almost certainly beaten McCain. If for no other reason, she would not have created her own mess with the horrible job she did as SoS, and her private email server.
Thus, if she really wanted to blame someone, it would have been 2008 Obama, not 2016 Obama.
Here's an interesting and thoughtful article about how people are duped by Russian propaganda.
There, fixed it for ya!
Hillary is doing far more to promote this idea and the "left" is not doing anywhere near enough to shoot it down. This isn't driven by some Twitter post. It's being driven by Hillary.
So rural and southern states get to decide the vote for the rest of the country? You only think it's fair because that favors your preferences. But what would really be fair is a vote that reflect the will of all voters regardless of where they live. More people = more votes and it should not matter where they live.
Trump won because Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, all states Hillary should have won went to Trump.
Trump won because Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, all states Hillary should have won went to Trump.
None of them are in the south.
Trump won because of Russian interference and the election being handed to him on a silver platter by Jim Comey. But that's not the subject of this thread
Unlike the current president who spends a lot of time in golf carts!
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.
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.
