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.
Maybe in the early 2000s after Bush's first win. But they haven't made much noise about it since 2008, I guarantee.
They have continued to push the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all this time. The fact that it didn't hit your radar doesn't mean it didn't happen.
most of the time, the electoral college and the national popular vote coincide with each other. occasionally the votes get split, the national popular vote goes to one candidate, the electoral college goes to the other. and since we use the electoral college to determine the president, the national popular vote mean nothing. but it doesnt prevent the EC loser from complaining about the so called discrepancy between the two, and suggesting that we should use the popular vote count to determine the president.
The bottom line is that partisan Democrats believed the bulls#it that the "blue wall" would guarantee them the presidency for all time to come. They couldn't possibly foresee that they would lose MI, PA, & WI, and so they never complained about the Electoral College prior to Election Day.
I've personally had enough whining from the far-left about the Electoral College to last me a lifetime. Back in 2012, when Democrats thought they had a huge advantage in the Electoral College, left-wing websites published articles such as this:
And will the left please quit pretending that they actually believe that the person who receives the most votes should win. (The only reason why liberals believe that the popular vote winner in 2016 should be president is because their candidate won the popular vote.) As has been pointed out on this forum, Clinton received more votes than Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries, yet the far-left was perfectly fine with their beloved Obama getting the nomination. Furthermore, left-wing loons repeatedly tried to deny the legitimacy of Bush's victory in 2004, despite the fact that he received 3 million more votes than Kerry. (If you recall, partisan Democrats claimed that "racist" Republicans stole the election in Ohio, which was a state that Bush won by 118,601 votes. Had some 60,000 votes shifted and Kerry won Ohio, he would have been the winner despite losing the popular vote.)
before the election they said Hillary had an easy path to 270 electoral votes and Trump had no chance
They weren't just calling for her to win, but had it in their minds that she would set a record for EC votes. Some in here were saying "the question isn't if she will win but by how much" and were blurting out that she would get 340 or more.
Now that she (HRC) was thoroughly blown out... the Green Party wants a recount in states that were not even close? Stein has gotten more money to do this recount than she got her entire campaign. It's fairly obvious who is behind this, which shows just how much of a hypocrite HRC is, always using plausible deniability to separate herself from the people she is manipulating.
The left are doing the very thing they claimed Trump would have done... only to a ridiculous extreme.
Clinton hasn't said a word about the violence and rioting. Why is that?
I thought Obama was divisive but now I can see this is SOP for the DP.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 29 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,594 posts, read 16,568,312 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Yes.
Such principles are always in fluctuation for the Alt-Left as they look to score political points.
The people on this forum on both sides are hypocrites and have short term memory, but on this subject, it is more so you republicans and conservatives
Both sides have said the electoral college is out of date, both have wanted to eliminate it and both have wanted to tweak it to their advantage.
The last time this forum had a major discussion about it was when a congressmen introduced the idea of awarding the Presidency like the GOP primary by giving the candidates electoral college points by them winning congressional districts(Specifically in Pennsylvania, and Michigan)
Many of the leftist in that forum then said that eliminating the electoral college would be better if it came to gerrymandered congressional districts choosing the president.
In another thread, Democrats wanted to make it wholly proportional, with the winning getting +1 for winning each states. so say if you won Arizona, 49-45, instead of getting all 11, both would get 5, and the winner would get the 11th electoral vote.
The people on this forum on both sides are hypocrites and have short term memory, ....
Which category do you place yourself then?
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.
