Here’s what I think: Trump is gonna win again

[Cuse0323]

The more New Yorkers and California hear Donnie talk.....the more they hate him. Him campaigning in those states.....would not help him.

The election now comes down to 4-5 states so might as well just make it popular vote. Either way....Donnie isn’t making up millions of votes. Let’s face it....the majority of the country does not want him to be president. The votes say that

I don’t think the majority of the country wants socialism either. So who do they choose? They will decide that it’s better to have Trump than a radical leftist. Biden has a shot because he will slink back to the middle in the general, but can he make it out of the liberal dungeon to even get there? I don’t know. Kamala pumping out ideas and policies while Joe is on the defensive. If Democrats were smart they would have got behind Biden, and just done a Joe/Kamala ticket, but instead they all want the top prize and will beat each other down. Trump just has to beat whoever makes it, bloodied and beat up.

I’m still hoping it’s Joe because like I’ve said before, I’m never counting out Kamala and she probably takes less hits along the way than the rest. Then when Trump attacks her he will get the racist, sexist card thrown at him. Rather he goes against the old white guy who has so many things to account for in his past, including all of Obama’s failed policies.

[navyblue81]

The popular vote means squat. IF it did, more people in Cali and N.Y. would vote and the candidates would campaign differently and their messages would be different. There’s a reason they do the electoral system and it’s been deemed as most fair. The only reason it’s coming under attack now are Hillary supporters can’t accept their loss and are trying to make themselves feel better. It’s over. The system in place is the right one. We move on.

[navyblue81]

By the way, for all the "popular vote" people, this was the final map of voters. Hillary can hang her hat on those little blues in big cities like New York, LA and SF, but if we're going to talk about the country as a whole, she got her ass whooped.

[DwightShrute]

The popular vote means squat. IF it did, more people in Cali and N.Y. would vote and the candidates would campaign differently and their messages would be different. There’s a reason they do the electoral system and it’s been deemed as most fair. The only reason it’s coming under attack now are Hillary supporters can’t accept their loss and are trying to make themselves feel better. It’s over. The system in place is the right one. We move on.

[JIBBBY]

The popular vote means squat. IF it did, more people in Cali and N.Y. would vote and the candidates would campaign differently and their messages would be different. There’s a reason they do the electoral system and it’s been deemed as most fair. The only reason it’s coming under attack now are Hillary supporters can’t accept their loss and are trying to make themselves feel better. It’s over. The system in place is the right one. We move on.

California is so rigged..You got illegals voting Democratic with fake id's and socials, then you have Republican voters that don't even bother to go out and vote because we know the State of California is going BLUE and will always end up being Democratic every time.. Even the popular vote in California is iffy and rigged in other words.

Thank God for the electoral system!!! That will Trumps pathway to victory again..

[Demonata]

I love waking up knowing trump is still my president every morning.

[navyblue81]

Thank God for the electoral system!!!.

Agree, but it has nothing to do with Trump. It has more to do with the strategy and fairness of an election. We're called United STATES for a reason. The founding fathers were afraid that if they made the election a popular vote, candidates would bombard the big cities and run on one message alone tailored towards the population. The system we have in place allows candidates to run on a variety of issues and reach out to a variety of citizens. Plus, given the way our country is structured with laws, representatives and amendments, it wouldn't make any sense to go to a popular vote.

And before anyone says this is only my recent view, I did a debate on this topic in college 20 years ago, so it's always been my view on the electoral system.

[JIBBBY]

Agree, but it has nothing to do with Trump. It has more to do with the strategy and fairness of an election. We're called United STATES for a reason. The founding fathers were afraid that if they made the election a popular vote, candidates would bombard the big cities and run on one message alone tailored towards the population. The system we have in place allows candidates to run on a variety of issues and reach out to a variety of citizens. Plus, given the way our country is structured with laws, representatives and amendments, it wouldn't make any sense to go to a popular vote.

And before anyone says this is only my recent view, I did a debate on this topic in college 20 years ago, so it's always been my view on the electoral system.

Yup, the electoral gives the smaller States a voting voice.. It's a fair system..

[Sam Odom]

Good Thread !!

Several Posters have changed their Minds

[Headsterx]

Yup, the electoral gives the smaller States a voting voice.. It's a fair system..

How is that really a "fair system". It's promoting territories rather than individual. My vote in California and another voter in Mississippi are not equal to a voter in Wisconsin or Florida. It's not about majority of USA as that's why national polls are stupid. It's about understanding how to play the regional game of states and your resources to get the swing states. Thus, it's a political game rather than actually allowing the "will of the people" getting a fair representation in politics.

[Sam Odom]

How is that really a "fair system". It's promoting territories rather than individual. My vote in California and another voter in Mississippi are not equal to a voter in Wisconsin or Florida. It's not about majority of USA as that's why national polls are stupid. It's about understanding how to play the regional game of states and your resources to get the swing states. Thus, it's a political game rather than actually allowing the "will of the people" getting a fair representation in politics.

Thats why USA is NOT a democracy... Its "a republic, if you can keep it."

[navyblue81]

How is that really a "fair system". It's promoting territories rather than individual. My vote in California and another voter in Mississippi are not equal to a voter in Wisconsin or Florida. It's not about majority of USA as that's why national polls are stupid. It's about understanding how to play the regional game of states and your resources to get the swing states. Thus, it's a political game rather than actually allowing the "will of the people" getting a fair representation in politics.

It would go against everything our country is for. Our constitution is made up of state-by-state ratification. Our representatives are made up state-by-state. In order for a bill to become a national law, it needs to be ratified state-by-state. Laws are different state by state. If we had no states in our country and the laws in each state were the same everywhere, then I'd say the popular vote makes more sense. But that's not how our country is made up. While we really are one country, in a way we kind of are 50 different countries in the way every state is different from the other.

Like I said, if it came down to popular vote, then I think candidates would do nothing but bombard big cities with one universal message and advertising. They'd ignore the rural population altogether. And given each state is different and has different laws, it only makes sense that each state has a voice in the electoral process.

[Headsterx]

Thats why USA is NOT a democracy... Its "a republic, if you can keep it."

Yeah, and it's the system that was created which I'm ok with. But I'm not stupid to believe this is a fair system. It was created to protect territories NOT individuals. Slave-owning states would have never agreed to an actual democracy because they knew the majority of people didn't want slavery. So this is what we have but it's hilarious to think this is the"fair" and/or best system.

[JIBBBY]

This breaks it down even further. Founding fathers were wise. The History behind the Electoral..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

[JohnGalt2341]

By the way, for all the "popular vote" people, this was the final map of voters. Hillary can hang her hat on those little blues in big cities like New York, LA and SF, but if we're going to talk about the country as a whole, she got her ass whooped.

The map above shows who won according to county. Is this correct? Basically it shows that Trump completely dominated rural areas. But he didn't do nearly as well in more densely populated areas. Look at Minnesota, it's nearly all red. Trump lost Minnesota. He won counties where only a few thousand people or less live. He did this all across the country.

There's a couple of different ways you could look at this. #1 Trump represents the working class. Or #2 Trump represents people that are less educated(both theories could be true btw). Have you ever heard the theory that more educated people tend to move to the city? Where are most colleges? Where are most of the better paying jobs? Are they in densely populated areas or rural areas? The theory is not absolute, that's for sure. But it makes sense.

For all of you Trump supporters, don't kill the messenger. It's just an observation. Trump dominated rural areas for a reason, that's for sure.

https://www.popsci.com/article/science/smarter-people-are-more-likely-move-cities/

[DwightShrute]

How is that really a "fair system". It's promoting territories rather than individual. My vote in California and another voter in Mississippi are not equal to a voter in Wisconsin or Florida. It's not about majority of USA as that's why national polls are stupid. It's about understanding how to play the regional game of states and your resources to get the swing states. Thus, it's a political game rather than actually allowing the "will of the people" getting a fair representation in politics.

you couldn't be more wrong. The system was the same for both candidates. Just because you guys believed the polls saying Crooked Hillary had a 98% chance of winning and totally discounted the massive number of people who attended Trump rallies while only a handful only bothered to show up whenever she spoke .... doesn't make it unfair. Losing doesn't make it unfair. Crying afterwards won't change the outcome.

Crooked Hillary had no message whatsoever. Heck, she never even bothered to show up in some key States. Trump out worked her. Plain and simple. He knew NY and California would be almost impossible to win and didn't waste his time there. While Crooked Hillary underestimated her opponent and prepared her acceptance speech.

America dodged a huge bullet in 2016. Thank goodness NY and California aren't responsible for deciding for the rest of the country. Look at the disaster California is.

[navyblue81]

Yeah, and it's the system that was created which I'm ok with. But I'm not stupid to believe this is a fair system. It was created to protect territories NOT individuals. Slave-owning states would have never agreed to an actual democracy because they knew the majority of people didn't want slavery. So this is what we have but it's hilarious to think this is the"fair" and/or best system.

Is it really "fair" for a candidate to do nothing but ignore most of America and just campaign in a handful of big cities and win the election based on their vote....especially in a country where everything is done state-by-state? Now all of a sudden we're going to abandon everything our country is made on and cater so we can give the big cities more importance? I think the system we have in place is most fair and makes the most sense. Like I said, if there were no states and our country was more "federal", I'd agree...the popular vote would be the most fair and practical. But that's not what our country is.

Like I said, I did a college debate on this issue 20 years ago and studied every aspect of it, and trust me, the system we have in place is the most fair one. There's some tweaks I'd like to see, but it's definitely the right process based on our country's structure. A popular vote given the makeup of our country would make no sense whatsoever.

[ronald]

If only Americans voted, then yes - Trump would win again. Unfortunately it is incredibly easy for anyone with a US ID card to vote, even if they aren't a citizen. And as we know, illegals tend to vote Democrat. There will likely be millions of votes from non-americans in the next election, yet the media is more concerned with "Russian interference."

[SEAHAWKHARRY]

Our Economy is doing so good
Don't think people want to fukk it it...people who actually vote

I have a few friends in the financial sector..openly Democtratic but both said off the record they will probably have to vote for Trump to keep their financial portfolios strong and charging..I see a lotof that really

[pilebuck13]

I love the constant uneducated angle. Just because you have a degree means absolutely nothing to having common sense. I have met by far the dumbest “educated” people with zero life experience or common sense.

[DwightShrute]

The map above shows who won according to county. Is this correct? Basically it shows that Trump completely dominated rural areas. But he didn't do nearly as well in more densely populated areas. Look at Minnesota, it's nearly all red. Trump lost Minnesota. He won counties where only a few thousand people or less live. He did this all across the country.

There's a couple of different ways you could look at this. #1 Trump represents the working class. Or #2 Trump represents people that are less educated(both theories could be true btw). Have you ever heard the theory that more educated people tend to move to the city? Where are most colleges? Where are most of the better paying jobs? Are they in densely populated areas or rural areas? The theory is not absolute, that's for sure. But it makes sense.
For all of you Trump supporters, don't kill the messenger. It's just an observation. Trump dominated rural areas for a reason, that's for sure.

Trump won because all different types Americans voted for him. Educated doesn't necessarily mean intelligent. Just look at the educated people on TV. Look at those who spend tens of thousands to go to college and take gender study course and then end up working at Subway and paying off their "education" for decades.

Push the fake news narratives all ya want. Smart people aren't buying.

[JIBBBY]

The popular vote was fairly close just for the record.. Trump was winning it until the final votes hit California.. Like I said California is rigged with illegal votes and Republicans don't even bother to get out and vote because we know it's a useless cause.. Now if the Popular vote counted I'm sure Republicans would get out and vote more..

If that were the case the Popular vote numbers would even become tighter with Hillary and Trump.. Many factors to consider..



As it stood Hillary only won the POPULAR VOTE by 800,000 votes... The popular vote ended up being very close.

[Sam Odom]

Slave-owning states would have never agreed to an actual democracy because they knew the majority of people didn't want slavery.

To be clear... it was 'The North' who pushed the 3/5 clause... count three out of every five slaves as people

[Headsterx]

To be clear... it was 'The North' who pushed the 3/5 clause... count three out of every five slaves as people

To be clear, North had to do it to keep South from breaking away but that was pointless as we still had Civil War.

[SBR_Guest_Pro]

i think arnold schwarzanegger should run

[Sam Odom]

Headsterx

you need to brush-up on your US History

[SEAHAWKHARRY]

i think arnold schwarzanegger should run

That Asshat is a Wolf in sheeps clothing fukk that

[SBR_Guest_Pro]

That Asshat is a Wolf in sheeps clothing fukk that

But was the best Governor we've had in a long time in Cali

[Cuse0323]

The map above shows who won according to county. Is this correct? Basically it shows that Trump completely dominated rural areas. But he didn't do nearly as well in more densely populated areas. Look at Minnesota, it's nearly all red. Trump lost Minnesota. He won counties where only a few thousand people or less live. He did this all across the country.

There's a couple of different ways you could look at this. #1 Trump represents the working class. Or #2 Trump represents people that are less educated(both theories could be true btw). Have you ever heard the theory that more educated people tend to move to the city? Where are most colleges? Where are most of the better paying jobs? Are they in densely populated areas or rural areas? The theory is not absolute, that's for sure. But it makes sense.

For all of you Trump supporters, don't kill the messenger. It's just an observation. Trump dominated rural areas for a reason, that's for sure.

https://www.popsci.com/article/scien...y-move-cities/

Not directed at you really, but I’ll just propose a thought. Are those that got a degree, and along the way were taught by professors who statistically lean liberal, really more educated on the issues at hand? Over those in rural areas that probably worked from a young age, and their education came through life experience? I went to college plenty, but don’t have a degree. Am I uneducated? I say no, just dumb for not finishing the nonsense. Point being, I don’t think people are uneducated just because their life took them on a different path than getting that piece of paper.

[Headsterx]

you couldn't be more wrong. The system was the same for both candidates. Just because you guys believed the polls saying Crooked Hillary had a 98% chance of winning and totally discounted the massive number of people who attended Trump rallies while only a handful only bothered to show up whenever she spoke .... doesn't make it unfair. Losing doesn't make it unfair. Crying afterwards won't change the outcome.

Crooked Hillary had no message whatsoever. Heck, she never even bothered to show up in some key States. Trump out worked her. Plain and simple. He knew NY and California would be almost impossible to win and didn't waste his time there. While Crooked Hillary underestimated her opponent and prepared her acceptance speech.

America dodged a huge bullet in 2016. Thank goodness NY and California aren't responsible for deciding for the rest of the country. Look at the disaster California is.

You took my remarks out of context. I never said Trump winning was unfair. He won and that's how it goes with the system that we have. I think the system is unfair but I'm willing to accept it and play by the rules. If you want to point to other liberals crying about it that's fine. But don't use my remarks as if I'm crying about it or saying Trump didn't win it fairly.

[Headsterx]

Headsterx

you need to brush-up on your US History

I already took enough college courses on it. Thanks, anyway.

[SEAHAWKHARRY]

But was the best Governor we've had in a long time in Cali

That's not sayin much as California has been screwed over by Governor's for decades you think he was a Good Governor?

[navyblue81]

The map above shows who won according to county. Is this correct? Basically it shows that Trump completely dominated rural areas. But he didn't do nearly as well in more densely populated areas. Look at Minnesota, it's nearly all red. Trump lost Minnesota. He won counties where only a few thousand people or less live. He did this all across the country.

There's a couple of different ways you could look at this. #1 Trump represents the working class. Or #2 Trump represents people that are less educated(both theories could be true btw). Have you ever heard the theory that more educated people tend to move to the city? Where are most colleges? Where are most of the better paying jobs? Are they in densely populated areas or rural areas? The theory is not absolute, that's for sure. But it makes sense.

For all of you Trump supporters, don't kill the messenger. It's just an observation. Trump dominated rural areas for a reason, that's for sure.

https://www.popsci.com/article/scien...y-move-cities/

Yup, representation of counties. The map basically shows Hillary dominated the biggest cities, but Trump crushed her with the rural vote, which is most of America.

If we went to a popular vote, then all of a sudden New York City and L.A. pretty much dominate an election in a country where we put an emphasis on state-by-state regulation. Hillary beat Trump by over 4 million votes in the New York City and L.A. areas. If you count in San Fran, Hillary beat him by close to 6 million. If I was a candidate in a popular vote world, I would just camp out in big cities and tailor my message specifically for those who live in the city. Screw a message for rural America. I would just ignore them.

[navyblue81]

You took my remarks out of context. I never said Trump winning was unfair. He won and that's how it goes with the system that we have. I think the system is unfair but I'm willing to accept it and play by the rules. If you want to point to other liberals crying about it that's fine. But don't use my remarks as if I'm crying about it or saying Trump didn't win it fairly.

Honest question: If everything in our country is handled on a state-by-state basis (laws, representatives, amendments, etc.), how would moving to a popular vote be fair? It would go against everything our country is made on. If we go to a popular vote, then I would also propose making all our laws across the country the exact same and just do away with states altogether.

[Sam Odom]

I already took enough college courses on it. Thanks, anyway.

Try and get your $$$ back

3/5 Compromise was struck in 1787... No region wanted to "break away" at that time

Civil War began 1861