HILLARY CLINTON - If I Run Again..I Will Beat Donald Trump...AGAIN.

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Since the popular vote means exactly nothing outside of each individual state, it matters not in the slightest if she does, or doesn't...

She can win California by 10 million votes, it'll still only be California. They don't transfer over.

...and that is why there is the electoral college. Right there.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Since the popular vote means exactly nothing outside of each individual state, it matters not in the slightest if she does, or doesn't...

She can win California by 10 million votes, it'll still only be California. They don't transfer over.

...and that is why there is the electoral college. Right there.

That was not a reply to me but now the idea of an electoral college maybe starts to sink into my head. But why can't it be one vote for every voter-age American person? Then count, and the result is final?

originally posted by: Finspiracy

originally posted by: carewemust
ATS Members...Based on the current landscape of Democrat candidates, do you think any of them would get more votes than Hillary Clinton, in a general election against President Trump??

-CareWeMust

I am an ATS member. Therefore, i look myself as qualified to reply, although i am from a country far away. This reply is 100% free from my own personal political bias.

Current landscape of Democrat candidates? Unbelievable nonsense. All of them. Do i think any of them would get more votes than Hillary, from a democrat viewpoint? No, i don't. Hillary will (would?) get more votes than any other democrat candidate. But the current president, Donald Trump, would still take the election-cake home with a landslide success.

It seems to me that American Democrat/Liberal candidates have gone insane especially their agendas for reparations? have they gone crazy?

a reply to: seagull

I wonder when California will be ever again a conservative state? all i am hearing on California is how bad the libaerls had managed the state i cant say i am not surprised by it.

a reply to: Finspiracy

On the face of it, you'd think that that would be a good idea, right?

However, the wants/needs of one area of a particular state, say as an example New York city, aren't the wants and needs of say rural NE Alabama, just by coincidence, where I live now. The difference in population is, to put it mildly, staggering...

The electoral college was designed, and implemented, to prevent the very real likelihood of a tyranny of the majority of populous states/cities overwhelming the rural areas if a mere popular vote were used.

You can plainly see that on a map, by county, of the last Presidential election results. Outside of the main urban centers, Trump was far and away the preferred choice. That's it in a nutshell, really. Popular votes elect, and decide, everything else from US senator, to local sheriffs and mayors, but it stops at the state line. The President, by necessity, crosses those lines--so the process to elect him/her has to be different.

a reply to: ChefFox

When the populous enclaves of San Fran., and Los Angeles and others swing the other way.

a reply to: carewemust

She still thinks she won, who's obsessed again?

Anyways, how can you examine her emails when over 30,000 of them were deleted?

What is the Vegas line on who will drop first for medical reasons...Biden, Hillary or Sanders. I say any given week they switch positions and none of them might not make it to next Nov.

originally posted by: LSU2018

She still thinks she won, who's obsessed again?

Anyways, how can you examine her emails when over 30,000 of them were deleted?

Not to mentioned phones destroyed, computers bleached, people dying and so on...nice clean up I would say.

originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: seagull

I wonder when California will be ever again a conservative state? all i am hearing on California is how bad the libaerls had managed the state i cant say i am not surprised by it.

Your only listening to ultra-conservatives, try the real world outside your echo chamber.

It's cool to have news sources you prefer but you have to balance it out, sometimes with facts, something most here avoid.

originally posted by: Finspiracy

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Since the popular vote means exactly nothing outside of each individual state, it matters not in the slightest if she does, or doesn't...

She can win California by 10 million votes, it'll still only be California. They don't transfer over.

...and that is why there is the electoral college. Right there.

That was not a reply to me but now the idea of an electoral college maybe starts to sink into my head. But why can't it be one vote for every voter-age American person? Then count, and the result is final?

Trump won more votes in 30 states. If you take away the votes in California, he wins the popular vote in the other 49 states. That's why the electoral is so important.

originally posted by: contextual

originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: seagull

I wonder when California will be ever again a conservative state? all i am hearing on California is how bad the libaerls had managed the state i cant say i am not surprised by it.

Your only listening to ultra-conservatives, try the real world outside your echo chamber.

It's cool to have news sources you prefer but you have to balance it out, sometimes with facts, something most here avoid.

Right. Gang bangers think they're good guys, too.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU2018

She still thinks she won, who's obsessed again?

Anyways, how can you examine her emails when over 30,000 of them were deleted?

Not to mentioned phones destroyed, computers bleached, people dying and so on...nice clean up I would say.

Democrats are always good at cleaning their mess and throwing all the evidence on our floor. Then they scream at the top of their lungs and say "OOOO LOOK WHAT WE FOUND!"

It's just that the kids have cried wolf so many times that the adults chuckle, tell em it's cute and go back to business as usual.

I will never forget watching the interview Obama gave to an illegal immigrant "reporter". He virtually encouraged non-citizens to not be afraid to vote. We know CA was very lenient about this, so I have no doubt, considering the issues during the 2016 campaigns, that illegal immigrants voted bigly especially in CA.

So, I always kind of laugh when I hear that Hillary won the popular vote. Plus....feminazis.

So, if we went by "popular" vote, the state that spits on the rule of law and our immigration policies, and women that vote simply because someone is a woman would have put that pos hag in office and the corruption would have exponentially increased.

a reply to: contextual

I can safely be considered somewhat conservative, no where near ultra-conservative...yet I can see it. Why can't, or perhaps rather, won't you??

Perhaps conservatives aren't the only ones with echo-chambers?

originally posted by: seagull

The electoral college was designed, and implemented, to prevent the very real likelihood of a tyranny of the majority of populous states/cities overwhelming the rural areas if a mere popular vote were used.

What people fail to understand is we are a Republic and not a true Democracy. The reason is beacuse we are basically 50 countries that we call states and each state is equal under the federal Government and that is why each state only gets 2 senators, no more no less and the population differences of each state is done in the House with Representatives.

The reason why the left is complaining is because they feel a state like CA with 55 votes is not enough compared to a state with 3 or 6 votes as we see below.



Since we limit population votes to 438 the 100 senator votes carry power as we want them too since each state is an equal partner in our republic. What this means is a state with 3 votes carry much more power over their population by having 2 votes that is not population based. Some want 1 vote per 100,000 and so that would totally make the 100 senator votes meaningless as CA alone would get around 400 votes for population and some states would get as low as 7 to 30 votes for population. So in other words CA would have the same voting power as the bottom 23 populated states... I think CA would love to drive every election... you know it is best for the country...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

Really beginning to think California needs to be broken up into three smaller states...

a reply to: queenofswords

The economy would have already crashed and we'd probably be in the middle of a civil war if she'd won, while being at war in some other country.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So in essence, stay away from the west coast, the northeast coast, and 4 states in the rest of the country, avoid them like the plague so you don't catch their disease.

originally posted by: Puppylove


Really beginning to think California needs to be broken up into three smaller states...

The Middle and North want it as the South sucks them dry in energy, water and expenses.