Jeff Wigand wrote:
[quote]Rigged for Hillary wrote:
This is the LR lib echo chamber where they all believe that it represents most of the electorate of the US. /quote]
Seems to be the case based on popular vote count in six of the last seven presidential elections.
The Electoral College is all the matters. Trump will win the same states that he won in 2016 plus a couple more- 320 electoral votes at minimum.
This is hilarious.
A Go-Go band is going to be playing outside the White House during Trump’s speech tonight.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Electoral College is all the matters. Trump will win the same states that he won in 2016 plus a couple more- 320 electoral votes at minimum.
How low in the popular vote can Trump go and still get to 270?
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Electoral College is all the matters. Trump will win the same states that he won in 2016 plus a couple more- 320 electoral votes at minimum.
How low in the popular vote can Trump go and still get to 270?
That is actually a fascinating question and I'd be interested in seeing a valid model for this. I imagine you could loss the popular vote by quite a bit and still win theoretically
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Electoral College is all the matters.
Of course this is true. President Trump could have something close to ten million fewer votes than Joe Biden and still win in the Electoral College.
So why, then, did you refer to Trump voters (not electors) as "the majority"? Based on 2016 and 2018, plus most current polls, they pretty clearly are not--not even close to a majority.
Racket wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:
How low in the popular vote can Trump go and still get to 270?
That is actually a fascinating question and I'd be interested in seeing a valid model for this. I imagine you could loss the popular vote by quite a bit and still win theoretically
It would be an all or nothing model giving him a one-voter edge in just enough of the least populous states to pick up the electoral college victory, and showing zero votes for him in all other states. I suspect it would be close to a 20 million vote difference.
*ahem* wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Electoral College is all the matters.
Of course this is true. President Trump could have something close to ten million fewer votes than Joe Biden and still win in the Electoral College.
So why, then, did you refer to Trump voters (not electors) as "the majority"? Based on 2016 and 2018, plus most current polls, they pretty clearly are not--not even close to a majority.
Because he’s a idiot.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
He's getting more confused each day.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1299065273140551682"Come on, man!"
1. Not sure where that video came from, it's not part of the video of the interview that's on CNN. Given your track record for posting altered/edited videos and incomplete/out of context quotes, your video is probably a splice job.
2. The video on CNN is here:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-violence-cnntv/index.html. Watch it, Biden is much more impressive than Trump ever has been. Notice that the question and answer on your video is not part of the interview, at least not the part that is posted on CNN.
3. The video is of Biden taking unscripted questions from a journalist. You keep claiming that this never happens, but it looks like you're wrong. Not only does Biden take the questions, but he answers them. Unlike Trump, who pretends not to hear questions he doesn't like.
Racket wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:
How low in the popular vote can Trump go and still get to 270?
That is actually a fascinating question and I'd be interested in seeing a valid model for this. I imagine you could loss the popular vote by quite a bit and still win theoretically
Per this article it is mathematically possible to win the electoral college with 23 percent of the possible vote. That is, get a bare majority in the right states and no votes at all elsewhere:
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-voteI can't find it at the moment, but I've seen some analysis that figured about -6 points on the popular vote was the plausible limit to still win the electoral college.
This creep should be held accountable.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jacob-wohl-accused-starting-voter-180856211.html
Another Republican idol and complete fraud.
Hurry up Jacob and come out already.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:
[quote]Rigged for Hillary wrote:
This is the LR lib echo chamber where they all believe that it represents most of the electorate of the US. /quote]
Seems to be the case based on popular vote count in six of the last seven presidential elections.
The Electoral College is all the matters. Trump will win the same states that he won in 2016 plus a couple more- 320 electoral votes at minimum.
You are not only the dumbest person I have ever encountered, but you are clearly delusional or insane. Plus a couple more? He won't win the election at all, let alone win all the states he won last time plus a couple more. Which states do you think he will take away from the Democrats?
You are crazy. What other explanation is there for your idiotic belief here?
*ahem* wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Electoral College is all the matters.
Of course this is true. President Trump could have something close to ten million fewer votes than Joe Biden and still win in the Electoral College.
So why, then, did you refer to Trump voters (not electors) as "the majority"? Based on 2016 and 2018, plus most current polls, they pretty clearly are not--not even close to a majority.
Because he's a moron.
Smorbun wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Electoral College is all the matters. Trump will win the same states that he won in 2016 plus a couple more- 320 electoral votes at minimum.
You are not only the dumbest person I have ever encountered, but you are clearly delusional or insane. Plus a couple more? He won't win the election at all, let alone win all the states he won last time plus a couple more. Which states do you think he will take away from the Democrats?
You are crazy. What other explanation is there for your idiotic belief here?
I cannot wait to repost this in November. You will be the biggest idiot in LR history.
#Trumplandslide
KAG2020
Trump is nailing it in his speech. He's an awful human being, but voting for a Democrat is just insanity in these times. May as well tell BLM to just trash the entire country.
Flybang mash wrote:
Trump is nailing it in his speech. He's an awful human being, but voting for a Democrat is just insanity in these times. May as well tell BLM to just trash the entire country.
Yes it’s imperative we have someone like a Trump who can unite the country and keep the streets quiet and peaceful like they are now.
He’s failed dreadfully in this regards.
Flybang mash wrote:
Trump is nailing it in his speech. He's an awful human being, but voting for a Democrat is just insanity in these times. May as well tell BLM to just trash the entire country.
Yep. He clearly has the situation under control.
Gina wrote:
Flybang mash wrote:
Trump is nailing it in his speech. He's an awful human being, but voting for a Democrat is just insanity in these times. May as well tell BLM to just trash the entire country.
Yes it’s imperative we have someone like a Trump who can unite the country and keep the streets quiet and peaceful like they are now.
He’s failed dreadfully in this regards.
He's made attempts, they've been refused. You really think we will have less of what we had in, for example Minneapolis last night, if Democrats play a large role in the November national elections? I'd say substantially more. It would be a license to loot.