Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

L L wrote:

The big Senate races were MO, IN, AZ, TN, TX, MT, FL and NV

The Dems only pulled NV which was a Hillary state anyway.

Maybe you can throw in WV, but Manchin was always favored to win and he helped confirm Kavanugh.

It's looking like Tester is going to eke out a Democrat win in Montana with a slight lead currently, 91% of the votes counted, and favorable districts outstanding.

Of course, you're wrong.

oh please. We're talking theory here. If you want to say 'we can only talk about what actually happened then we should never talk about any sort of way to improve anything because it doesn't exist.

and

no way trump is getting 3 million more votes. Stop diverting.

Bush maybe 500k more votes, fine. But you are just avoiding and diverting.

Trollminator wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I'd call it a triple. Beto winning would have been a home run. Gillum (notice the spelling) was a surprise loss...not a huge surprise, but a surprise nonetheless. No one really thought they had a chance at taking the Senate, so if they did that, that would have been the very rare perfect game.

Florida is a lost cause for now. Lots of older folks scared to death of those terrorist Hondurans. They will only go blue when this rhetoric dies down a bit - so don’t count on it. I don’t see Florida flipping in 202 either, but there are other fish to fry. Texas was surprising for me, didn’t think Beto stood a chance, but he really cut into the northern districts. This is probably Cruz’s last run there. His presence will help Dems in 2020.

Florida remains Trump country.

Gillum lost

Nelson lost (and he will lose the recount too)

M-A-G-A!!!

History Major wrote:

Democracy worked. the people chose Gore and HRC. Human design - the EC - gave us two disastrous presidencies.

Of course, you're wrong.

www

presidents-ranked-from-worst-to-best-presidential-historians-survey-2017/[/quote]

Ahem, when were Gore and HRC presidents? Who is wrong? You are wrong.

33rd out of 44? That's your defense? Ok man.

Nate choked wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

You can't really make those comparisons; not for anything other than historical interest...they don't prove anything. Depends on what seats are up for election and a whole lot of other things. You can't point to those numbers and just say this means people like Trump more than they did Clinton or Obama. It's also a very different political climate. The GOP isn't really the GOP anymore. We have a populist who is really a despot wannabe as the President.

Actually, you CAN make those comparisons. I just did. And it does in fact prove that 2018 was not even in the same ballpark as actual "waves".

Stick to data and being objective; subjectivity (see your rambling) is useless.

No...you really can't. I have already said this wasn't a blue wave and never called for one to begin with, because I see clearly how things are. You are making comparisons that are not appropriate. A different number of blue or red seats are being defended in each race, there are tons of other factors too that go into a mid-term election.

If you want to say this wasn't a "wave" when others were, then fine. I agree with that. Those numbers though prove nothing with regard to how much the voters like Trump vs. how much they liked Obama or Clinton. There are just too many factors involved. You should be happy about real tangible things -- keeping the Senate and adding seats, not comparing this election to another and getting a b*oner over that.

Yep. And the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl if the rules were the first one to 33 wins. Those weren't the rules though.

*points not wins.

agip wrote:

Mr Blair wrote:

You are so thick-skulled. You're wrong about so many things, it's hard to keep up.

You can't say "they wouldn't be president without the EC", because without the EC, presidents would campaign very differently. Trump may have gone to California, for example.

Everyone knows the rules of the game heading into the game. Stop ignoring that major fact.

oh please. We're talking theory here. If you want to say 'we can only talk about what actually happened then we should never talk about any sort of way to improve anything because it doesn't exist.

and

no way trump is getting 3 million more votes. Stop diverting.

Bush maybe 500k more votes, fine. But you are just avoiding and diverting.

How do you know Trump and Bush II couldn't get those votes? How do you know HRC and Gore wouldn't have been horrendous presidents? Their track records sure do point to failure.

I'm write wrote:

Mr Blair wrote:

You are so thick-skulled. You're wrong about so many things, it's hard to keep up.

You can't say "they wouldn't be president without the EC", because without the EC, presidents would campaign very differently. Trump may have gone to California, for example.

Everyone knows the rules of the game heading into the game. Stop ignoring that major fact.

Yep. And the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl if the rules were the first one to 33 wins. Those weren't the rules though.

this is apples to oranges. goodbye.

my point is that the two worst presidents of the postwar period were only put in place because of the EC. The people said thumbs down to them, but the EC said yes.

Sure, campaigning would be different without the EC.

But your hands over your eyes, fingers in your ears approach, refusing to deal with the problem is just avoidance and is very, very lame.

agip wrote:

I'm write wrote:

Yep. And the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl if the rules were the first one to 33 wins. Those weren't the rules though.

this is apples to oranges. goodbye.

my point is that the two worst presidents of the postwar period were only put in place because of the EC. The people said thumbs down to them, but the EC said yes.

Sure, campaigning would be different without the EC.

But your hands over your eyes, fingers in your ears approach, refusing to deal with the problem is just avoidance and is very, very lame.

I think your comprehension of the issue is not at an adequate level to have an intelligent discussion.

agip wrote:

I'm write wrote:

Yep. And the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl if the rules were the first one to 33 wins. Those weren't the rules though.

this is apples to oranges. goodbye.

my point is that the two worst presidents of the postwar period were only put in place because of the EC. The people said thumbs down to them, but the EC said yes.

Sure, campaigning would be different without the EC.

But your hands over your eyes, fingers in your ears approach, refusing to deal with the problem is just avoidance and is very, very lame.

But then in 2004 Bush won by 3 million votes. Sounds like America thought they got it wrong in 2000.

You have 1 data point who is only 2 years into his presidency.

When are we going to move away from gerrymandering & pretending that all states are equal?

Democrats got 45 million to 33 million votes nationwide for the Senate. It was closer in the House, but still 4 million more votes for Democrats. Sounds like a blue wave to me but a modest number of House seats gained and Republican gained in the Senate despite not nearly getting as many votes.

That doesn't seem right.

agip wrote:

I'm write wrote:

Yep. And the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl if the rules were the first one to 33 wins. Those weren't the rules though.

this is apples to oranges. goodbye.

my point is that the two worst presidents of the postwar period were only put in place because of the EC. The people said thumbs down to them, but the EC said yes.

Sure, campaigning would be different without the EC.

But your hands over your eyes, fingers in your ears approach, refusing to deal with the problem is just avoidance and is very, very lame.

According to your link, the popular vote and EC put in place the 10+ worst POTUS.

Is it the EC or who we have voting. Perhaps we need to develop some sort of criteria to make sure only certain people can vote, so we don't end up with POTUS like the 10 worst.

Hi Flagpole wrote:

agip wrote:

this is apples to oranges. goodbye.

my point is that the two worst presidents of the postwar period were only put in place because of the EC. The people said thumbs down to them, but the EC said yes.

Sure, campaigning would be different without the EC.

But your hands over your eyes, fingers in your ears approach, refusing to deal with the problem is just avoidance and is very, very lame.

According to your link, the popular vote and EC put in place the 10+ worst POTUS.

Is it the EC or who we have voting. Perhaps we need to develop some sort of criteria to make sure only certain people can vote, so we don't end up with POTUS like the 10 worst.

I think you're on to something. White men voted in the three worst Presidents and 8 of the 10 worst on that list.

It's not the EC. It's the voting privileges of white men that need to be changed.

The Republicans had 42 Senate seats that were not up for election.

If 100% of the senate votes went Democrat, Republicans would still have had those 42 seats.

Sally Smothers wrote:

agip wrote:

this is apples to oranges. goodbye.

my point is that the two worst presidents of the postwar period were only put in place because of the EC. The people said thumbs down to them, but the EC said yes.

Sure, campaigning would be different without the EC.

But your hands over your eyes, fingers in your ears approach, refusing to deal with the problem is just avoidance and is very, very lame.

But then in 2004 Bush won by 3 million votes. Sounds like America thought they got it wrong in 2000.

You have 1 data point who is only 2 years into his presidency.

This issue should be put to bed. The US clearly deviates from other developed democracies when it comes to this process. In the US, every vote for president doesn’t have equal weight. That is not debatable and is obviously very flawed since it is winner takes all for each state. Trump loses the popular vote by more than 2% yet wins the electoral vote by more than 14% - yeah that’s clearly unfair.

To equalize every vote, the election results should be based on the total general vote count, since the president is president of every citizen in the country. The winner should also have to capture more than 50% of the total vote count which is logical, with a run off election as needed.

Arguing that the rules of the game are why they and therefore this is a non-issue doesn’t diminish the fact that it is an unfair and completely archaic method - it sucks period. The only way this process gets changed is if it’s supported by a Republican led administration. Republicans benefit from the current process so they would never agree to Democrats trying to change it.

L L wrote:

Just a thought. wrote:

Perhaps some voters actually voted for the candidate on the ballot, not Trump or Obama.

But I look at Kemp in Georgia, DeSantos in Florida and even McSally in Arizona.

Or how hard Trump campaigned in N Dakota and Missouri.

These voters were backing the ideals that Trump has been representing.

There was an opportunity for voters in that area to refute that kind of approach.

I don't care about someone like Romney winning.

There were winners that brought up the caravan, that suppressed the vote and that had racist tinges to them that won.

I agree with you...not cheery results if you are a non-trumper...

what the results look to me to be saying is if we had had another presidential election last night ... trump would have lost the popular vote (again) but would still be president since he's win the EC (again)...

uggg...