Elections Teflon Trudeau wins re-election. Let the Conservative tears flow

Turns out Utah doesn't have enough people for Romney getting 30% more of the votes to make up the difference between Trump and Hillary in the popular vote. I was wrong. It would have closes the gap with some significance, but not enough.
 
The counter to that is a lot of people don't think a voter in North Dakota should have 4X (or whatever) more say than a voter in California. And obviously Ca is slightly more than 10% of the country and obviously they all don't vote D.

Also, if Texas turns purple you guys will be begging for reform.
A couple of states spit their electorate by district. Thats a change I'd like to see made for every state.
 
A couple of states spit their electorate by district. Thats a change I'd like to see made for every state.
In theory I'm fine with splitting up electoral votes in states and think that's better than a winner take all system imo. But we start getting into a territory where we should probably just use the popular vote.
 
I think that's all he was saying. That we'll be back here again in two years.

Yeah I read it a bit more as "Trudeau is fucked" in some other posts (not his) so was just commenting on that.
 
Last edited:
Turns out Utah doesn't have enough people for Romney getting 30% more of the votes to make up the difference between Trump and Hillary in the popular vote. I was wrong. It would have closes the gap with some significance, but not enough.

Looked at facts and changed view - YOU DONT BELONG IN THE WARROOM!!!!
 
Turns out Utah doesn't have enough people for Romney getting 30% more of the votes to make up the difference between Trump and Hillary in the popular vote. I was wrong. It would have closes the gap with some significance, but not enough.

No significance. The gap between them in Utah was around 225K votes.
 
In theory I'm fine with splitting up electoral votes in states and think that's better than a winner take all system imo. But we start getting into a territory where we should probably just use the popular vote.
No, it gives rural states no say. California, New York and Texas will decide every election. No thanks.
 
No, it gives rural states no say. California, New York and Texas will decide every election. No thanks.
Of course they have a say. A person in Idaho has the exact same say as a person in Manhattan.

What you want is to maintain their disproportionate say. And if you're worried about those voters being ignored, well, all of the attention is spent on swing states under the current system.
 
#Goatdeau.
melania-trump-justin-trudeau.jpg

Melania-enjoyed-a-more-animated-embrace-with-Canadian-Prime-Minister-Justin-Trudeau-before-the-opening-ceremony-got-underway.jpg

18253720-7443801-Red_hot_President_Trump_is_very_intimidated_by_Justin_Trudeau_be-a-1_1568038183656.jpg

C4lNBGkWQAIoomc.jpg


The only reason #Goatdeau comes to America is to lay some Canadian pipe.
Some men dream of having a woman look at them, like Melania and Ivanka look at #Goatdeau.

What's the saying?
"Once you go Black, you never go back"
 
No significance. The gap between them in Utah was around 225K votes.
I think it was a bit more, but ok not much we know you like Romney now. Romney d8d not do better across the nation than Trump. Ironically, Romney is who actually got more of the "racist" vote against Obama, while Trump picked up white people that voted for Obama.
 
I think it was a bit more, but ok not much we know you like Romney now. Romney d8d not do better across the nation than Trump. Ironically, Romney is who actually got more of the "racist" vote against Obama, while Trump picked up white people that voted for Obama.

We know I like Romney now because what? I pointed out the fact that he got a higher share of the vote than Trump? And objectively he did better across the nation than Trump.
 
We know I like Romney now because what? I pointed out the fact that he got a higher share of the vote than Trump? And objectively he did better across the nation than Trump.

This is an absolutely asinine post. There is no contest for the "share of the vote". Romney absolutely DID NOT do better across the nation in any metric that mattered.

This is another failed quest by Leftists to move the goal posts on what a contest is for the U.S. Presidency, because they lost. Newsflash, it is an electoral college contest. That is the ONLY contest that candidates are waging. If they had a share of the vote, or popular vote contest, then Trump would have campaigned in California, New York, Illinois, etc. But, it that was not the contest, so he did not. He competed for electoral votes and kicked Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney's asses. We have no idea what a Popular Vote result would have been, because NO ONE waged that contest.

Your vacuous argument is like if we played a game of Chess and I took your King. But you would claim victory, because you took more of my pieces. That clearly was not the game we were playing, but that matters not to you in your intellectually dishonest proclamation.

Get your weak ass bullshit out of here. It's embarrassing. There was no popular vote contest waged. There was no share of the vote contest waged. No one know what the results of those contests would be, because they have never happened.
 
We know I like Romney now because what? I pointed out the fact that he got a higher share of the vote than Trump? And objectively he did better across the nation than Trump.

No that would be subjective.. Being that some people think winning > losing an election.
 
No that would be subjective.. Being that some people think winning > losing an election.

Well, Clinton did much worse than Obama. But follow the train of the discussion. Trump didn't win because he was flipping voters; he won because the third-party vote was much larger in 2016 than it was in 2012.
 
Well, Clinton did much worse than Obama. But follow the train of the discussion. Trump didn't win because he was flipping voters; he won because the third-party vote was much larger in 2016 than it was in 2012.

It may be regional bias from both of us, and maybe more from me. Trump flipped a lot of union voters. I'm in uaw territory, and personally know a lot of white people that voted for Obama that switched to Trump.
 
It may be regional bias from both of us, and maybe more from me. Trump flipped a lot of union voters. I'm in uaw territory, and personally know a lot of white people that voted for Obama that switched to Trump.

Sure, he flipped some people, and other people flipped the other way (or to third parties). In total, Trump underperformed Romney.
 
Our politicians aren't nearly as bad as their American counterparts.

I'm not a fan of Trudeau, but I'd rather have him running my country than one of the many Democrat nutjobs ya'll have.

With a minority government, he won't get to do as much damage, so I'm not losing sleep over another 4 years of this dope.
 
I was joking about how stupid that line is. And, of course, you're lying when you say I called everyone racist that didn't vote for Obama. Also, the claim that Trump's base was created by false claims of racism is analogous to someone getting caught raping a child by saying, "people called me a pedophile so I had to do it." Plus, of course, this is not a new issue in the South.

You've suggested more than once that thrre was rampant racism within the republican party and especially among Obama detractors.

And the scorn you show for the south might be better saved for northern and democratically run cities; they seem to have more race issues from my vantage point.
 
"You guys (who did/believe (insert shit I don't like)) are why we have Trump" need to cut this nonsense out. We got it, you think we have Trump because of gender pronouns, safe spaces and cancel culture on a few campuses, trannies confused about which bathroom they should shit in, liberal hollywood and EVERYONE on the left calling EVERYONE on the right racist for EVERYTHING.

It's such a bad analysis of why we have Trump.

Actually it's pretty accurate.
 
Back
Top