Trumpites, please explain how Trump can win

[killakoy]

I'm already getting used to the idea of a President Trump. This is exactly what's going to happen. It's a tough pill to swallow that I'm gonna have to go to the general election and cast a vote for Hillary... I'm sure there's a lot more people that just won't go.

The thing is that Sanders didn't run a negative campaign. Once Trump starts negatively attacking Clinton in the debates, it's gonna turn off voters in droves. The same can't be said for Trump - it's absolutely amazing that he can do anything and not take a hit with his reputation. He said it best, "I could shoot someone and still not lose voters." That sums it up...

Bump for being on the right side of the call.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

People are voting for Ben Carson "en masse". That's semantic.

No, GOP and conservative voters ARE NOT in droves supporting Trump. He didn't win a majority in a single state. Do you comprehend what that means?

stick to the video game forum or go home and be a family man

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I support this..and future bumps of awesomness, so that when they see the notification, and pull down the topic, let their smirk turn to ash and their tongue taste of crow as the reality of how sure, and wrong they were settles upon them.

Brutal.

 

[loyalyolayal]

I'm here to gloat. It's a bit late, but gloating is great.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

llalalalalalalalalala


BUMP


@Tules @Deffid @UltimateVictory @Palis @Dr J

Making the war room great again.

 

[Prime Ang]

I support this..and future bumps of awesomness, so that when they see the notification, and pull down the topic, let their smirk turn to ash and their tongue taste of crow as the reality of how sure, and wrong they were settles upon them.

There's a ton more

That search function is a Gold mine for cuck tears

 

[Supereem]

The problem with a lot of lefties is that they are socially out of touch. They may be smart and nice people but socially are not that switched on.

Every American I met during my travels, many of them former democrats, were firmly behind Trump, and basically most of the Internet seemed to be behind him. I think a socially switched on person could sense a change was coming despite the (now obviously false) narrative of the mainstream media. The few lefties on here responded to the result with smugness, which they don't understand just weakens their position further and pushes people away from them.You have an educated lefty who essentially looks down on everyone who disagrees with them who don't understand that this exact attitude is the reason they cannot excel at life. They might be brilliant at what they do but can't put their finger on why they are not promoted or well liked at the office as much as others. You would never want one of these people running your commercial activities.

 

[waiguoren]

Mitt Romney: 59% of White vote, 17% of non-White vote.
John McCain: 55% of White vote, 18% of non-White vote.
GWB 2004: 58% of White vote, 26% of non-Whites (would not suffice today due to differences in relative makeup of electorate)
GWB 2000: 55% of White vote, 22% of non-Whites (would not suffice today due to differences in relative makeup of electorate)

Trump 2016: 57% of white vote, 21% of non-whites

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

 

[Possum Jenkins]

If you lose by 2,500,000 votes but still win, you basically won on a technicality. You can gloat about that if you want to but that's like gloating about a DQ win after getting your ass beat.

Plus, NONE of Trump supporters were predicting that type of win. They were all expecting an outright victory because they were the silent majority. Turns out they weren't.

 

[Pale Man In Black]

If you lose by 2,500,000 votes but still win, you basically won on a technicality. You can gloat about that if you want to but that's like gloating about a DQ win after getting your ass beat.

Plus, NONE of Trump supporters were predicting that type of win. They were all expecting an outright victory because they were the silent majority. Turns out they weren't.

Who's the President elect?

 

[KantoTerror]

If you lose by 2,500,000 votes but still win, you basically won on a technicality. You can gloat about that if you want to but that's like gloating about a DQ win after getting your ass beat.

Plus, NONE of Trump supporters were predicting that type of win. They were all expecting an outright victory because they were the silent majority. Turns out they weren't.

This all you need to see right here....

 

[SurferH2O]

If you lose by 2,500,000 votes but still win, you basically won on a technicality. You can gloat about that if you want to but that's like gloating about a DQ win after getting your ass beat.

Plus, NONE of Trump supporters were predicting that type of win. They were all expecting an outright victory because they were the silent majority. Turns out they weren't.

This post is stupid. You look really dumb for writing it.

Winning the popular vote in a campaign designed to win electoral votes is about as useful as big tits on an MMA fighter. Unless you can win by smother.

Trump's election effort was NOT about popular votes or he would have campaigned in California, New York, Illinois, and Texas. We have no clue who would have won if the race was about popular votes, because that was not the race that was run by the candidates.

I am a bit tired of that stupidity being trotted out about the "popular vote win".

 

[Possum Jenkins]

This all you need to see right here....

Winning on a technicality. Exactly my point.

 

[Denter]

Winning on a technicality. Exactly my point.

You're right, but isn't that a bit speculative?

I mean, if it was based on popular vote, wouldn't both candidates have campaigned in different states and perhaps have had different messages?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

You're right, but isn't that a bit speculative?

I mean, if it was based on popular vote, wouldn't both candidates have campaigned in different states and perhaps have had different messages?

Possibly. Though the nationwide polls still had Hillary up by a few percentage points. Which is more or less the same percentage points she won the popular vote by.

This is another reason to abolish the Electoral College: to end the speculation. Would conservative Californians and New Yorkers outweigh liberal Texans? Who knows. But we do know that both sides claim to have the will of the mass of the population. One way to find out is to go with the popular vote.

If both sides are equally confident in these claims then the call to end the EC would be equal. But we know it's not.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're right, but isn't that a bit speculative?

I mean, if it was based on popular vote, wouldn't both candidates have campaigned in different states and perhaps have had different messages?

The margin was big enough that I really doubt it would have swung things the other way.

What are your thoughts on the EC? I've never cared much because the PV and EV almost always line up, though now that's two recent elections that they didn't and the margin was big this time, I'm more open to changes. I gather that you're probably more OK with non-majoritarian selection, but even if you support that, seems like the EC is a really badly designed way to go about it. Like it seems to me that the two reasonable options are "the candidate with the most votes should win" or "the electors should be elected to vote their consciences with no input," but our current system is just stupid. And, having said that, I think faithless electors would be a disaster. I'm saying that for people who don't support majoritarian selection, a better option would be not tying electors to candidates.

 

[TheStruggle]

Possibly. Though the nationwide polls still had Hillary up by a few percentage points. Which is more or less the same percentage points she won the popular vote by.

This is another reason to abolish the Electoral College: to end the speculation. Would conservative Californians and New Yorkers outweigh liberal Texans? Who knows. But we do know that both sides claim to have the will of the mass of the population. One way to find out is to go with the popular vote.

If both sides are equally confident in these claims then the call to end the EC would be equal. But we know it's not.

You're an idiot.


If you don't realize we don't live in a democracy, they you have no right to talk about the electoral college.

 

[KONE]

If you lose by 2,500,000 votes but still win, you basically won on a technicality. You can gloat about that if you want to but that's like gloating about a DQ win after getting your ass beat.

Plus, NONE of Trump supporters were predicting that type of win. They were all expecting an outright victory because they were the silent majority. Turns out they weren't.

Popular vote doesn't matter you absolute moron. Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, he campaigned in places he needed to win. You don't win a game of chess just because you have more pieces than the other person.

 

[Denter]

The margin was big enough that I really doubt it would have swung things the other way.

What are your thoughts on the EC? I've never cared much because the PV and EV almost always line up, though now that's two recent elections that they didn't and the margin was big this time, I'm more open to changes. I gather that you're probably more OK with non-majoritarian selection, but even if you support that, seems like the EC is a really badly designed way to go about it. Like it seems to me that the two reasonable options are "the candidate with the most votes should win" or "the electors should be elected to vote their consciences with no input," but our current system is just stupid. And, having said that, I think faithless electors would be a disaster. I'm saying that for people who don't support majoritarian selection, a better option would be not tying electors to candidates.

That might be superior. State selection of electors, with electors voting for the President would be interesting. The less democratic, the better IMO.

Note that the old Holy Roman Empire had a kind of feudal version of this.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That might be superior. State selection of electors, with electors voting for the President would be interesting. The less democratic, the better IMO.

Note that the old Holy Roman Empire had a kind of feudal version of this.

Yeah, that's pretty much the opposite of my thinking, but it would be better than the current system, which is supposed to be democratic but allows for quirky outcomes that reflect neither the will of the people nor the preferences of the best.