You're hung up on a mere technicality - it does not matter his margin of victory in the states needed to secure victory in the EC, just as HRC's vote padding in California and New York are irrelevant, once she was at 50%+1 for both of those states.

Let's put it this way - if candidate A wins by less than 1% in 48 states, and candidate B wins NY and California 67% to 33% - candidate A, quite frankly, has whipped candidate B's arse, quite handily - like LBJ vs. Goldwater or Denali vs. Mondale - the raw popular vote totals - in the aggregate, or cherry picking to see how many votes in what districts would have swayed it this way or that is academic navel-gazing - at best, and attempts to subvert a constitutionally installed President's authority at worst.

So, 77,745 - Trump got them and HRC didn't - that's all that really matters at this point. 304 - 227 is the final score. Honestly, I don't care how many passing TDs HRC had in the loss. Good for Citizen Hillary.

This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 8:51 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by DisplacedBuckeye

Member since Dec 2013

73436 posts

Posted on 12/27/16 at 9:08 pm to Ace Midnight

quote:
You're hung up on a mere technicality

It isn't a technicality. This is the part that's troubling. There is another election in four years. Trump narrowly beat a tragedy of a candidate, and pretending that isn't the case is a terrible idea.

quote:
districts

No. That is the total margin for three states.

quote:
subvert a constitutionally installed President's authority

I never suggested that. Trump won. I'd prefer he not lose in 2020.

quote:
304 - 227 is the final score.

shite like this is exactly what I'm talking about. To stick with the idiotic football analogies constantly thrown around, if you turn the ball over 10 times are you going to ignore that just because you won the game? No.

3 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board