Pus is Slurpin’ Clothy’s favorite flavor of Kool-Aid. I was always partial to strawberry, but taste is personal.
According to Nate, he last saw 41% about 69 days ago and has not been above 40% for about 5 days less than that. So, I will take this claim seriously when I see how he adjusts it, because I think he is actually an honest statistician (which is kind of like an “ethical lawyer”).
I voted for Hillary because she was not Trump. Now I just want her to fade away and be completely invisible by 2020.
I’m sure a large portion of those are people who hated her when Bill was president.
39% approval for Clinton is vastly better than the 20% approval for Congress:
Thanks for providing examples of what kind of brain-dead fuckwit finds them remotely comparable.
I’d think that as a Brit with (intuitively, anyway) a preference for restoring the Empire’s prestige and holdings, you’d be okay with that outcome.
Hillary started down this path by criticizing Trump as some sort of misogynist even though it was apparent he would respond with an attack that brought up her husbands own misconduct. I think she was trying to demonize Trump to attract women voters but I have no idea why she did it at all considering that it would obviously blow up in her face. Following that Hillary called Trump supporters ‘deplorables’, not directly demonizing Trump, but even more stupidly demonizing his supporters. But demonizing opponents isn’t the usual approach of the Democratic Party, it doesn’t go over well with their voters, and they just aren’t very good at it.
Actually, it was more about “screw the voters in slave states”. See 3/5 Compromise.
What’s wrong with a system where all votes cast in a Presidential election count equally? As is, a voter in Wyoming is disproportionately powerful relative to a voter in California.
:dubious: “Could have”? See U.S. Civil War.
However, just like guns in America, this is also one thing that will never change now, as there’s too much social and political inertia behind it.
Pretty much. I mean, call her a “typical dishonest politician” all you want, but that bar has been thoroughly lowered. She’s done quite well on that scale, if you ask me.
Wrong as a concept? Nothing. But changing it without the consent of the states?
VADER: Calrissian. Take the princess and the Wookie to my ship.
LANDO: You said they’d be left at the city under my supervision!
VADER: I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.
That’s what’s with wrong with unilateral changing: the deal by which the states agreed to form a union and surrender in part their sovereignty was that states would have population-based representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate, no matter how populous the state, and that presidential electoral votes were tied to House AND Senate representation numbers.
I’m not suggesting we screw rural voters. I’m suggesting we stop screwing everyone else.
Everyone should get one vote and everyone’s vote should have the same weight. Do you think some people’s votes should count more than other people’s votes?
The Founding Fathers designed a system where rural white men got to vote more than everyone else. Some rural white men still think that’s the best system. Everyone else (including me and I am a rural white man) questions that wisdom.
Thanks. We all understand that the law would have to be changed. That’s not the question.
Here’s the question. Do you, Bricker, personally think the law should be changed so that the candidate who gets the most votes wins the election?
This is what I don’t understand. Why was this poll even done? She’s been a private citizen for quite a while now.
Not even that. With all the evidence coming out that the guy who beat her conspired with a hostile country to effectively bust her in the kneecap Tonya Harding-style, even the most nuttiest of nutjobs should be questioning the prudence in faulting HRC for her loss.
But nah, I guess she should’ve awesome enough to overcome not only a colossal amount of sexism, Clinton-ism, and partisanship, but election hacking on the scale we likely never seen before in this country.
Hillary is less popular now than before the election. How is that caused by Trump supporters - have they brought up new scandals?
She was never popular, and since she lost the election, she has lost approval. It would seem logical that this loss is because former supporters are cheesed off at her for losing the election.
“Trump is a terrible person and that’s why someone else is less popular than he.” Sure, whatever.
Regards,
Shodan
Implicit, eh? Your statement is a perfect example of explicit stupidity.
Sexism and Comey were factors in the election, but she lost to Donald Fucking Dingbat Trump. Clinton could have won despite those factors. She ran a shit campaign. She failed to connect with voters and win over independents. She spent too much time and money attacking Trump instead of promoting a positive message about her potential presidency.
Clinton chose to blame external factors instead of taking responsibility for her own failures. She is a sore fucking loser. Get over it. And take that “waaa, it’s sexist” bullshit and shove it.
I don’t understand this. I’m not arguing, I just don’t understand. If the election should go by vote, wouldn’t it make more sense that places with more voters would have a bigger voice? Because there are more voters? If it’s a rural area why should they get as much pull with fewer voters? Votes are by person, not land owner. Seems to me it’s the electoral college that has it backwards. It’s done by who owns more land and has more power? One rural vote equals how many urban votes?
What IS the point of voting if we’re supposed to rely on electors? Why should more rural land equal bigger pull than more voters? In TN the rural areas have FAR more pull, considering how much of TN is rural. Two major counties voted for Clinton, but electors didn’t listen and chose to vote for Trump. Not one single elector chose Clinton, not even in counties where the people chose Clinton. Forty percent of the state refused to vote for Trump but every single elector voted for Trump. Help me make sense of this.
I realize my question is probably not on-topic (if that even matters these days) so if you want to just link me to a clear explanation or PM me instead that would be fine.
That’s part of why her disapproval rating comes as no surprise to me - even the best her ardent supporters come up with what amounts to 'well she’s not as bad as Trump". Even to fanatical adherents, she’s not actually a beacon of light, she’s just not as horribly awful as someone unbelievably awful. Also like that sexism accusations came in, of course no one could dislike her for anything she’s done, it’s got to be that they’re horribly sexist.