Fine pick another rural state then
Obama won by 126 electoral votes
Hillary lost by 77 electoral votes.
It wasnt three states.
It was a crapload.
He has legitimate money. Not as much as he wants people to believe but he made a lot of money licensing his name, doing the Apprentice and royalties on his books. He made all his money before elected office.
The Clinton’s made all their money during or immediately afterwards.
Their foundation lost a lot of its donors after they left office.
Michigan: 16 EVs (margin: 10,704 votes)
Pennsylvania: 20 EVs (margin: 44,292 votes)
Wisconsin: 10 EVs (margin: 22,748 votes)
Those are the only states that she lost by a narrow margin (of less than 1%). Put those 46 EVs in her column (taking them away from AgentOrange) and she wins the EC. Basically, you would have to turn about 100K votes in her favor across those states, to show a reasonable margin of victory in each of them, which would be around 0.07% of the overall total.
So, yeah, three.
So you have no problem with the vast majority of states being totally ignored? Can you explain your argument again? That seems to directly refute your prior argument.
Right now, with the EC, candidates only visit swing states. Tens of millions of voters are ignored, and their votes basically don’t matter. I propose an imperfect scheme in which candidates will still spend most of their time visiting a limited number of places (just like now!), but every voter’s influence will be exactly the same as every other voter. A voter in CA will have the exact same chance to influence the vote as a voter in IA, NH, TX, or FL. Why, exactly, is the former scheme superior, in your opinion?
Wow, you really don’t understand how the EC works, do you? If Hillary had won PA, WI, and MI, she would have won the election.
Tens? Why not just say a hundred? After all, only 136 million even bothered to vote.
I didn’t vote for Trump, but I would* if she ran again.
*Actually, I wouldn’t bother. My vote is worthless in my state.
Worthless? She won your state by 2.4 percentage points (27K). I would say your state might be in play.
Yes, yes,yes. Quoted for truth. “This.” Whatever cliche you want to use. It only takes a few thousand votes to get rid of this (insert description). Of course, as an incumbent, with a strong economy, it will require a few more voters to come out.
Like all of us I can be selfish at times. And I despise political ads( also politicking in general ). As a Californian, I do not want fucking presidential candidates in my state! The more CA is taken for granted and avoided the happier I am. And of course the votes still matter, because believe me if CA started voting Republican en masse tomorrow the DP would be truly fucked. As it stands we just don’t have to listen to as much shilling.
Now I know many thoughtful, intelligent, and very attractive people disagree. But they are all wrong. Because, yes - it is in fact all about me :).
ETA: I’m fine with ending the EC. But don’t ever suggest we need more presidential visits in non-swing states. That’s fucking heresy!
Nah. Californi… I mean Clark County snuffs every other vote from the whole state.
I got dogs to take out in the desert that day. More important. 
So you’re glad Trump won?
He has been kind of a wake-up call to the country. Tough love therapy. We will have a lot of cleanup to do, though.
I’m going to pull something out of the memory hole, so hold on to those pearls people:
[In its self-described “pied piper” strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new “mainstream of the Republican Party” in order to try to increase Clinton’s chances of winning.
The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be “elevated” to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.”
00:00/00:00
The strategy backfired — royally.](https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/)
She, and her campaign are the main reason Trump was elected. Over three years later and some people are still running around like headless chicken trying to find some other reason.
Yeah, I’m going to rant.
But let’s face it, none of the Bernie fans and the “Hillary is a shrill bitchy harpy but DON’T YOU DARE call me sexist!” guys (lots of overlap there)will read anything that casts aspersions on poor oppressed old lying white dude Saint Bernie. No argument will convince them. Nothing but a signed, witnessed, confession by Bernie himself will make them believe that Saint Bernie is less than a shimmering pure Saint.
Ever. Bernie is their Savior. They will look for ANY nitpick that they can cling to, usually—in the case of Saint Bernie----by demanding that people prove Bernie’s sexist. Never mind that he’s been saying for thirty years that women voting for women is “sexist” while also surrounding himself with guys who say women only vote with and for uteruses. Plus, there’s this: “You have to do more than say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me,’” which really should end all discussion.
The general MO of sexist *white *dudes on the dope is to say that something incredibly sexist like “harpy” or “shrill” or “hysterical” or claim that their “advice” isn’t victim-blaming, then claim ignorance. Then they argue, in effect, that ignorance means innocence, so you’re (general you)the real sexist. Plus, when you (general you) get dipshits saying shit like “harpy” and “hysterical” aren’t sexist, there’s no way in hell subtler sexism like Bernie’s accusations of Hillary plotting and stealing and conniving his rightful election from His Saintnesshood ever get discussed. Not when “hysterical” and “harpy” aren’t acknowledged as sexist and have to be fought over every goddamned time.
You ought to know how dogwhistles work, how it’s the accumulation of small things, how eventually the whole picture emerges. Bigots know they can’t say the “n-word” unless they’re with other bigots, so they say “thug” or “urban” or “community organizer” instead. There’s no “n-word” that is regarded as offensive for women.
Hillary Clinton is the “black lives matter” tee shirt of human beings. Those people who bristle at “black lives matter” almost always have a cluster of other certain beliefs, too. Just as a “blue lives matter” meme or statement reveals a person with certain beliefs, “Hillary is evil” and “Bernie Sanders is a saint who NEVER said or did anything sexist ever” reveals certain things, too.
Plus, this, by Mort Sahl Fan?
is SO revealing of sexism that I think it says it all. Only a white dude could say bullshit like this and expect to get taken seriously, because if you (general “you”) are anybody BUT an angry asshole white dude, Hillary is to left of Saint Bernie. She and Bernie voted identically 94% of the time, and Bernie voted FOR the goddamned crime bill, but Bernie gets to lie because white guys believe other white guys.
Urban renewal in Dresden, 1946.
Oh, look, it’s sourced from wikileaks, long since revealed as a conduit from Putin through rapist Assange to attack liberal women.
Lefty boyz gotta have their version of Pizzagate, even while they use a rapist working for Putin as their “proof.” White male privilege is something else.
Roger Stone was in contact with Assange to attack Clinton.
Yeah, again, so sexism----in 2016, the year of the predator----doesn’t exist, Russian collusion didn’t happen, Repub gerrymandering and voter suppression didn’t happen, just Hillary’s evil and yet incompetant about it.
Fuck it, I STILL can’t do links.
Margin – I’m not going to parse your post and reply line-by-line or anything, but I am pretty offended that you think my criticism of Hillary is that she’s “shrill” or that I think she’s a “harpy”. I agree that people who level those criticisms at Hillary are sexist. But I wonder if you can see that there is room to disagree with Clinton due to policy reasons?
Clinton pledged to overturn Citizens United, but she did it while taking corporate money. Getting money out of politics was my #1 issue in 2016 (it’s my #2 issue in 2020, behind replacing Donald Trump).
Clinton’s healthcare plan would do nothing to address the root of the flaw in our healthcare system: the for-profit nature of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Sanders would get rid of for-profit insurance; he’d also be willing to use the government’s constitutional right to seize patents when a medical company is charging outrageous prices for medicine (which means he’d never actually have to do it – the medical companies aren’t stupid; they’d much rather manufacture the drugs at a fair price than lose their patent). Clinton’s healthcare plan is a bandaid, just like the ACA.
Clinton would be opposed to a wealth tax, which is the only way to make sure that the rich pay their dues to society in an economy where wealth is created by wealth, not income.
Clinton’s America would be… fine. It would be business-as-usual. It would be 4 more years of Obama. It would not be the kind of America we need to face 21st century problems. It would not be ready for the massive increase in automation that we are right on the cusp of. That’s why I prefer Sanders.
None of this is about her being “shrill” or a “harpy”. None of this means I wouldn’t vote for Hillary. And I’ve never claimed Sanders is a saint. But complaining that he dared to cross Clinton is ludicrous. Were you this upset when Clinton criticized Obama during the 2008 election campaign? She did so very sharply – much more so than Bernie’s campaign ever attacked her. (And no, I am NOT referring to the theories that Clinton started the birther rumors. That’s obviously bullshit. I’m referring to the overall tone of her campaign, which was a much more hostile one than the campaign Bernie ran against her).
Considering my posting history (on ATMB and elsewhere), I find it pretty offensive that you would assume the only reason I would be critical of Hillary Clinton is sexism. Our politics may differ, but I respect you as a person and believe you are arguing with sincerity and good faith. I would hope you would do the same for me.
If Bernie Sanders has made some sexist comments – and you’ve definitely linked some comments that could be construed as such – then I don’t agree with those comments. I don’t think he’s a sexist person overall, and I think a country run by Bernie Sanders would be a step in the right direction when it comes to women’s rights (and that applies fully to Hillary as well, and to Obama, and to many other politicians).
Clinton has made some racist comments in the past, though I don’t think she did so intentionally nor because she was a racist person. She’s expressed regrets about these comments, and about some of the laws she’s passed. I would hope that’s true of Bernie Sanders as well. He’s not perfect – nobody is – but I think you’d really be pushing it if you said he wasn’t a pro-woman candidate, over all.
This is not what polling says. Lots of Americans do want it & are backing Bernie specifically because of it.
That sounds less like you’re arguing against Fight for 15 than against any minimum wage. Me, I think HRC lost in part because she didn’t support a living wage.
Cool. Let’s be insane, then. If a living wage won’t work, & tax hikes won’t pass, then we’re stuck with oppressive income disparity & lost opportunity.
Here’s what the Beltway won’t accept: Maybe half the country is to Bernie Sander’s left on these kinds of issues. Bernie’s viability staves off the guillotines.