Under the EC, they don’t matter. Only swing state votes matter.
That’s not accurate. They absolutely matter. It’s just that there is a local surplus is all. I can guarantee you that the Democratic voters of California aren’t going to stay home entirely and let the Republicans have what doesn’t matter.
It is “ahistoric bullshit” because it is a falsehood that HRC ran a national popularity contest strategy.
Who spread themselves over more states, Clinton or Trump? Trump. He campaigned in 45 states to Clinton’s 37.
Both had the same top four states since cinching their respective nominations (with him an extra week and half to do): Florida; Ohio; Pennsylvania; and North Carolina. (True Trump on average 16 visits to HRC’s average of 14.
Yes, she spent more time doing fundraisers in California, resulting in a spend of $253 million on ads in competitive states to Trump’s $93 million, and spent the most in Florida. He played the media well and got free coverage more.
And she took Michigan and Wisconsin for granted. Which clearly was a big mistake.
A coalition of multiple groups together representing a majority is not “tyranny of the majority”, but what we have now is tyranny of the minority. Rural voters should not be ignored but their votes structurally are “more equal” than others. That is not right.
Don’t (although he with free media ran a more national campaign than Clinton did spending money in specific states). That is why I cannot call the result anything other than “legitimate” as those were the rules going in. But from the POV of what best represents the will of the people and what and who more Americans want, which system of rules is more legitimate?
Bullshit. Turnout is significantly higher in swing/battleground states. The EC depresses turnout because so many states aren’t competitive. Voters know that they don’t matter, unless they’re in one of those special states.
Well that’s unfortunate. Time to work on that constitutional amendment.
How did this tired tangent get started again?
Hillary smacking Sanders? Why not?
Yes to bring it back, the tangent began with a claim that because she lost the EC it is clear that Americans overwhelmingly reject her ideas.
And nah they don’t, we don’t.
But at this point, as much as I supported her and think she would have been an excellent president, as much as I loved her ideas, I don’t especially care what she thinks about the political dynamics of this cycle or her retrospective thoughts about her last run. Punditry for the first and boring for the second. Those who do care ae free to, but interestingly enough it is those who dislike her who seem to be paying attention to her pontifications more than her past supporters. I think I speak for many of her past supporters - we’ve moved on.
He described things that didn’t happen as if they had happened. That’s like textbook ahistorical bullshit.
You don’t think the multiple factions of the political parties actually like the other intraparty factions? What Mrs. Clinton has to say has to be on the mind of the non-progressive branch, aka the sane branch, of the Democratic Party. This far left pandering has to be terrifying to the powers that be.
Oh I agree with what she said. I just don’t care that she said it, or something completely different.
2008: Clinton endorsed Obama on June 7th.
2016: Sanders endorsed Clinton on July 12th.
So a month later.
One in ten Sanders supporters voted for Trump. That’s not a huge number, but
But those voters almost certainly wouldn’t have voted for Clinton in the first place.
I wonder how many of those who supported Sanders didn’t vote at all because they were so disgruntled that Clinton got the nomination. And how many of those non-voters would have voted and voted for Clinton (especially in MI, WI, and PA) if Sanders had never run?