You're not a stupid person, indeed you seem pretty damn smart to me.
I am genuinely intrigued by your reaction to coronavirus, and I believe you are a rare case of a smarter person exhibiting Normalcy Bias. I also think, by the way, that you mean well, so this is not personal, in any way.
But what would it take to convince you that this is a Very Serious Threat to global stability?
Already we have: a tenth of humanity in quarantine
A shuddering pause in the world's second biggest economy
Frontiers across the world being closed
Huge hits to major industries like tourism, autos, tech
Videos of millions of people being WELDED into their homes to prevent spread
A state of emergency in ITALY
2.5m Koreans in lockdown
etc etc etc
Seriously, at what point do you change your mind and say Ooops, OK, this is quite serious??!!
This is serious, but it is being dealt with seriously, by professionals.
Its not "OH MY GOD! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! DON'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE!!!1111" level of serious.
There are many serious issues in the world, this is just one of them.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
In Michigan the fall in turnout of the black vote was more than enough to cover the gap.
And the Hispanic vote was enough for Trump to win Arizona.
A note for Buttigieg supporters when he gets 1% and 2% with minorities.
Sanders lost to Clinton because of various reason (msltlu doing badly with old people) but Clinton smashed him with Hispanics. That he is hoovering them up now is a big, big thing.
"Would you kill one person to save five? Depends if you’re a millennial or not Unthinkable: Should we be worried about the apparent rise of utilitarianism?
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
In Michigan the fall in turnout of the black vote was more than enough to cover the gap.
And the Hispanic vote was enough for Trump to win Arizona.
A note for Buttigieg supporters when he gets 1% and 2% with minorities.
Sanders lost to Clinton because of various reason (msltlu doing badly with old people) but Clinton smashed him with Hispanics. That he is hoovering them up now is a big, big thing.
Sanders won Hispanics in Nevada in 2016 too, just not at this large margin.
The Reid machine in Vegas is good only if the result is within 5%.
"Would you kill one person to save five? Depends if you’re a millennial or not Unthinkable: Should we be worried about the apparent rise of utilitarianism?
At what point is the Betfair market going to notice that Mayor Pete is probably going to come 3rd in Nevada, that he got 2% of the black entrance poll vote and South Carolina ia 60%+ black, and that he's polling 4th nationally?
He went on TV saying that Sanders is a communist that will execute him like Castro in 1959 or something. He is very relatable with people over the age 90.
Given Sanders is not really a Democrat, even if he does win the presidency there has to be a good chance he finds it hard to get all of the party on Congress to enthusiastically back him on some of his ideas. I know Trump has shown you can get such figures to prostrate themselves before you over time, but looks like being a tough place to govern no matter who wins, once again.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
The big thing Trump has going for him is the economy is doing pretty well. While the students might like the sound of free uni and recent graduates having all their debt written off by Sanders, I wonder like here is the middle aged and oldies want such a radical change.
The economy is gravely sick. It's drowning in debt and Trump has been profligate to the point of lunacy. He has no non-risible attack lines against Sanders on this issue.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
In fairness, Premier League matches would be amazing if we switched to Goals Scored as the key metric.
At what point is the Betfair market going to notice that Mayor Pete is probably going to come 3rd in Nevada, that he got 2% of the black entrance poll vote and South Carolina ia 60%+ black, and that he's polling 4th nationally?
I've been saying that forever. Buttigieg can never win the nomination because minorities hate him.
That's just stupid. No one is "dealing" with this, it is not being dealt with, there is no THEM which might deal with it right now. There is no Daddy coming to save you.
Covid-19 is unprecedented, in modern times, though it has certainly been predicted.
Of course its being dealt with. That's why the few patients in this country that got the illness have been treated without it spreading exponentially.
Its also got precedent in modern times. Its got potential to be awful which is what people are panicking about but so far it is no worse that routine influenza with regards to the number of fatalities and its quite unlikely to get worse than it too - though it has a remote possibility of that occurring.
Wow you really are in excellent fiction form tonight Sean. The leap from the coronavirus to Bernie's election is a sleight of hand that would have made Paul Daniels proud.
Why should this not be a factor, you dribbling cretin?
Trump's advisors think coronavirus could LOSE the election for them, even against a mad lefty dwarf like Sanders
Certainly Covid 19 has the potential to bankrupt an awful lot of Americans, quite possibly bankrupt their insurance companies too. It may be a black swan in all sorts of ways.
At what point is the Betfair market going to notice that Mayor Pete is probably going to come 3rd in Nevada, that he got 2% of the black entrance poll vote and South Carolina ia 60%+ black, and that he's polling 4th nationally?
I've been saying that forever. Buttigieg can never win the nomination because minorities hate him.
He needed to come out of the early races as a winner and hope that meant support would flow behind him as a result, but clearly it's not worked. Still, an impressive enough set of accomplishments given where he started.
The big thing Trump has going for him is the economy is doing pretty well. While the students might like the sound of free uni and recent graduates having all their debt written off by Sanders, I wonder like here is the middle aged and oldies want such a radical change.
The economy is gravely sick. It's drowning in debt and Trump has been profligate to the point of lunacy. He has no non-risible attack lines against Sanders on this issue.
Didn't stop Gordon Brown winning election in 2005 when he was all that.
It was only after the recession hit and the chickens came home to roost that Labour bore the brunt of Brown's profligacy. Some still to this day insanely deny he overspent.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
Given Sanders is not really a Democrat, even if he does win the presidency there has to be a good chance he finds it hard to get all of the party on Congress to enthusiastically back him on some of his ideas. I know Trump has shown you can get such figures to prostrate themselves before you over time, but looks like being a tough place to govern no matter who wins, once again.
If Sanders is not a Democrat then Trump is not a Republican.
But Trump gets all House Republicans bar 1 and all Senate Republicans bar 1.
I expect that Sanders will have all House Democrats except the ex-CIA ones who might lose their seats anyway, and all Senate Democrats except Manchin and Sinema.
If Sanders wins then the Democrats could probably gain the Senate too, it will be down to the 2 Georgia seats and the 1 N.Carolina seat.
Given Sanders is not really a Democrat, even if he does win the presidency there has to be a good chance he finds it hard to get all of the party on Congress to enthusiastically back him on some of his ideas. I know Trump has shown you can get such figures to prostrate themselves before you over time, but looks like being a tough place to govern no matter who wins, once again.
If Sanders is not a Democrat then Trump is not a Republican.
But Trump gets all House Republicans bar 1 and all Senate Republicans bar 1.
I expect that Sanders will have all House Democrats except the ex-CIA ones who might lose their seats anyway, and all Senate Democrats except Manchin and Sinema.
If Sanders wins then the Democrats could probably gain the Senate too, it will be down to the 2 Georgia seats and the 1 N.Carolina seat.
Your second sentence was covered by my point. He has managed it so its possible but not certain and may take time to stamp his authority on them.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
If the popular vote was what won elections, most of the country would never see the candidates or get to influence election results. There would be no IA NH or SC primaries or caucuses. NY CA TX and a few other states would get all the attention. That's why there is an electoral college - you can pile up huge numbers of votes in NY or CA, but there are only so many delegates available for that state. That way most of the country gets to have a say.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
Wow you really are in excellent fiction form tonight Sean. The leap from the coronavirus to Bernie's election is a sleight of hand that would have made Paul Daniels proud.
Why should this not be a factor, you dribbling cretin?
Trump's advisors think coronavirus could LOSE the election for them, even against a mad lefty dwarf like Sanders
Certainly Covid 19 has the potential to bankrupt an awful lot of Americans, quite possibly bankrupt their insurance companies too. It may be a black swan in all sorts of ways.
The impact on uninsured Americans would be politically game-changing, should coronavirus get a grip there.
Insured Americans too (though presumably those US insurance companies have laid off at least some of their financial risk via the secondary reinsurance market. Is this via Lloyd's?).
Most US policies have quite high co payments particularly for pharmaceuticals.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
Your plan has one flaw, he already has been elected.
Unelectable THIS time. Which we only know for sure because he got elected last time and was thus able to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that he is unfit for office and cannot be elected again.
Given Sanders is not really a Democrat, even if he does win the presidency there has to be a good chance he finds it hard to get all of the party on Congress to enthusiastically back him on some of his ideas. I know Trump has shown you can get such figures to prostrate themselves before you over time, but looks like being a tough place to govern no matter who wins, once again.
If Sanders is not a Democrat then Trump is not a Republican.
But Trump gets all House Republicans bar 1 and all Senate Republicans bar 1.
I expect that Sanders will have all House Democrats except the ex-CIA ones who might lose their seats anyway, and all Senate Democrats except Manchin and Sinema.
If Sanders wins then the Democrats could probably gain the Senate too, it will be down to the 2 Georgia seats and the 1 N.Carolina seat.
Your second sentence was covered by my point. He has managed it so its possible but not certain and may take time to stamp his authority on them.
That's all but around 10 House Democrats and 2 Senators, that's less than what Trump faced in his first year.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
More than 50. DC, Puerto Rico and the other overseas territories have contests too.
At what point is the Betfair market going to notice that Mayor Pete is probably going to come 3rd in Nevada, that he got 2% of the black entrance poll vote and South Carolina ia 60%+ black, and that he's polling 4th nationally?
I've been saying that forever. Buttigieg can never win the nomination because minorities hate him.
Lots of magic thinking on behalf of centrists. It's like after the debate some people saying Bloomberg getting whacked helps Buttigieg. Nope it helps Biden because Bloomberg was taking from his supporters, including a sizeable fraction of minorities who weren't going to then move on to Buttigieg.
Just because someone has arbitrarily defined a group as "moderates" doesn't mean the votes between them all are interchangeable.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
More than 50. DC, Puerto Rico and the other overseas territories have contests too.
Your plan has one flaw, he already has been elected.
Unelectable THIS time. Which we only know for sure because he got elected last time and was thus able to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that he is unfit for office and cannot be elected again.
How has he demonstrated (to his own voters) that he is unfit for office?
He's demonstrated to you and me that he is unfit for office but we thought that before the last election and wouldn't have voted for him.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
How do you feel about tennis matches where some-one wins the first set 6-0, but loses the other two sets 4-6, 4-6 ?
That's just stupid. No one is "dealing" with this, it is not being dealt with, there is no THEM which might deal with it right now. There is no Daddy coming to save you.
Covid-19 is unprecedented, in modern times, though it has certainly been predicted.
Of course its being dealt with. That's why the few patients in this country that got the illness have been treated without it spreading exponentially.
Its also got precedent in modern times. Its got potential to be awful which is what people are panicking about but so far it is no worse that routine influenza with regards to the number of fatalities and its quite unlikely to get worse than it too - though it has a remote possibility of that occurring.
I don't want to scare you, old boy, but it is really not being "dealt with", or no more than, say, firemen "dealt with" the Grenfel tower blaze.
I just spoke to a friend who runs a major SE English hospital. I asked him what preparation they are making for a possible Covid epidemic in the UK.
He said: "None"
He also said: "this is different to Swine Flu where we war-gamed lots of possibilities and checked all our resources for isolation etc, this time nothing has been planned or checked"
I asked him WTF, and his reply was: "I've no idea why we aren't planning, either they think this is Armageddon so it's pointless, or they think it's not important"
Is that reassuring? I did not find it reassuring.
Considering Foxy has been assuring us the exact opposite I'm going to file that under #ThatHappened
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.
Hillary was more POPULAR than Trump. That's why they call it the POPULAR vote:
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
How do you feel about tennis matches where some-one wins the first set 6-0, but loses the other two sets 4-6, 4-6 ?
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
That's just stupid. No one is "dealing" with this, it is not being dealt with, there is no THEM which might deal with it right now. There is no Daddy coming to save you.
Covid-19 is unprecedented, in modern times, though it has certainly been predicted.
Of course its being dealt with. That's why the few patients in this country that got the illness have been treated without it spreading exponentially.
Its also got precedent in modern times. Its got potential to be awful which is what people are panicking about but so far it is no worse that routine influenza with regards to the number of fatalities and its quite unlikely to get worse than it too - though it has a remote possibility of that occurring.
I don't want to scare you, old boy, but it is really not being "dealt with", or no more than, say, firemen "dealt with" the Grenfel tower blaze.
I just spoke to a friend who runs a major SE English hospital. I asked him what preparation they are making for a possible Covid epidemic in the UK.
He said: "None"
He also said: "this is different to Swine Flu where we war-gamed lots of possibilities and checked all our resources for isolation etc, this time nothing has been planned or checked"
I asked him WTF, and his reply was: "I've no idea why we aren't planning, either they think this is Armageddon so it's pointless, or they think it's not important"
Is that reassuring? I did not find it reassuring.
Considering Foxy has been assuring us the exact opposite I'm going to file that under #ThatHappened
I'm personally aware of the preparations made by a handful of Trusts and CCGs.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
You have used your Premier League analogy before. It was poor then and it still is.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.
Hillary was more POPULAR than Trump. That's why they call it the POPULAR vote:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
The Presidency isn't a popularity contest. Its important to concentrate on the states, not just ramp up popularity in a few of them.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
If the popular vote was what won elections, most of the country would never see the candidates or get to influence election results. There would be no IA NH or SC primaries or caucuses. NY CA TX and a few other states would get all the attention. That's why there is an electoral college - you can pile up huge numbers of votes in NY or CA, but there are only so many delegates available for that state. That way most of the country gets to have a say.
Apart from the "weirdness" of the 1824 result, when Democratic Republican (Adams) lost the popular vote to a fellow Democratic Republican (Jackson), all of the other four President wot lost the popular vote were Republican:
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
That's just stupid. No one is "dealing" with this, it is not being dealt with, there is no THEM which might deal with it right now. There is no Daddy coming to save you.
Covid-19 is unprecedented, in modern times, though it has certainly been predicted.
Of course its being dealt with. That's why the few patients in this country that got the illness have been treated without it spreading exponentially.
Its also got precedent in modern times. Its got potential to be awful which is what people are panicking about but so far it is no worse that routine influenza with regards to the number of fatalities and its quite unlikely to get worse than it too - though it has a remote possibility of that occurring.
I don't want to scare you, old boy, but it is really not being "dealt with", or no more than, say, firemen "dealt with" the Grenfel tower blaze.
I just spoke to a friend who runs a major SE English hospital. I asked him what preparation they are making for a possible Covid epidemic in the UK.
He said: "None"
He also said: "this is different to Swine Flu where we war-gamed lots of possibilities and checked all our resources for isolation etc, this time nothing has been planned or checked"
I asked him WTF, and his reply was: "I've no idea why we aren't planning, either they think this is Armageddon so it's pointless, or they think it's not important"
Is that reassuring? I did not find it reassuring.
Considering Foxy has been assuring us the exact opposite I'm going to file that under #ThatHappened
I think the DoH and Public Health England have a plan, and my Trust does, but that plan is likely to be overwhelmed by events fairly quickly.
These are 2012 figures for ICU beds per capita across europe. There are some definitions issues, but the overall pattern is there.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
You have used your Premier League analogy before. It was poor then and it still is.
How was it poor?
By design the games are unique. By design the states are unique too.
You can't transfer surplus goals from hammering West Ham to turn a defeat against Spurs into a win. You can't transfer surplus votes from hamming California to turn a defeat in Pennyslvania into a win.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.
Hillary was more POPULAR than Trump. That's why they call it the POPULAR vote:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
I don't have the numbers to hand - I'm sure someone can dig it out - but I seem to remember on election night, one of the networks took the popular vote and subtracted CA: Trump wins the popular vote in the other 49 states. Ditto if you remove NY: Trump wins the popular vote of the other 49 states. Remove both and Trump wins the popular vote hugely. It was all part of the electoral college argument. I'm going on memory but I think that was what was shown.
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
The winner isn't decided by who wins most states
No its decided by who wins the most Electoral College votes, which are decided by unique state contests.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Search your feelings, Philip. You will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
If the popular vote was what won elections, most of the country would never see the candidates or get to influence election results. There would be no IA NH or SC primaries or caucuses. NY CA TX and a few other states would get all the attention. That's why there is an electoral college - you can pile up huge numbers of votes in NY or CA, but there are only so many delegates available for that state. That way most of the country gets to have a say.
Apart from the "weirdness" of the 1824 result, when Democratic Republican (Adams) lost the popular vote to a fellow Democratic Republican (Jackson), all of the other four President wot lost the popular vote were Republican:
Hayes, 1876 Harrison, 1888 Bush, 2000 Trump, 2016
Congratulations - you've found an election stat even less relevant than the raw popular vote.
That's just stupid. No one is "dealing" with this, it is not being dealt with, there is no THEM which might deal with it right now. There is no Daddy coming to save you.
Covid-19 is unprecedented, in modern times, though it has certainly been predicted.
Of course its being dealt with. That's why the few patients in this country that got the illness have been treated without it spreading exponentially.
Its also got precedent in modern times. Its got potential to be awful which is what people are panicking about but so far it is no worse that routine influenza with regards to the number of fatalities and its quite unlikely to get worse than it too - though it has a remote possibility of that occurring.
I don't want to scare you, old boy, but it is really not being "dealt with", or no more than, say, firemen "dealt with" the Grenfel tower blaze.
I just spoke to a friend who runs a major SE English hospital. I asked him what preparation they are making for a possible Covid epidemic in the UK.
He said: "None"
He also said: "this is different to Swine Flu where we war-gamed lots of possibilities and checked all our resources for isolation etc, this time nothing has been planned or checked"
I asked him WTF, and his reply was: "I've no idea why we aren't planning, either they think this is Armageddon so it's pointless, or they think it's not important"
Is that reassuring? I did not find it reassuring.
I know a lot of doctors and they all say the opposite. At least in London it's being taken very seriously.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Search your feelings, Philip. You will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
The electoral college being set proportionate to size +2 Senators is designed deliberately to ensure that the small states concerns aren't overlooked by the large states. Its a deliberate mechanism.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Search your feelings, Philip. You will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
It may well be crap, but like FPTP in the UK, it is the way the contest is decided.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.
Hillary was more POPULAR than Trump. That's why they call it the POPULAR vote:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
The Presidency isn't a popularity contest. Its important to concentrate on the states, not just ramp up popularity in a few of them.
We know that that is the US system but explain to me why you believe that in electing one person in a nationwide contest each vote should not have equal value and the winner should not be the candidate with the most votes?
Trump lost the popular vote by the biggest margin in history. If it had been Obama in that position the American right would have been jumping up and down and demanding the system be changed.
The US system has a bias toward small rural (republican) states. Wyoming gets 2 votes for its senators, same as California. It is what it is but you can't possibly justify it as being a fair way to elect the President.
When every doctor and expert is publicly saying the exact opposite, then some hypochondriac on the web who is definitely not a fiction author is saying the opposite . . . whom should we believe?
The big thing Trump has going for him is the economy is doing pretty well. While the students might like the sound of free uni and recent graduates having all their debt written off by Sanders, I wonder like here is the middle aged and oldies want such a radical change.
The economy is gravely sick. It's drowning in debt and Trump has been profligate to the point of lunacy. He has no non-risible attack lines against Sanders on this issue.
Didn't stop Gordon Brown winning election in 2005 when he was all that.
It was only after the recession hit and the chickens came home to roost that Labour bore the brunt of Brown's profligacy. Some still to this day insanely deny he overspent.
Given Bernie’s particular appear to Millennials, and particular turn off to older voters, is there an American Canterbury somewhere in there? Or a Blythe Valley for that matter? Could Trump win his home state?
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Search your feelings, Philip. You will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
The electoral college being set proportionate to size +2 Senators is designed deliberately to ensure that the small states concerns aren't overlooked by the large states. Its a deliberate mechanism.
Your are busy banging a square peg into a round hole with a 10lb lump hammer over this issue. It will fit eventually so there is no point arguing against it. Good night.
The big thing Trump has going for him is the economy is doing pretty well. While the students might like the sound of free uni and recent graduates having all their debt written off by Sanders, I wonder like here is the middle aged and oldies want such a radical change.
The economy is gravely sick. It's drowning in debt and Trump has been profligate to the point of lunacy. He has no non-risible attack lines against Sanders on this issue.
Didn't stop Gordon Brown winning election in 2005 when he was all that.
It was only after the recession hit and the chickens came home to roost that Labour bore the brunt of Brown's profligacy. Some still to this day insanely deny he overspent.
Tony Blair won GE2005 not Brown.
Gordon Brown was Blair's Chancellor, heir apparent, front and centre of the campaign and the one responsible for the deficit and profligacy to the point of lunacy.
But the point still stands if you say that Blair won re-election after the lunatic profligacy of the 3 years before the election.
That's just stupid. No one is "dealing" with this, it is not being dealt with, there is no THEM which might deal with it right now. There is no Daddy coming to save you.
Covid-19 is unprecedented, in modern times, though it has certainly been predicted.
Of course its being dealt with. That's why the few patients in this country that got the illness have been treated without it spreading exponentially.
Its also got precedent in modern times. Its got potential to be awful which is what people are panicking about but so far it is no worse that routine influenza with regards to the number of fatalities and its quite unlikely to get worse than it too - though it has a remote possibility of that occurring.
I don't want to scare you, old boy, but it is really not being "dealt with", or no more than, say, firemen "dealt with" the Grenfel tower blaze.
I just spoke to a friend who runs a major SE English hospital. I asked him what preparation they are making for a possible Covid epidemic in the UK.
He said: "None"
He also said: "this is different to Swine Flu where we war-gamed lots of possibilities and checked all our resources for isolation etc, this time nothing has been planned or checked"
I asked him WTF, and his reply was: "I've no idea why we aren't planning, either they think this is Armageddon so it's pointless, or they think it's not important"
Is that reassuring? I did not find it reassuring.
Considering Foxy has been assuring us the exact opposite I'm going to file that under #ThatHappened
I think the DoH and Public Health England have a plan, and my Trust does, but that plan is likely to be overwhelmed by events fairly quickly.
These are 2012 figures for ICU beds per capita across europe. There are some definitions issues, but the overall pattern is there.
Given Bernie’s particular appear to Millennials, and particular turn off to older voters, is there an American Canterbury somewhere in there? Or a Blythe Valley for that matter? Could Trump win his home state?
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.
Hillary was more POPULAR than Trump. That's why they call it the POPULAR vote:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
The Presidency isn't a popularity contest. Its important to concentrate on the states, not just ramp up popularity in a few of them.
We know that that is the US system but explain to me why you believe that in electing one person in a nationwide contest each vote should not have equal value and the winner should not be the candidate with the most votes?
Trump lost the popular vote by the biggest margin in history. If it had been Obama in that position the American right would have been jumping up and down and demanding the system be changed.
The US system has a bias toward small rural (republican) states. Wyoming gets 2 votes for its senators, same as California. It is what it is but you can't possibly justify it as being a fair way to elect the President.
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
The big thing Trump has going for him is the economy is doing pretty well. While the students might like the sound of free uni and recent graduates having all their debt written off by Sanders, I wonder like here is the middle aged and oldies want such a radical change.
The economy is gravely sick. It's drowning in debt and Trump has been profligate to the point of lunacy. He has no non-risible attack lines against Sanders on this issue.
Didn't stop Gordon Brown winning election in 2005 when he was all that.
It was only after the recession hit and the chickens came home to roost that Labour bore the brunt of Brown's profligacy. Some still to this day insanely deny he overspent.
Tony Blair won GE2005 not Brown.
Gordon Brown was Blair's Chancellor, heir apparent, front and centre of the campaign and the one responsible for the deficit and profligacy to the point of lunacy.
But the point still stands if you say that Blair won re-election after the lunatic profligacy of the 3 years before the election.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.
Hillary was more POPULAR than Trump. That's why they call it the POPULAR vote:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
The Presidency isn't a popularity contest. Its important to concentrate on the states, not just ramp up popularity in a few of them.
We know that that is the US system but explain to me why you believe that in electing one person in a nationwide contest each vote should not have equal value and the winner should not be the candidate with the most votes?
Trump lost the popular vote by the biggest margin in history. If it had been Obama in that position the American right would have been jumping up and down and demanding the system be changed.
The US system has a bias toward small rural (republican) states. Wyoming gets 2 votes for its senators, same as California. It is what it is but you can't possibly justify it as being a fair way to elect the President.
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
He already won Florida though, and that’s a swing state. I mean, is there somewhere highly surprising that will change hands.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Search your feelings, Philip. You will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
The electoral college being set proportionate to size +2 Senators is designed deliberately to ensure that the small states concerns aren't overlooked by the large states. Its a deliberate mechanism.
That isn't true at all. The electoral college was designed so that southern states could reflect their slave populations in their share of political power, without needing to worry about giving them a vote. It wasn't some carefully arranged setup from a unanimous decision of wise elders. It was the result of a hard fought negotiation between competing interests.
Given Bernie’s particular appear to Millennials, and particular turn off to older voters, is there an American Canterbury somewhere in there? Or a Blythe Valley for that matter? Could Trump win his home state?
Given the obsessive focus on the Rust Belt states that Trump won last time I wonder if a Dem candidate who boosts latino turnout could win a traditionally GOP Sun Belt state like Arizona or Georgia and few people see it coming.
One similarity between Kensington, Canterbury, The Red Wall, The Rust Belt, and The Sun Belt, is that people are stunned when they switch even though they are the culmination of long demographic shifts. People don't notice the surprisingly close wins for the traditional side just before the 'shock' defeats.
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
I don't think that works.
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
Of course it would, the way the Senate and the House are elected provide adequate balance. I wish people who try to justify biased electoral arrangements would just admit they like them because the bias favours their agenda. It would be a far more honest approach.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.
Hillary was more POPULAR than Trump. That's why they call it the POPULAR vote:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
The Presidency isn't a popularity contest. Its important to concentrate on the states, not just ramp up popularity in a few of them.
We know that that is the US system but explain to me why you believe that in electing one person in a nationwide contest each vote should not have equal value and the winner should not be the candidate with the most votes?
Trump lost the popular vote by the biggest margin in history. If it had been Obama in that position the American right would have been jumping up and down and demanding the system be changed.
The US system has a bias toward small rural (republican) states. Wyoming gets 2 votes for its senators, same as California. It is what it is but you can't possibly justify it as being a fair way to elect the President.
Trump's absolute vote margin loss was the largest in US history, but in percentage terms, his was the second biggest loss after Harrison in 1888.
Trump -2.1% Harrison -3.0%
Um, that's excluding the -10% deficit Adams had against his Dem Rep rival Jackson in 1824!
Best place for NV results? 538 seem to have taken down their live tracker.
I'm giving up too, the results like in Iowa might take days or weeks at this rate and never be certified due to mistakes and irregularities.
Th only difference with Iowa is that it's not a close result, it looks like a landslide.
NPR (radio) seems quite good with live comments too. But as you say it's a Bernie walkover. What's interesting also is that Biden seems to be in a clear second place. Warren is consoling herself with reports of late voters swinging heavily to her, but it's not clear that Buttigieg or Klobouchar have much left in the tank. Klobouchar might be best advised in career terms now to endorse either Sanders (as th elikely winner( or Biden (to be a heroine of the centrists).
The electoral college being set proportionate to size +2 Senators is designed deliberately to ensure that the small states concerns aren't overlooked by the large states. Its a deliberate mechanism.
Your are busy banging a square peg into a round hole with a 10lb lump hammer over this issue. It will fit eventually so there is no point arguing against it. Good night.
No I'm not, it was designed as a square hole. Many founding fathers were worried about one of the states being able to overrule the others. That's why they designed the Senate the way they did - and the electoral college the way they did.
In particular Virginia was the California of its day. Its worth remembering that when the 13 colonies designed the Constitution the colony of Virginia alone had more population than 6 of the other 12 colonies combined.
Based on pure population Virginia would have had more of a say than Georgia, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New Jersey and South Carolina combined. The founders deliberately wrote the constitution so that didn't happen.
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.
In 2004, John Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire. It then went to Super Tuesday (where he won almost all the states) so you can argue he won the first three states too.
The big thing Trump has going for him is the economy is doing pretty well. While the students might like the sound of free uni and recent graduates having all their debt written off by Sanders, I wonder like here is the middle aged and oldies want such a radical change.
The economy is gravely sick. It's drowning in debt and Trump has been profligate to the point of lunacy. He has no non-risible attack lines against Sanders on this issue.
Didn't stop Gordon Brown winning election in 2005 when he was all that.
It was only after the recession hit and the chickens came home to roost that Labour bore the brunt of Brown's profligacy. Some still to this day insanely deny he overspent.
Tony Blair won GE2005 not Brown.
Gordon Brown was Blair's Chancellor, heir apparent, front and centre of the campaign and the one responsible for the deficit and profligacy to the point of lunacy.
But the point still stands if you say that Blair won re-election after the lunatic profligacy of the 3 years before the election.
Uh?
Which part are you struggling with?
The fact that Labour with Brown as Chancellor was profligate, or the fact they won the election?
Best place for NV results? 538 seem to have taken down their live tracker.
I'm giving up too, the results like in Iowa might take days or weeks at this rate and never be certified due to mistakes and irregularities.
Th only difference with Iowa is that it's not a close result, it looks like a landslide.
NPR (radio) seems quite good with live comments too. But as you say it's a Bernie walkover. What's interesting also is that Biden seems to be in a clear second place. Warren is consoling herself with reports of late voters swinging heavily to her, but it's not clear that Buttigieg or Klobouchar have much left in the tank. Klobouchar might be best advised in career terms now to endorse either Sanders (as th elikely winner( or Biden (to be a heroine of the centrists).
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
I don't think that works.
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
The electoral college being set proportionate to size +2 Senators is designed deliberately to ensure that the small states concerns aren't overlooked by the large states. Its a deliberate mechanism.
That isn't true at all. The electoral college was designed so that southern states could reflect their slave populations in their share of political power, without needing to worry about giving them a vote. It wasn't some carefully arranged setup from a unanimous decision of wise elders. It was the result of a hard fought negotiation between competing interests.
That isn't true at all. The relevant part of +2 Senators was designed deliberately to ensure that population was not the only factor. Had they just wanted the population counted they would have gone for just matching it proportionately by counting the representatives but they deliberately added the fixed 2 Senators in order to deliberately stop Virginia from being overly powerful.
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
I don't think that works.
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
Comments
Its not "OH MY GOD! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! DON'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE!!!1111" level of serious.
There are many serious issues in the world, this is just one of them.
A note for Buttigieg supporters when he gets 1% and 2% with minorities.
Less votes than Romney
Still won.
But I don't.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1231340983360589824
https://xkcd.com/1455/
The Reid machine in Vegas is good only if the result is within 5%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00c1sw2
All the people who reckoned he couldn't win then are saying he's bound to win now.
Swing voters going from Democrat to Libertarian, or other swing voters going from Libertarian to Republican is a Democrat to Republican net swing.
Hillary 48%
Trump 46%
He is very relatable with people over the age 90.
Hillary 227
Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Buttigieg can never win the nomination because minorities hate him.
Its also got precedent in modern times. Its got potential to be awful which is what people are panicking about but so far it is no worse that routine influenza with regards to the number of fatalities and its quite unlikely to get worse than it too - though it has a remote possibility of that occurring.
It was only after the recession hit and the chickens came home to roost that Labour bore the brunt of Brown's profligacy. Some still to this day insanely deny he overspent.
Hillary 65,853,514
Trump 62,984,828
The objective is to win games/states.
But Trump gets all House Republicans bar 1 and all Senate Republicans bar 1.
I expect that Sanders will have all House Democrats except the ex-CIA ones who might lose their seats anyway, and all Senate Democrats except Manchin and Sinema.
If Sanders wins then the Democrats could probably gain the Senate too, it will be down to the 2 Georgia seats and the 1 N.Carolina seat.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.
Most US policies have quite high co payments particularly for pharmaceuticals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
Just because someone has arbitrarily defined a group as "moderates" doesn't mean the votes between them all are interchangeable.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nevada-among-states-canceled-its-republican-caucuses-primaries-n1140481
He's demonstrated to you and me that he is unfit for office but we thought that before the last election and wouldn't have voted for him.
Hillary 65,853,514
Trump 62,984,828
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1231334451969327105
Same thing happens with Soldiers vs Generals.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
Will it be enough? Dunno.
Is it >0? Yes.
Hayes, 1876
Harrison, 1888
Bush, 2000
Trump, 2016
These are 2012 figures for ICU beds per capita across europe. There are some definitions issues, but the overall pattern is there.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1231368774311464963?s=19
By design the games are unique. By design the states are unique too.
You can't transfer surplus goals from hammering West Ham to turn a defeat against Spurs into a win. You can't transfer surplus votes from hamming California to turn a defeat in Pennyslvania into a win.
By design!
Search your feelings, Philip. You will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
I won't even comment on your train of thought
Trump lost the popular vote by the biggest margin in history. If it had been Obama in that position the American right would have been jumping up and down and demanding the system be changed.
The US system has a bias toward small rural (republican) states. Wyoming gets 2 votes for its senators, same as California. It is what it is but you can't possibly justify it as being a fair way to elect the President.
Th only difference with Iowa is that it's not a close result, it looks like a landslide.
When every doctor and expert is publicly saying the exact opposite, then some hypochondriac on the web who is definitely not a fiction author is saying the opposite . . . whom should we believe?
But the point still stands if you say that Blair won re-election after the lunatic profligacy of the 3 years before the election.
Florida? Yes.
One similarity between Kensington, Canterbury, The Red Wall, The Rust Belt, and The Sun Belt, is that people are stunned when they switch even though they are the culmination of long demographic shifts. People don't notice the surprisingly close wins for the traditional side just before the 'shock' defeats.
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
Trump -2.1%
Harrison -3.0%
Um, that's excluding the -10% deficit Adams had against his Dem Rep rival Jackson in 1824!
It's Iowa redux.
I was right in my advice not to bet on Nevada.
https://www.npr.org/
In particular Virginia was the California of its day. Its worth remembering that when the 13 colonies designed the Constitution the colony of Virginia alone had more population than 6 of the other 12 colonies combined.
Based on pure population Virginia would have had more of a say than Georgia, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New Jersey and South Carolina combined. The founders deliberately wrote the constitution so that didn't happen.
The fact that Labour with Brown as Chancellor was profligate, or the fact they won the election?
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada?xid=ec_crm_nv_d
California is the 2020 version of Virginia.
But by that standard, candidates for the French Presidential election would only campaign in Paris, Marseilles and Lyon.
But they don't. Because campaigning in the same place results in rapidly diminishing returns.