Historical Ignorance

[DarkFury]

Really seems to be what the liberal democrats suffer more from then any thing else. So lets take an example by one of the worlds most ignorant people.
This ignorant statement has been parroted by many liberal democrats here as well.

“Well, first of all, I have 2 million more votes than Donald Trump. And I think voters, as opposed to, you know, the kind of back and forth in the public arena, when voters show up to vote, they take that vote seriously,” Clinton said."

I'm not even going to bother naming the names of this sites most ignorant parrots as we members know them well. Lets just go to the fact it means horse sh#t and more important has meant DEFEAT for those saying it. So a quick reminder for liberal democrats is in order....

"But the Smart Politics report found that, since 1976, the candidate who won more votes in the primary lost the popular vote in the general election six out of 10 times.

Here are some examples:

• 1980: President Jimmy Carter got 1.8 million more votes than Ronald Reagan in their primaries, but Reagan beat him in the general.
• 1988: Democrat Michael Dukakis received almost 1.6 million more votes than Republican nominee George H.W. Bush, but lost in the fall.
• 2000: George W. Bush got 217,000 more votes than Al Gore in their primaries. Gore went on to beat him in the popular vote, though Bush ultimately won the Electoral College vote and the White House."

So those two million votes? They don't really say much now do they? I mean Dukakis had 1.6 million more and most Americans don't even know where he is today.

Even in the case of incumbents, leading in the primary is not always a good idea.

"Smart Politics also notes that there were three races where incumbent presidents won the general (1984, 2004 and 2012) after receiving fewer votes in the primary when they ran uncontested for their party's nomination. However, this isn’t surprising given that voter turnout tends to be lower when you know your candidate is coasting unopposed."

So historically speaking those two million votes Hillary and her parrots are bragging about? May not be such a good idea unless of course you are an IDIOT.
Study: Clinton's primary vote lead may not reveal much about November

Fury

 

[g5000]

An incumbent is always going to have low voter turnout in the primaries, because they are for the most part uncontested by anyone else in their party. At the same time, incumbents are almost always re-elected.

So the only accurate comparisons would be where neither candidate was an incumbent.

The OP gives some older examples. However, in 2008 Obama received 17,584,692 primary popular votes while McCain received 9,902,797.

How many votes a candidate receives in the primary is almost irrelevant to the general election. What matters history-wise is the electoral vote, and Hillary has a HUGE advantage there. She only needs to capture the states that have always gone blue in the past several elections, plus one more state such as Florida, and she's in.

 

[there4eyeM]

Thanks again for pointing out how 'W' was not wanted by the majority. It re-enforces some hope for America.

 

[DarkFury]

An incumbent is always going to have low voter turnout in the primaries, because they are for the most part uncontested by anyone else in their party. At the same time, incumbents are almost always re-elected.

So the only accurate comparisons would be where neither candidate was an incumbent.

The OP gives some older examples. However, in 2008 Obama received 17,584,692 primary popular votes while McCain received 9,902,797.

How many votes a candidate receives in the primary is almost irrelevant to the general election. What matters history-wise is the electoral vote, and Hillary has a HUGE advantage there. She only needs to capture the states that have always gone blue in the past several elections, plus one more state such as Florida, and she's in.

More then 25% of the democrats voted Trump in Ohio. I posted the democrats OWN admit to that so Ohio has flipped. You CAN'T count chickens from eggs that are omelets.

 

[hazlnut]

Ignorant is a big word for Dick Fury.

 

[g5000]

An incumbent is always going to have low voter turnout in the primaries, because they are for the most part uncontested by anyone else in their party. At the same time, incumbents are almost always re-elected.

So the only accurate comparisons would be where neither candidate was an incumbent.

The OP gives some older examples. However, in 2008 Obama received 17,584,692 primary popular votes while McCain received 9,902,797.

How many votes a candidate receives in the primary is almost irrelevant to the general election. What matters history-wise is the electoral vote, and Hillary has a HUGE advantage there. She only needs to capture the states that have always gone blue in the past several elections, plus one more state such as Florida, and she's in.

More then 25% of the democrats voted Trump in Ohio. I posted the democrats OWN admit to that so Ohio has flipped. You CAN'T count chickens from eggs that are omelets.

Ohio is not one of the constant blue states. See below. Clinton only needs the states in the far left column, plus 28 more electoral votes.

Florida has 29.

She doesn't need Ohio.

 

[g5000]

If Clinton wins the constant blue states, she has 242 electoral votes.

If Trump wins the constant red states, he only has 102 electoral votes.

Clinton has a HUGE electoral advantage.

 

[DarkFury]

Ignorant is a big word for Dick Fury.

That time of the month for you?

 

[DarkFury]

If Clinton wins the constant blue states, she has 242 electoral votes.

If Trump wins the constant red states, he only has 102 electoral votes.

Clinton has a HUGE electoral advantage.

You are truly missing the voters message via Trump or Sanders even being in. The entire nation is in play you moron. Politics as usual is out.

 

[DarkFury]

An incumbent is always going to have low voter turnout in the primaries, because they are for the most part uncontested by anyone else in their party. At the same time, incumbents are almost always re-elected.

So the only accurate comparisons would be where neither candidate was an incumbent.

The OP gives some older examples. However, in 2008 Obama received 17,584,692 primary popular votes while McCain received 9,902,797.

How many votes a candidate receives in the primary is almost irrelevant to the general election. What matters history-wise is the electoral vote, and Hillary has a HUGE advantage there. She only needs to capture the states that have always gone blue in the past several elections, plus one more state such as Florida, and she's in.

More then 25% of the democrats voted Trump in Ohio. I posted the democrats OWN admit to that so Ohio has flipped. You CAN'T count chickens from eggs that are omelets.

Ohio is not one of the constant blue states. See below. Clinton only needs the states in the far left column, plus 28 more electoral votes.

Florida has 29.

She doesn't need Ohio.

You are either to ignorant or to wishful to see what is going on.
Most of the world with a brain is moving right, HARD right. You and your commie buddies are out.

 

[g5000]

If Clinton wins the constant blue states, she has 242 electoral votes.

If Trump wins the constant red states, he only has 102 electoral votes.

Clinton has a HUGE electoral advantage.

You are truly missing the voters message via Trump or Sanders even being in. The entire nation is in play you moron. Politics as usual is out.

YOU are the one who brought up history as being relevant to this election, retard.

Now that history has bitch-slapped you, you whine.

 

[there4eyeM]

Trying to make things right is not the same as moving 'right'.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What a shitty thread. 214 comes to tell us that primary votes don't matter in the general. Its brilliant!

 

[there4eyeM]

We are also reminded that the electoral college is not our friend.

 

[Fueri]

If Clinton wins the constant blue states, she has 242 electoral votes.

If Trump wins the constant red states, he only has 102 electoral votes.

Clinton has a HUGE electoral advantage.

Well, I'd agree that based on what is considered 'constant states' she does have a HUGE advantage. Question is whether or not she can count on that this time around.

Five-thirty-eight thinks maybe not:

Don’t Worry About The Electoral College Math

"When incumbent presidents run for re-election, the electoral map tends to be fairly consistent with their first campaign. States that were competitive in 2008, for example, were also competitive in 2012 (with a couple of exceptions). Statistically, President Obama’s 2012 vote share in a state can be predicted within 4.5 percentage points, 95 percent of the time, just by knowing how much the national popular vote changed and how well Obama did in that state in 2008.2

But the map is far more likely to change in open elections, like 2016, when no incumbent president is running."


Interesting analysis, as is the norm from these guys...

 

[DarkFury]

If Clinton wins the constant blue states, she has 242 electoral votes.

If Trump wins the constant red states, he only has 102 electoral votes.

Clinton has a HUGE electoral advantage.

You are truly missing the voters message via Trump or Sanders even being in. The entire nation is in play you moron. Politics as usual is out.

YOU are the one who brought up history as being relevant to this election, retard.

Now that history has bitch-slapped you, you whine.

Bitch slapped me? Am I the one bragging on those two million votes or is it that islamic sell out slut you support?

Why the hell are you g5000 a former hair dresser for the North Vietnamese army even here? FAGGOT.

 

[midcan5]

You all remember the Romney landslide.... Hillary Clinton will be our next president. Democrats have lost the white votes since America lived up to its principles in the Civil Rights Act. Tells you something doesn't it.

'The Dangerous Acceptance Of Donald Trump'

"The American Republic stands threatened by the first overtly anti-democratic leader of a large party in its modern history—an authoritarian with no grasp of history, no impulse control, and no apparent barriers on his will to power. The right thing to do, for everyone who believes in liberal democracy, is to gather around and work to defeat him on Election Day. Instead, we seem to be either engaged in parochial feuding or caught by habits of tribal hatred so ingrained that they have become impossible to escape even at moments of maximum danger. Bernie Sanders wouldn’t mind bringing down the Democratic Party to prevent it from surrendering to corporate forces — and yet he may be increasing the possibility of rule -by- billionaire." The Dangerous Acceptance of Donald Trump - The New Yorker

 

[DarkFury]

You all remember the Romney landslide.... Hillary Clinton will be our next president. Democrats have lost the white votes since America lived up to its principles in the Civil Rights Act. Tells you something doesn't it.

'The Dangerous Acceptance Of Donald Trump'

"The American Republic stands threatened by the first overtly anti-democratic leader of a large party in its modern history—an authoritarian with no grasp of history, no impulse control, and no apparent barriers on his will to power. The right thing to do, for everyone who believes in liberal democracy, is to gather around and work to defeat him on Election Day. Instead, we seem to be either engaged in parochial feuding or caught by habits of tribal hatred so ingrained that they have become impossible to escape even at moments of maximum danger. Bernie Sanders wouldn’t mind bringing down the Democratic Party to prevent it from surrendering to corporate forces — and yet he may be increasing the possibility of rule -by- billionaire." The Dangerous Acceptance of Donald Trump - The New Yorker

Sanders IS hurting Clinton and I thank him for that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

DorkoDumDum -

And your point is?

If you really believe "politics as usual is out" [sic], you haven't been paying attention. What do you think the meetings with the other fascists has been about?

If Trumpery is elected, the GOP will issue him a giant red rubber stamp and send him off to play.

 

[hazlnut]

Duck Fury copy/pastes an article with big numbers and analysis. Ask him to explain it in his own words...

DOH!