Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You may be unable to tell the difference between them, but responsible voters will still turn out to make the best possible choice for the next president instead of pining away for what might have been.With the exception of Bernie Sanders, the crazy retards chose the two oldest, two most corrupt, and the two most liberal candidates for the major party nominees, out of 19 or 20 possible choices.
These two doddering geriatrics have utterly disgusted everyone with more than two brain cells.
What are you talking about?If you understood arithmetic you would understand why your post is ridiculous. The same factors that determine the national polls determine the state polls so while it is possible to lose the popular vote nationally and still win enough electoral votes to win the election, it is highly unlikely. It has happened only once since 1888.I do understand the system, which is why I'm not concerned. A national poll is essentially useless as we don't have a national system.Popular votes determine each state's electoral votes, so if you understood the system in this country, you would be concerned.it's honestly not a concern. Popular votes doesn't elect a president here. Where it matters, Hillary is winning.So far, but clearly her margins are shrinking.Versus Trump, she's holding her own.
You appear to have some sort of cognitive deficit. I said only one person won the election without winning the popular vote and you posted a link that says the same thing.What are you talking about?If you understood arithmetic you would understand why your post is ridiculous. The same factors that determine the national polls determine the state polls so while it is possible to lose the popular vote nationally and still win enough electoral votes to win the election, it is highly unlikely. It has happened only once since 1888.I do understand the system, which is why I'm not concerned. A national poll is essentially useless as we don't have a national system.Popular votes determine each state's electoral votes, so if you understood the system in this country, you would be concerned.it's honestly not a concern. Popular votes doesn't elect a president here. Where it matters, Hillary is winning.So far, but clearly her margins are shrinking.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote
Then go look at who won but didn't get 50% + 1? The popular vote is for crap here and so are national polls when we don't have a national election system.
The link says four, you idiot.You appear to have some sort of cognitive deficit. I said only one person won the election without winning the popular vote and you posted a link that says the same thing.What are you talking about?If you understood arithmetic you would understand why your post is ridiculous. The same factors that determine the national polls determine the state polls so while it is possible to lose the popular vote nationally and still win enough electoral votes to win the election, it is highly unlikely. It has happened only once since 1888.I do understand the system, which is why I'm not concerned. A national poll is essentially useless as we don't have a national system.Popular votes determine each state's electoral votes, so if you understood the system in this country, you would be concerned.it's honestly not a concern. Popular votes doesn't elect a president here. Where it matters, Hillary is winning.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote
Then go look at who won but didn't get 50% + 1? The popular vote is for crap here and so are national polls when we don't have a national election system.
Only one since 1888, which is what I said in my original post, Gore in 2000, so it is highly unlikely Hillary could lost the popular vote but win the election.The link says four, you idiot.You appear to have some sort of cognitive deficit. I said only one person won the election without winning the popular vote and you posted a link that says the same thing.What are you talking about?If you understood arithmetic you would understand why your post is ridiculous. The same factors that determine the national polls determine the state polls so while it is possible to lose the popular vote nationally and still win enough electoral votes to win the election, it is highly unlikely. It has happened only once since 1888.I do understand the system, which is why I'm not concerned. A national poll is essentially useless as we don't have a national system.Popular votes determine each state's electoral votes, so if you understood the system in this country, you would be concerned.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote
Then go look at who won but didn't get 50% + 1? The popular vote is for crap here and so are national polls when we don't have a national election system.
Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?
A: It has happened four times.
And Hillary could be losing the nation popular vote 70 to 30 and still win. All she needs is to win the right states.
Unlikely or not, the point it the same - the popular vote does not matter here and neither do national polls in a system that isn't national!Only one since 1888, which is what I said in my original post, Gore in 2000, so it is highly unlikely Hillary could lost the popular vote but win the election.The link says four, you idiot.You appear to have some sort of cognitive deficit. I said only one person won the election without winning the popular vote and you posted a link that says the same thing.What are you talking about?If you understood arithmetic you would understand why your post is ridiculous. The same factors that determine the national polls determine the state polls so while it is possible to lose the popular vote nationally and still win enough electoral votes to win the election, it is highly unlikely. It has happened only once since 1888.I do understand the system, which is why I'm not concerned. A national poll is essentially useless as we don't have a national system.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote
Then go look at who won but didn't get 50% + 1? The popular vote is for crap here and so are national polls when we don't have a national election system.
Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?
A: It has happened four times.
And Hillary could be losing the nation popular vote 70 to 30 and still win. All she needs is to win the right states.
Donald Trump was the 2000 Reform Party nominee. He said he was "very pro choice" right up to the ninth month of pregnancy.You may be unable to tell the difference between them, but responsible voters will still turn out to make the best possible choice for the next president instead of pining away for what might have been.With the exception of Bernie Sanders, the crazy retards chose the two oldest, two most corrupt, and the two most liberal candidates for the major party nominees, out of 19 or 20 possible choices.
These two doddering geriatrics have utterly disgusted everyone with more than two brain cells.
Your posts continue to get more bizarre and desperate. Do you realize that in your strange attempt to support Hillary, you have already effectively conceded that she may not be healthy enough to serve as president and she may not be able to win the popular vote?Unlikely or not, the point it the same - the popular vote does not matter here and neither do national polls in a system that isn't national!Only one since 1888, which is what I said in my original post, Gore in 2000, so it is highly unlikely Hillary could lost the popular vote but win the election.The link says four, you idiot.You appear to have some sort of cognitive deficit. I said only one person won the election without winning the popular vote and you posted a link that says the same thing.What are you talking about?If you understood arithmetic you would understand why your post is ridiculous. The same factors that determine the national polls determine the state polls so while it is possible to lose the popular vote nationally and still win enough electoral votes to win the election, it is highly unlikely. It has happened only once since 1888.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote
Then go look at who won but didn't get 50% + 1? The popular vote is for crap here and so are national polls when we don't have a national election system.
Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?
A: It has happened four times.
And Hillary could be losing the nation popular vote 70 to 30 and still win. All she needs is to win the right states.
Many a doctoral thesis will be written about the 2016 race.Hillary Clinton is our #1 presidential candidate. So HOW the HELL is she also our #1 most untrusted human being female mammal politician TOO? How did we get to this weird situation?
And those two things matter a damn why? And I didn't said she wasn't healthy enough, I said she could die the day before the election and still win and if she falls apart we have a backup plan.Your posts continue to get more bizarre and desperate. Do you realize that in your strange attempt to support Hillary, you have already effectively conceded that she may not be healthy enough to serve as president and she may not be able to win the popular vote?Unlikely or not, the point it the same - the popular vote does not matter here and neither do national polls in a system that isn't national!Only one since 1888, which is what I said in my original post, Gore in 2000, so it is highly unlikely Hillary could lost the popular vote but win the election.The link says four, you idiot.You appear to have some sort of cognitive deficit. I said only one person won the election without winning the popular vote and you posted a link that says the same thing.What are you talking about?
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote
Then go look at who won but didn't get 50% + 1? The popular vote is for crap here and so are national polls when we don't have a national election system.
Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?
A: It has happened four times.
And Hillary could be losing the nation popular vote 70 to 30 and still win. All she needs is to win the right states.
Good question. Imo, Trump won the nomination because he ran against the Republican establishment bold positions on important issues, illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, trade, jobs, education and so on.Hillary Clinton is our #1 presidential candidate. So HOW the HELL is she also our #1 most untrusted human being female mammal politician TOO? How did we get to this weird situation?
The reason was/is, because she can win. I know, to you that makes no sense, just look at who you run and vote for.Good question. Imo, Trump won the nomination because he ran against the Republican establishment bold positions on important issues, illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, trade, jobs, education and so on.Hillary Clinton is our #1 presidential candidate. So HOW the HELL is she also our #1 most untrusted human being female mammal politician TOO? How did we get to this weird situation?
Hillary was, of course, selected by the Democratic establishment for inexplicable reasons.
Yet if you examine their positions on issues today, there are important differences between Trump and Hillary and responsible voters will think about these differences to decide who to vote for.Donald Trump was the 2000 Reform Party nominee. He said he was "very pro choice" right up to the ninth month of pregnancy.You may be unable to tell the difference between them, but responsible voters will still turn out to make the best possible choice for the next president instead of pining away for what might have been.With the exception of Bernie Sanders, the crazy retards chose the two oldest, two most corrupt, and the two most liberal candidates for the major party nominees, out of 19 or 20 possible choices.
These two doddering geriatrics have utterly disgusted everyone with more than two brain cells.
During Bush's entire Administration, Trump was a registered Democrat. He and his entire family donated to both of Hillary's Senate campaigns and to her 2008 Presidential campaign.
Donald Trump was for the invasion of Iraq, just like Clinton was. In fact, in 2003, Trump said we should have gone all the way to Baghdad during the first invasion.
But by 2007, he became a cut-and-run Cindy Sheehan Democrat who demanded Bush be impeached and that we leave Iraq immediately. Not even Clinton went THAT far!
Donald Trump was all for our interventions in Libya and Syria.
Donald Trump has called for single payer healthcare and a ban on assault weapons.
A year after Benghazi, Donald Trump told the world that, despite Benghazi, Hillary Clinton was the best Secretary of State ever. He said this after changing his registration to Republican!
So go ahead and tell us how the other candidates were RINOs and all about Trump's conservative credentials so we can all have a YUGE belly laugh.
I never supported Trump or Clinton, neither should have gotten as far as they have, yet here we are. Shades of the twilight zone.The reason was/is, because she can win. I know, to you that makes no sense, just look at who you run and vote for.Good question. Imo, Trump won the nomination because he ran against the Republican establishment bold positions on important issues, illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, trade, jobs, education and so on.Hillary Clinton is our #1 presidential candidate. So HOW the HELL is she also our #1 most untrusted human being female mammal politician TOO? How did we get to this weird situation?
Hillary was, of course, selected by the Democratic establishment for inexplicable reasons.
Intelligent voters realized a long time ago Trump is a huckster.Yet if you examine their positions on issues today, there are important differences between Trump and Hillary and responsible voters will think about these differences to decide who to vote for.Donald Trump was the 2000 Reform Party nominee. He said he was "very pro choice" right up to the ninth month of pregnancy.You may be unable to tell the difference between them, but responsible voters will still turn out to make the best possible choice for the next president instead of pining away for what might have been.With the exception of Bernie Sanders, the crazy retards chose the two oldest, two most corrupt, and the two most liberal candidates for the major party nominees, out of 19 or 20 possible choices.
These two doddering geriatrics have utterly disgusted everyone with more than two brain cells.
During Bush's entire Administration, Trump was a registered Democrat. He and his entire family donated to both of Hillary's Senate campaigns and to her 2008 Presidential campaign.
Donald Trump was for the invasion of Iraq, just like Clinton was. In fact, in 2003, Trump said we should have gone all the way to Baghdad during the first invasion.
But by 2007, he became a cut-and-run Cindy Sheehan Democrat who demanded Bush be impeached and that we leave Iraq immediately. Not even Clinton went THAT far!
Donald Trump was all for our interventions in Libya and Syria.
Donald Trump has called for single payer healthcare and a ban on assault weapons.
A year after Benghazi, Donald Trump told the world that, despite Benghazi, Hillary Clinton was the best Secretary of State ever. He said this after changing his registration to Republican!
So go ahead and tell us how the other candidates were RINOs and all about Trump's conservative credentials so we can all have a YUGE belly laugh.
Trump was my fifth choice among the Republicans running for the nomination, but I agree with Trump on many but not all important issues and I think he will make a competent president, however if the Democrats had nominated a more capable person than Hillary and one who was more pragmatic than ideological, I would have had to think hard about the choice. As it is, I can see nothing positive in anything Hillary has said to vote for.I never supported Trump or Clinton, neither should have gotten as far as they have, yet here we are. Shades of the twilight zone.The reason was/is, because she can win. I know, to you that makes no sense, just look at who you run and vote for.Good question. Imo, Trump won the nomination because he ran against the Republican establishment bold positions on important issues, illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, trade, jobs, education and so on.Hillary Clinton is our #1 presidential candidate. So HOW the HELL is she also our #1 most untrusted human being female mammal politician TOO? How did we get to this weird situation?
Hillary was, of course, selected by the Democratic establishment for inexplicable reasons.
Trump is not an ideological conservative or an ideological liberal. He is a pragmatist who looks for the best possible answers to problems no matter which side supports those answers. I think this is a good thing. You think it is blasphemous.This is why Trump stumbles and fumbles and flips and flops when asked to give the conservative answer to policy questions. After being a lifelong liberal, he is completely unfamiliar with basic conservative principles and policies. So he ends up giving inconsistent answers which change literally on a daily basis, sometimes several times in one day.
It's positively amazing the rubes have still not caught on at this late date.
