Can You Say Electoral Slaughter?

[Skull Pilot]

The gap in the electoral college vote means nothing because all but two states use an all or none assignment of electoral votes.

So a very large gap in electoral votes does not represent the will of the people per say.

 

[editec]

It was not an electoral slaughter.

If one doesn't know by now that the electoral college system distorts the election outcomes then honestly, what the **** are you doing posting in a place where POLTICS is the major topic?

 

[rightwinger]

It was not an electoral slaughter.

If one doesn't know by now that the electoral college system distorts the election outcomes then honestly, what the **** are you doing posting in a place where POLTICS is the major topic?

Anyone who understands politics understands that the popular vote is mostly irrelevant in selecting a President. Our Presidents are selected by a group of roughly ten battleground states. Whoever wins the most EVs in the battleground states wins the election

Obama took nine of ten battleground states.......THAT is a slaughter

 

[edthecynic]

The gap in the electoral college vote means nothing because all but two states use an all or none assignment of electoral votes.

So a very large gap in electoral votes does not represent the will of the people per say.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The gap in the electoral college vote means nothing because all but two states use an all or none assignment of electoral votes.

So a very large gap in electoral votes does not represent the will of the people per say.

I'm not a republican so what the **** do I care what they say?

Can't you at least try to think beyond the two dimensional pigeonhole in which you reside?

 

[rightwinger]

The gap in the electoral college vote means nothing because all but two states use an all or none assignment of electoral votes.

So a very large gap in electoral votes does not represent the will of the people per say.

I'm not a republican so what the **** do I care what they say?

Can't you at least try to think beyond the two dimensional pigeonhole in which you reside?

332= Landslide

Romney had one mission, win Battleground states he was 1-9

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not a republican so what the **** do I care what they say?

Can't you at least try to think beyond the two dimensional pigeonhole in which you reside?

332= Landslide

Romney had one mission, win Battleground states he was 1-9

How ******* thick are you sheep?

When a state has an all or nothing allocation of electoral votes there is no correlation to the mood of the populace.

One more person in each state could have voted for Bam Bam and the electoral vote would not reflect that.

What the **** is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Synthaholic]

The gap in the electoral college vote means nothing because all but two states use an all or none assignment of electoral votes.

So a very large gap in electoral votes does not represent the will of the people per say.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm not a republican so what the **** do I care what they say?

Can't you at least try to think beyond the two dimensional pigeonhole in which you reside?

332= Landslide

Romney had one mission, win Battleground states he was 1-9

How ******* thick are you sheep?

When a state has an all or nothing allocation of electoral votes there is no correlation to the mood of the populace.

One more person in each state could have voted for Bam Bam and the electoral vote would not reflect that.

What the **** is so hard to understand about that?

Take it up with the Founding Fathers.

You wingnuts were more than happy with it in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote.

Which Obama also won by a sizable amount - see my sigline.

 

[squeeze berry]

332= Landslide

Romney had one mission, win Battleground states he was 1-9

How ******* thick are you sheep?

When a state has an all or nothing allocation of electoral votes there is no correlation to the mood of the populace.

One more person in each state could have voted for Bam Bam and the electoral vote would not reflect that.

What the **** is so hard to understand about that?

Take it up with the Founding Fathers.

You wingnuts were more than happy with it in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote.

Which Obama also won by a sizable amount - see my sigline.

but then you thnk your 2 inches is sizeable

 

[Skull Pilot]

332= Landslide

Romney had one mission, win Battleground states he was 1-9

How ******* thick are you sheep?

When a state has an all or nothing allocation of electoral votes there is no correlation to the mood of the populace.

One more person in each state could have voted for Bam Bam and the electoral vote would not reflect that.

What the **** is so hard to understand about that?

Take it up with the Founding Fathers.

You wingnuts were more than happy with it in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote.

Which Obama also won by a sizable amount - see my sigline.

I didn't vote for GWB either time he ran you ******* sheep.

So why don't you explain how when a sate has an all or nothing allocation of the electoral vote that you can accurately measure the will of the populace.

When all of the say the 55 electoral votes can in CA can be won by a person getting just one more vote than his opponent how can you say the electoral vote is a relevant measure of the mindset of the people.

If you can't divorce a simple bit of reasoning like this from your pigeonhole political paradigm then you are not worth my time.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not a republican so what the **** do I care what they say?

Can't you at least try to think beyond the two dimensional pigeonhole in which you reside?

332= Landslide

Romney had one mission, win Battleground states he was 1-9

How ******* thick are you sheep?

When a state has an all or nothing allocation of electoral votes there is no correlation to the mood of the populace.

One more person in each state could have voted for Bam Bam and the electoral vote would not reflect that.

What the **** is so hard to understand about that?

Blame our founding fathers, they came up with the electoral college not me

But guess what? That's the way it is

Popular vote doesn't mean shit and Electoral vote selects the president

How ******* thick are you sheep?

 

[Politico]

It could be 400 to nothing. Half the country hates the guy. That's not a mandate.

"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style." - George Bush, 2004.

Bush: 286
Kerry: 251

You were saying?

I didn't say anything about that election. Why is it everytime leftytoons are presented with a fact you pull out irrelevant Bush comments?

 

[Skull Pilot]

332= Landslide

Romney had one mission, win Battleground states he was 1-9

How ******* thick are you sheep?

When a state has an all or nothing allocation of electoral votes there is no correlation to the mood of the populace.

One more person in each state could have voted for Bam Bam and the electoral vote would not reflect that.

What the **** is so hard to understand about that?

Blame our founding fathers, they came up with the electoral college not me

But guess what? That's the way it is

Popular vote doesn't mean shit and Electoral vote selects the president

How ******* thick are you sheep?

I am not arguing the validity of the electoral college you idiot.

I am saying it does not reflect the mindset of the populace
because it was designed not to reflect the mindset of the populace.

Those of you using the electoral vote to gauge the mindset of the populace are putting forth a flawed argument.

By your reasoning if candidate A got one more vote in every state than candidate B then you would say that candidate A won in a landslide and that was the will of the people. Sorry but even a docile ovine minded partisan pigeonhole living group thinker should be able to see that small difference in the popular vote can result in a large difference in the electoral vote so the latter cannot in any meaningful way be used to qualify the former.

 

[rightwinger]

How ******* thick are you sheep?

When a state has an all or nothing allocation of electoral votes there is no correlation to the mood of the populace.

One more person in each state could have voted for Bam Bam and the electoral vote would not reflect that.

What the **** is so hard to understand about that?

Blame our founding fathers, they came up with the electoral college not me

But guess what? That's the way it is

Popular vote doesn't mean shit and Electoral vote selects the president

How ******* thick are you sheep?

I am not arguing the validity of the electoral college you idiot.

I am saying it does not reflect the mindset of the populace
because it was designed not to reflect the mindset of the populace.

Those of you using the electoral vote to gauge the mindset of the populace are putting forth a flawed argument.

By your reasoning if candidate A got one more vote in every state than candidate B then you would say that candidate A won in a landslide and that was the will of the people. Sorry but even a docile ovine minded partisan pigeonhole living group thinker should be able to see that small difference in the popular vote can result in a large difference in the electoral vote so the latter cannot in any meaningful way be used to qualify the former.

We are not talking the mindset of the populace but the margin of victory for Obama. Campaign strategies revolve around getting the most electoral votes in swing states not getting the most popular vote.

You can win less than 25% of the popular vote and still win the electoral vote.

Romney had to win seven of ten Battleground States to win the election. He only won one

That is a slaughter

 

[Skull Pilot]

The term "electoral slaughter" is meaningless.

It has nothing to do with who won. My argument is more a commentary on the state of mind of the sheep who insist on finding meaningless terms to inflate the margin by which a politician wins an election.

This election was by all reasonable measures a pretty close race but for some reason some of you people need it to sound like it was a "slaughter"

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind.

 

[JoeB131]

The term "electoral slaughter" is meaningless.

It has nothing to do with who won. My argument is more a commentary on the state of mind of the sheep who insist on finding meaningless terms to inflate the margin by which a politician wins an election.

This election was by all reasonable measures a pretty close race but for some reason some of you people need it to sound like it was a "slaughter"

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind.

Not really. Romney spent about a billion dollars to try to topple Obama...

And failed epically. He also let the Dems gain 7 House seats and two senate seats in a time when they should have lost ground

The GOP is fundementally broken at this point. If it couldn't win an election under these circumstances, what circumstances could they possibly win an election under?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The term "electoral slaughter" is meaningless.

It has nothing to do with who won. My argument is more a commentary on the state of mind of the sheep who insist on finding meaningless terms to inflate the margin by which a politician wins an election.

This election was by all reasonable measures a pretty close race but for some reason some of you people need it to sound like it was a "slaughter"

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind.

Not really. Romney spent about a billion dollars to try to topple Obama...

And failed epically. He also let the Dems gain 7 House seats and two senate seats in a time when they should have lost ground

The GOP is fundementally broken at this point. If it couldn't win an election under these circumstances, what circumstances could they possibly win an election under?

Let me repeat

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind

 

[rightwinger]

The term "electoral slaughter" is meaningless.

It has nothing to do with who won. My argument is more a commentary on the state of mind of the sheep who insist on finding meaningless terms to inflate the margin by which a politician wins an election.

This election was by all reasonable measures a pretty close race but for some reason some of you people need it to sound like it was a "slaughter"

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind.

Not really. Romney spent about a billion dollars to try to topple Obama...

And failed epically. He also let the Dems gain 7 House seats and two senate seats in a time when they should have lost ground

The GOP is fundementally broken at this point. If it couldn't win an election under these circumstances, what circumstances could they possibly win an election under?

Let me repeat

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind

Romney could have taken Florida, Virginia and Ohio and he still would have lost

Slaughter

 

[JoeB131]

Let me repeat

I guess I just don't get the ovine mind

There's a lot of things you don't get, but it's probably because of your inability to process data.

By all rights, the Democrats should have taken a bath this year.

7.9% unemployment and $4.00 gasoline, they should have won the presidency, taken enough of the 23 Democratic Senate Seats that were up to take the senate (They only needed three) and gained seats in the House after the criminal level of gerrymandering.

Instead. They lost every swing state except NC, which they barely won.

The Democrats retained 22 of their 23 seats while picking up 3 of 10 Republican seats.

And knocked off a handful of House members.

Not because the voters are sheep, but because, frankly, unless you are a billionaire douchebag, the REpublicans offered NOTHING to vote for.