Oh look I triggered him again.

Some people are easily triggered.

ron paul didnt make it a huge part of his campaign to stop obama... stopping trump was a huge part of bernie's campaign

Edited 7/15/2016 14:51:50

Bernie Sanders isn't running in the same party as Trump, so false analogy.

ron paul didnt make it a huge part of his campaign to stop romney... stopping trump was a huge part of bernie's campaign

Obviously if you're running as democrat then you're going to make it a huge part of your campaign to stop the republican from winning, but to be honest it makes absolutely zero sense to try to stop the republican nominee from winning if you are a republican.

Edited 7/14/2016 16:13:57

When are you guys going to understand? Have you forgotten the election of 2000 already?

Favorability and national polls don't mean anything. A candidate can win less votes and still win the election. Right now only 11 states are swing states and determine the election. All of the other states are meaningless.

A candidate can win less national votes and still win the election. You have to look at the polls state by state. If you look at the swing states then you see that Clinton is leading but is still inside the margin of error.

Additionally, this is an usual election. Because both candidates are so disliked, there will be record low turnout and at that point any number of small variables can change the race drastically. I give Trump a 45% chance of winning, Clinton a 47% chance and a 8% chance that they tie and this gets thrown to the House of Representatives (which is largely Republican and would vote Trump in ). This gives Trump a 53% chance to win.

NOTE: I cannont stand either one of the two main candidates. They make me want to shoot myself in the foot. I will vote for Johnson, not because I agree with him 100%, but to stick it to the two party system which gave us this catastrophe.

Quite the opposite actually. I think that because the candidates are so widely disliked there will be higher turnout to ensure that candidate X doesn't get elected!

When are you guys going to understand? Have you forgotten the election of 2000 already?

Favorability and national polls don't mean anything. A candidate can win less votes and still win the election. Right now only 11 states are swing states and determine the election. All of the other states are meaningless.

Actually, the Popular vote is a very reliable predicter of who will be elected. There have been around 3 or four times when it has been off by a percent or two, but these four times are only around 5% of the dozens of elections that have happened in american history. The other 95% of the time, the popular vote winner has won the presidency.

Wait... it's happened 4 times but that's only 5%? That means there have been 80 elections yet only 44 presidents? And that would mean the first election was in 1692...

And while it happened 4 times, it has only occurred once in past 30 elections...

America helped defeat Spain and France in the Spanish war of succession - confirmed

Wait... it's happened 4 times but that's only 5%? That means there have been 80 elections yet only 44 presidents? And that would mean the first election was in 1692...

And while it happened 4 times, it has only occurred once in past 30 elections...

If you want to be really precise about it, it's 3 times in 57 elections, which comes out to 5.26%, which can be abbreviated to "5%" to save me around 2 keystrokes.

The fourth one I mentioned when I said "3 or 4" was the election of 1824. While the candidate who won technically didn't receive the most popular votes, the guy who did (Andrew Jackson) only won around 40%. In addition to this there were four candidates running who were all from the same party, so it honestly didn't even matter that much.

Edited 7/15/2016 03:28:15

Nope. 4 times in 56 elections. The current one is 57th. 7.14%

Fact still stands is it's happened once in the past 120+ years... the first three were 1824, 1876 and 1888... Not exactly relevant to modern politics.

Ah well, so much for all that anti-establishment talk...

Nope. 4 times in 56 elections. The current one is 57th. 7.14%

Fact still stands is it's happened once in the past 120+ years... the first three were 1824, 1876 and 1888... Not exactly relevant to modern politics.

The current election is 58th, so even if you count all four out of 57, it's only 7.0% (and by the way, It doesn't detract from my original point if only 93% of elections have been decided by the popular vote rather than 95%). And as I've already explained, It's a pretty poor choice to count 1824 since it was before the modern two-party system had evolved and there were four candidates running from the same party, so something weird was bound to happen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

And even if jackson had won the presidency, this still wouldn't have been very fair since he only received 41% of the vote, which isn't exactly democratic.

I'll concede that there have been 57 elections. Strangely enough, I saw the 56 reference in two different sources, including wikipedia which listed 56 on one page and 57 on another page.

Still doesn't take away from my point that it only happened once in the last 120+ years...

'cause the first one wasn't really much of an election. It's much closer to the process you see when you pick an interim president in other countries.

Bernie Sanders isn't running in the same party as Trump, so false analogy.

Obviously if you're running as democrat then you're going to make it a huge part of your campaign to stop the republican from winning, but to be honest it makes absolutely zero sense to try to stop the republican nominee from winning if you are a republican.

sorry, meant 2 type obama not romney hahah

and ya obv u wanna stop the other party from winning, but paul never made it such a point to stop obama cus he's da ultimate evil like bernie did 2 trump.. not 2 mention tht paul didnt have nearly as much support tht bernie has

endorsing hillary was the right move (and not a sellout) for da losing candidate in order to crush trump

bernie got wat he wanted - the democrats were pushed farther to the left and the "political revolution" is continuing thru downballot candidates

Edited 7/15/2016 14:56:45

I'm pretty sure the majority of Sander's campaign was about socialism, hating the rich and the establishment, etc, not going against Trump.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton actually have known each other for a long time... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnVrd1QWcAAyFh0.jpg:large

#Trump2016 #TrumpTrain #HillaryForPrison #MakeAmericaGreatAgain