Republicans - The Party of Blunt Honesty, Democrats - The Party of Emotion (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 08:28:10 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  Republicans - The Party of Blunt Honesty, Democrats - The Party of Emotion (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Republicans - The Party of Blunt Honesty, Democrats - The Party of Emotion  (Read 9397 times)
Lambsbread
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,375
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

« on: April 09, 2012, 02:21:56 PM »

The most TL;DR thing I've ever come across in my entire life.
Logged
Lambsbread
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,375
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2012, 02:33:29 PM »

Also, didn't men vote narrowly for Obama?

Yep, 49-48.
Logged
Lambsbread
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,375
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2012, 08:00:03 AM »

The 2000 election was where Texas Gov. George Bush defeated Vice President Al Gore. Bush lead Gore going as far back as polls in 1997. The fact that Gore even came as close as he did was a miracle on his part.

He was making the point that Gore won the election, because he did. He was chosen by the people to be President of the United States. But because a vote in Texas or Florida counts more as long as it's a winning vote, Bush won.
Logged
Lambsbread
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,375
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2012, 08:01:37 PM »

So let me get this straight

Republican logic:

If 50.1% of people vote for somebody, they don't win unless those 50.1% of people lived in more populous states?

I understand the Constitution but the notion that a vote in California counts more than a vote in Montana doesn't disturb the sh*t out of you guys?
Logged
Lambsbread
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,375
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2012, 08:30:18 PM »

So let me get this straight

Republican logic:

If 50.1% of people vote for somebody, they don't win unless those 50.1% of people lived in more populous states?

I understand the Constitution but the notion that a vote in California counts more than a vote in Montana doesn't disturb the sh*t out of you guys?

It's much, much less ridiculous than the U.S. Senate.

Also, a vote in Montana counts for slightly more than a vote in California. Divide population by electoral votes.

I'm talking in terms of the amount of electoral votes up for grabs. California has 55, Montana has 3.
Logged
Lambsbread
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,375
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2012, 08:35:32 AM »

The 90's began in 1994 and ended on September 11th.

No way, the 90's literally began in 91 and suffered a stroke when Kurt Cobain died in 1994. The 90's officially died on 9/11.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 12 queries.