• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Trump: Dems favorability down to 31%! All time low! Sad!

The total amount of popular votes is unimportant, what is relevant is the percentages. Hillary's negative percentage difference is much larger, but Trump didn't pick up that difference. You are reading mandate or referendum where there is really just polarization in every state but a few. Otherwise, Hillary's gains in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada would equal a "mandate".

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Trump closed the gap on Hillary compared to Obama vs Romney in 2016 in Nevada, You're slightly right in Georgia but Trump still got more votes than Romney, and Arizona is the only one with a clear shift. so 48-2. Agreed on that?
 
He gets to implement his policies. He won. So having a mandate really is irrelevant.

But it is pretty laughable to try to suggest that a candidate that is going to lose the popular vote by close to 2 million votes when they are all counted has a mandate.

You can look at it that way or you can look at it as he had a mandate in 49 out of 50 states. I'm simply pointing out how silly your perspective is by providing another way to look at it. But its fairly clear why you want to look at it in that way.
 
So Clinton gained in only the 2 states both of which with a top 4 Latino population. I'll give you that Latinos hate trump if you give that everyone else loves him.
 
Last edited:
Obama won California in 2012 by 3 million ( 60.2% vs 37.2%) Clinton won California by 2.7 million (61.6% vs 33.1%) You don't think Trump picked up 300K more votes than Romney in the deep south?


Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Obama won California in 2012 by 3 million ( 60.2% vs 37.2%) Clinton won California by 2.7 million (61.6% vs 33.1%) You don't think Trump picked up 300K more votes than Romney in the deep south?


Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Most uncounted votes still in CA.
 
Last edited:
So add 2.5 million to Trump 5 million to Clinton and Trump got more votes than any Republican ever and Hillary about tied Obama last year. Take CA out of the equation and Trump beats Clinton in the popular vote and basically doubles her EC votes.

Don't think I'm the one that needs to stop "keep pretending" something.

And if you take the aces out the deck a pair of kings is the best pair.

Why don't you take an votes from red states that total CA away from Trump? If you take Trump's vote from AL?MO/IN/OK/WV, it would take about 100K less than CA in about the same number of votes. Why not do that?

Your position is silly.

Why don't you talk about all the protests agasint Trump that have gone on every night since the election? That's not a referendum.
 
Most uncounted votes still in CA.
Which is why the percentages matter more. Clinton and Trumps percentages very likely to hold steady. I'm also using an updated vote count from the Cook commission that's only a few hours old.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
And if you take the aces out the deck a pair of kings is the best pair.

Why don't you take an votes from red states that total CA away from Trump? If you take Trump's vote from AL?MO/IN/OK/WV, it would take about 100K less than CA in about the same number of votes. Why not do that?

Your position is silly.

Why don't you talk about all the protests agasint Trump that have gone on every night since the election? That's not a referendum.

Apparently Libs don't know how to take the L. Verdict: Referendum.
 
Which is why the percentages matter more. Clinton and Trumps percentages very likely to hold steady. I'm also using an updated vote count from the Cook commission that's only a few hours old.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Sure, but what does that change, I already gave you CA. It was in my first post. The % spread I'm guessing if I went through every state went towards Trump in 45+ states.
 
Sure, but what does that change, I already gave you CA. It was in my first post. The % spread I'm guessing if I went through every state went towards Trump in 45+ states.

Why not take out his strongest states, not just his weakest?
 
I really don't understand all the focus on the popular vote. If there were no electoral college each party would approach general elections very differently and would approach the electorate differently as well. More immediately both parties just had a wrecking ball taken to them by Sanders/Trump. Changes in approach towards the electorate are coming. For instance, I doubt you'll hear any Dems bemoaning rural people who cling to their guns or labeling any collection of rural voters as "deplorable". Both parties are probably off wondering just how much more of the middle class rural and rural-ish vote the GOP might have won if Donald Trump were less of an ass hat of an individual.
 
The only mandate that matters is the EC. You could lose the popular vote by 10 million and you still have the authority to enact your agenda.

But the term has come to mean support from a overwhelming majority of the population so that you have the clear unambiguous support of the American people.

More of the American people voted for her.
 
Last edited:
I picked five states that totaled CA's votes. The spread in those states was about 100K less than in CA. Thus your point is not not valid.

For it to be valid, the same on the other side would not exist, but it does.

Hope you had the over in the Clemson game.
 
I really don't understand all the focus on the popular vote. If there were no electoral college each party would approach general elections very differently and would approach the electorate differently as well. More immediately both parties just had a wrecking ball taken to them by Sanders/Trump. Changes in approach towards the electorate are coming. For instance, I doubt you'll hear any Dems bemoaning rural people who cling to their guns or labeling any collection of rural voters as "deplorable". Both parties are probably off wondering just how much more of the middle class rural and rural-ish vote the GOP might have won if Donald Trump were less of an ass hat of an individual.

Or if Joe Biden or Sherrod Brown had been the candidate, how much worse would Trump have lost?
 
The only mandate that matters is the EC. You could lose the popular vote by 10 million and you still have the authority to enact your agenda.

But the term has come to mean support from a overwhelming majority of the population so that you have the clear support of the American people.

More of the American people voted for her.


And he has clear support of the AMERIcaN people
 
Last time I checked, California was a part of the union. As a matter of fact, it is our top economic engine.
 
I picked five states that totaled CA's votes. The spread in those states was about 100K less than in CA. Thus your point is not not valid.

For it to be valid, the same on the other side would not exist, but it does.

Hope you had the over in the Clemson game.

How many states can you find where Dems either narrowed the spread in which they lost in states they won or widened the spread in which they won compared to 2012. I've so far found 3 (CA, AZ and GA) and I'm through about half the states.

I'm guessing the answer is about 5. That's a referendum. And you can't blame it on lower voter turnout, because there wasn't lower voting turnout.
 
Or if Joe Biden or Sherrod Brown had been the candidate, how much worse would Trump have lost?

I am beginning to question the narrative that Trump would have lost to a Biden. It's easy to claim that, but what plan would Biden have had to ensure those rust belt states don't flip?
 
Back
Top