The Electoral College is a Full Win For Clinton

a reply to: reldra

I agree she still has a good chance at winning, especially with the early voting.

But with the tone of this investigation the question then would be does she get a full term.

Just in case we need more proof.

The electors cast their ballots in mid-December.

 Congress sets the date on which the electors meet, currently the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The electors almost always meet in the state capital, usually in the capitol building or state house itself. They vote “by ballot” separately for President and Vice President (at least one of the candidates must be from another state). The results are then endorsed, and copies are sent to the Vice President (in his capacity as President of the Senate); the secretary of state of their state; the Archivist of the United States; and the judge of the federal district court of the district in which the electors met.

Source: www.history.com...

Just in case anyone else thinks the electoral college voted already. Or we all believe the lies on the TV about who is "winning" votes.

I will only view the results as a win/loss after they are really cast.
In mid-December.

a reply to: reldra

Ok but I'm just saying, to generalize an entire voting demographic as ignorant because they do not support your candidate is in itself quite ignorant.

edit: And to your OP, I think any speculation about electoral results at this point is just that, speculation. It is still quite possible that Hillary will take the electoral vote and thus the POTUS but the fact remains that her scandals are not going away. I'm still hedging my bet on the man that has renewed my faith in the American political process, Donald J Trump.

Somehow I really doubt she has any of the numbers they attribute to her.


Networks Caught Preparing Hillary Victory Announcements

originally posted by: Unity_99
Somehow I really doubt she has any of the numbers they attribute to her.

Networks Caught Preparing Hillary Victory Announcements

The numbers are right.

It apears to me this thread is not allowed. Mod can remove.

originally posted by: reldra
At this, point, have no idea why anyone wastes ther time speculating. Any look at that will show what is going to happen. Even if you don't like CNN, this is a real count. Electoral Map

trump needs 270, at 179. Clinton at 272, needs 270


On top of that, the music service I use has ads playing actual recordings of what trump has said about women over and over and over. I am guessing this is not the only place this ad is played. There is no way to bypass the female vote.

If people don't understand how the US election works, they can continue to post thread after thread after thread about Clinton, but it makes no difference.

It has been all over for some time.

Not my first choice, but I would take almost anyone over Trump. I am just being honest.

My first choice was Sanders. I have said many times that on the Republican side I liked Rand paul and Lindsey graham.

After looking closer at Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, besides the thing where they cannot win and will not hit 20% for 2020 matching funds, I decided I cannot consider them.

It is really time to accept the reality of what will happen.

You're way too premature on this call.

It's happened before where there was a wide margin....Election day is all that matters prognostication aside, it will be all that matters so we'll all just have to wait and see and hope for the least worst.

originally posted by: reldra
At this, point, have no idea why anyone wastes ther time speculating. Any look at that will show what is going to happen. Even if you don't like CNN, this is a real count. Electoral Map

trump needs 270, at 179. Clinton at 272, needs 270


On top of that, the music service I use has ads playing actual recordings of what trump has said about women over and over and over. I am guessing this is not the only place this ad is played. There is no way to bypass the female vote.

If people don't understand how the US election works, they can continue to post thread after thread after thread about Clinton, but it makes no difference.

It has been all over for some time.

Not my first choice, but I would take almost anyone over Trump. I am just being honest.

My first choice was Sanders. I have said many times that on the Republican side I liked Rand paul and Lindsey graham.

After looking closer at Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, besides the thing where they cannot win and will not hit 20% for 2020 matching funds, I decided I cannot consider them.

It is really time to accept the reality of what will happen.

Hello.

I have an honest question. You said that you liked both Sanders and Ron Paul. I like both to a degree, in part because of their sincerity and realism. However, I don't vote for people based on how much I like them, nor their personalities. I vote or support people for serious jobs based on their actual policies.

I am a leftist. I supported Sanders. I am anti-war. I am pro-environment. I believe in sensible, evidence-based regulations for business that makes them pay for the true cost of doing business (social, environmental,financial). Most companies do not pay for these "externalities."

Even though I like Ron Paul for his anti-war stance, I couldn't vote for him because he doesn't align with my policy views. It doesn't make me right or wrong, however.

So I ask, how do people go for example from Sanders to Trump or a Ron Paul type, if they actually have a coherent policy view?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So I ask, how do people go for example from Sanders to Trump or a Ron Paul type, if they actually have a coherent policy view?

Anti. Establishment.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
Sometimes someone who you can trust and believe (who is sincere) is a better vote as that is rare than sticking to "political coherence".

You will always comprise, no one is perfect (Ron Paul was close for me).

But Bernie represented more than my non existence loyalty to fake organizations. He represented anti establishment, and could help reduce this corrupt money based political system.

Why couldn't Bernie have won the primaries, I would have voted for him. I won't vote for Hillary, I think she thinks she is above the law and so far, she appears to be right. She does not deserve to get more power. she seems to be a puppet for the wrong people.

originally posted by: reldra
It apears to me this thread is not allowed. Mod can remove.

lol, but it's such a goosey thread.

People complain about corrupt politicians and propaganda news and then they make their own propaganda..

I hope for every woman alive now, dead and gone, and almost born that Hillary is NOT president.

But I don't think you can run things from jail.


And you are right the electoral college is outdated. We need to rework it so it's not abused the way it is. Hillary is proof of that.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

But Bernie represented more than my non existence loyalty to fake organizations. He represented anti establishment, and could help reduce this corrupt money based political system.

He could have helped reduce corruption.

But he lost me with Democratic Socialism, pandering to BLM, not disavowing the violence from his supporters, fake promises like free college... the list goes on.

I received this info in the mail not 30 minutes ago.


"Over the past month, polls have shown us winning Iowa, Ohio, Maine, Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina. If we maintain our leads in those six states, we can reliably claim 266 electoral votes. Hillary can claim 193. But we’d still have 4 electoral votes to go.

Polls show us close in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. Winning just any one of those states would lead us to victory."

That's from Trump's campaign. I trust them more than anything Hillary's camp vomits. DOUBLY SO for the MSM.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I don't blame you, but he was the closest anti establishment candidate I've seen in my life time.
(I'm not sure how honest Trump is on his claims) I could be wrong though.

Oh Oh !!

OUCH! Hillary Has Dropped 60 Electoral Votes In The Last Week Alone

Nixon was in office 18 months after watergate broke.

a reply to: reldra

Er, and delusion appears to be on the rise. Hope you're ready to admit to being wrong in less than a week.

a reply to: reldra

The war chest of Hilary is at the least10:1 on Trump. He used a lot of his businesses funds...she used money she made off her position as SOS. I mean come on...she was getting 25-125million per donation from middle East nations alone. Not even taking in her speeches and income from her foundation...multiplied by bill and chealse...lol...you gotta be kidding me....plus she has political leverage from 30+ years of corruption...so yea you gotta be kidding me.

originally posted by: reldra
It apears to me this thread is not allowed. Mod can remove.

Wait...you're dumping your own thread and getting run off the boards...what happened to the Hilary coalition???