It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Polls One Year Ago In The "FAKE NEWS"

page: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Thankyou for posting those flash-backs to this time last year, and election night. There are certain people in that vid who will literally (I hope) go into deep depression when Hillary and other Obama officials are indicted for Treason.




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I hope more for the Democrats to refocus on themselves and try to bring a better candidate and message to the public. Stomping their feet and blaming others for their faults isn't a strategy to the Whitehouse. I believe Trump will win a second term and Democrats will be mainlining antidepressants. I would rather see the country come together no matter who is in the Whitehouse.
edit on 25-10-2017 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO


Why would the polls be predicting a national popular vote, which is not held at the ballot boxes, and use those stats to proclaim a victor when it has never been the case?

Because most of the time, the winner of the national popular vote also wins the EC. The reverse has only happened twice in modern history and 5 times since the beginning of American History.

Also because taking a national popular vote poll is a lot easier than taking 50 separate polls, one for each state.


You are saying they are even more stupid and pathetic than has ever been mentioned before?

No, but I am saying people like you are stupid for not having any clue what you're talking about when you say the polls were wrong.



You left types should be crucifying them for leading you down a path of LOSING.

Why? The polls were correct. I understood the polls, so I didn't get all bent out of shape and start whining about how the polls were wrong. The polls were, in fact, correct, with the exception of some state polls, which I've mentioned multiple times already.



Instead you make useless explanations that some POPULAR NATIONAL VOTE.....ever mattered.

Again, you have a reading comprehension issue. I'm simply trying to explain reality to you. I never claimed the national popular vote determined the presidency. I have however explained why it's used as a general barometer and why polling organizations measure it.


edit on 25-10-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It scales better than a national popular vote. There is a reason the founding fathers did not want a national popular vote and for good reason. We can see why in the last election where A few cities in 2 states would have determined the fate of the nation had a popular vote been used. Clinton carried only 450+ counties and she carried less states than Trump.


A couple cities in a handful of states (2 minimum but it was up to 5) still carried the election. It was just different cities. I don't see how that's an argument for anything.


I wont speak for anyone else but I have no desire to live in New York or California given their politics and agendas. If the left gets the national popular vote change they demand it would not matter if I didnt want to live in CA or NY since their political views would be forced upon me since they would control the agenda and laws.


I have no problem with the EC. The EC however does have a problem and it all stems from the fact that proportional representation is no longer apportioned correctly. The numbers are off.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

My observation is this election cycle pushed people more towards being independents, there were Democrats that were never going to vote for Hillary after the Bernie debacle, there were Republicans that were Nevertrump people.

If the Democrats can put up a way less divisive candidate and vet them naturally without prejudice through the primary process, then they actually have a chance in 2020. Some independents will come around and say Trump is too polarizing for the country, I think Tulsi Gabbard could beet Trump in 2020, but she is the only candidate the Democrats have that actually has a chance, if they black list her in a primary run because they have another favorite they will lose again.

At this point Gabbard would be better for America than Trump, I like that Trump beat Hillary, but it was like if you were the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars and you had to choose between fighting the Death Star or a Super Star Destroyer.

The media said pick the Death Star(Hillary)
Well the Rebels didn't listen.
edit on 26-10-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: carewemust

I hope more for the Democrats to refocus on themselves and try to bring a better candidate and message to the public. Stomping their feet and blaming others for their faults isn't a strategy to the Whitehouse. I believe Trump will win a second term and Democrats will be mainlining antidepressants. I would rather see the country come together no matter who is in the Whitehouse.


It is not the Democrats who are in trouble. If Trump does not resign, get impeached, or be removed on psychological grounds, he will face a primary challenge from center right and far right candidates. The party is already splintering because of Trump's divisive style. The mid-terms will be the barometer... if the two retiring senators are replaced by Democrats, Congress will finally start to take action.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried, including New York and California.

The numbers for proportional representation are not off. However please explain how you think they are off.
edit on 26-10-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried, including New York and California.

The numbers for proportional representation are not off. However please explain how you think they are off.


Compare the numbers of people represented per rep in different states, it's not equal or anywhere close to equal.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sort by population per house seat. Montana has 1 person representing a million people, In Rhode Island it's 1 per 500,000 people.

We need to rebalance things, and by rebalance I don't mean reapportion as we do every census. I mean rethink the numbers involved. When the constitution was written it was 1 rep per 30,000 people. There were 65 members in the House and 26 in the Senate. Representation was fairly equal among the populace, and there were porportionally more senators. If we had more members to the house, the power of the 2 votes per state from the senate seats gets weaker. Therefore in order to maintain a proper balance of power, we have to add enough reps that we can actually apportion with sane numbers, and then increase the senate seats to rebalance the small vs large state power. In the end, this means we would end up with something like 30,000 Representatives and 10,000 Senators. Which is an unmanageable group for a congress. As a result, we're back to my original statement which is that a representative republic simply doesn't work at our population scale.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Sounds like you believed the polls that showed Hillary winning and can't adjust to Trump in the Whitehouse. Pointing fingers is no strategy to win in the next election. The midterms are coming up and if the Republicans ace that, the Dems better get ready for more reform and solidarity from Republicans. The Republicans are not fractured, but the Democrats surely are.

From the liberal HuffPost:

The Democratic Party is Broken



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

If that was the case, then all the Fake News did was poll CA and NY because that is the only few places Hilary won the popular vote. They must forgot about the other 48 states. durr.....



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It wasn't a blunder. The polls were taken from popular vote, and she actually DID win the popular vote. So, the projections were accurate at that moment.

BS



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

What was wrong is many illegals voted in California.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Sounds like you can't believe that Trump lost the popular vote yet got into office anyway. You probably also believe that his inauguration had the largest crowd ever assembled, and that he only sent that $25,000 check the day after everyone found out he hadn't sent it yet was because of "the legal department."



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

Clinton carried California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Two things are striking. In most of the states Trump won, the margin was very slender. If there were voter fraud, it might have affected the races in Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan.... Secondly, Trump lost by the largest margin in states he has had business dealings in.
edit on 26-10-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried, including New York and California.

The numbers for proportional representation are not off. However please explain how you think they are off.


Compare the numbers of people represented per rep in different states, it's not equal or anywhere close to equal.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sort by population per house seat. Montana has 1 person representing a million people, In Rhode Island it's 1 per 500,000 people.

We need to rebalance things, and by rebalance I don't mean reapportion as we do every census. I mean rethink the numbers involved. When the constitution was written it was 1 rep per 30,000 people. There were 65 members in the House and 26 in the Senate. Representation was fairly equal among the populace, and there were porportionally more senators. If we had more members to the house, the power of the 2 votes per state from the senate seats gets weaker. Therefore in order to maintain a proper balance of power, we have to add enough reps that we can actually apportion with sane numbers, and then increase the senate seats to rebalance the small vs large state power. In the end, this means we would end up with something like 30,000 Representatives and 10,000 Senators. Which is an unmanageable group for a congress. As a result, we're back to my original statement which is that a representative republic simply doesn't work at our population scale.

Majority/Mob rule isn't democracy. Africa a prime example. The USA's constitution isn't perfect, but it stood you well for a few centuries...don't mess with it now. Per capita representation will have California, New York and a few others rure the whole country. It won't be fair and would lead to disaster in the long run.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DbDraad

The system we have now with the house/senate compromise doesn't work anymore. The population has grown beyond what it allows for. Representative republics are all about ratios, but people become a disorganized mess in large enough groups. Having a sane representation ratio, means also growing the senate otherwise the senate representation means nothing. So you're left with either needing to grow both, or capping population, or accepting that people cannot be properly represented. None of which actually work.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: DbDraad

The system we have now with the house/senate compromise doesn't work anymore. The population has grown beyond what it allows for. Representative republics are all about ratios, but people become a disorganized mess in large enough groups. Having a sane representation ratio, means also growing the senate otherwise the senate representation means nothing. So you're left with either needing to grow both, or capping population, or accepting that people cannot be properly represented. None of which actually work.


I honestly wonder if you were making these same arguing points about the EC in 2008 and 2012? Since the exact same process was used in each of those presidential elections. That implies it was also insufficient then to properly elect a president as well, right?

Or has this resistance of yours merely surfaced after this most recent election, in which the Democratic party lost in a wholly embarrassing manner?

Inquiring minds want to know.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Sounds like you can't believe that Trump lost the popular vote yet got into office anyway. You probably also believe that his inauguration had the largest crowd ever assembled, and that he only sent that $25,000 check the day after everyone found out he hadn't sent it yet was because of "the legal department."


Trump WON the Electoral vote, the only vote each Presidential candidate knows to run for. I don't believe Trump is our Savior, nor our Satan. Dems seemed to treat Trump as Satan. I say get over the election and get Democrats reorganized or get set to lose again. You see Trump pulled in plenty of ex Dems and has a more culturally diverse and varied base than Democrats.

Trump's Diverse Base Means Stable Approval Ratings




There is one primary reason for Trump’s relatively static approval rating: he has a diverse base of constituents. Obama’s eggs were proven to be fully in the far-left basket, and as this became more apparent, those who tended to lean rightward or moderate began to disapprove of his decisions.


Let us not divide ourselves by parties or Presidents, let us come together as people and unite for the benefit of all people on earth.
edit on 26-10-2017 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Go search my post history, I've been here for 5 years now and talked about the EC the whole time. I've always been pro EC, I think it's much better than a straight popular vote, but I've also said it's not perfect. It's been about 2 years now (I'm not smart enough to have figured it out sooner) that I've said the scalability issue is what's wrong with it.

It's one of the deep, systemic issues with our government that are likely unfixable and will eventually destroy the country. The Constitution created a few of those.

BTW, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a registered Republican. Most on this board would consider me a RINO as far as where I fall in the party.
edit on 26-10-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
Alt-right attack!

Have fun. Dreamers gonna dream.

She won the popular vote. I know you don't like hearing that, and it's old, (and verified) news. He won the election, that is clear. Fair and square. I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just saying

She Won the Popular Vote

Which she did.



Okay, take your consolation prize and go home. Presidents win by getting the most electoral votes. Hillary lost sight of that and decided to dispel half of America as Deplorables. Hillary lost to Obama even though she won the popular vote in 2008 too. You think her strategy would have changed.

She Lost The Election.

Which she did.
edit on 26-10-2017 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join