The Electoral College did the exact job it was intended to do. Democrats do not have an Electoral College problem. They had a Hillary Clinton problem.
The electoral college has failed americans since it's inception ... in reality, it's because of the electoral college that there were 2 horrible candidates for POTUS ...
The US is not a democracy, never has been. The electoral college is working how it is supposed to.
obviously the electoral college is doing what it's supposed to ... it's like saying a bullet that killed someone is doing what it's supposed to ... the issue here is whether or not the electoral college is good for americans ...
popular vote would be worse....unless you have a suggestion similar to what Maine does then the electoral college is whats best for America just because HRC didn't win and we got Trump
this was a rebellion of the middle class that gave us Trump...look above at what JC298 posted its all right there
it's not a one or the other situation ... if the roles were reversed and trump lost the EC and won popular vote - you would be against the system ... that's called partisanship ... that is ultimately the problem ... a system that is based strictly on two parties ...
as far as a rebellion of the middle class - i'm not sure anyone will be able to rationalize that trump will help the middle class considering his taxation policies ...
This is true. Many people would have the exact opposite opinion they hold today if the result went the other way. The Slate images posted above are evidence of that. So too was Republicans screaming bloody murder about the Electoral College in 2012 when they thought Romney was going to be foiled by it. That is partisanship.
I'm not arguing from a partisan position and I would be saying the exact same if the results were opposite. The original point of the EC was to prevent a few large states from dictating who the President would be. Now it prevents a few large cities from doing the same. The same concept still stands. Winning 270 electoral votes requires a national campaign. Winning the popular vote does not. I said it in 2012 and I said it in 2000. Al Gore of course had a much bigger gripe with the EC than does Hillary Clinton.
again ... the issue here isn't a choice between EC and Popular vote ... the issue is what is in the best interests of americans? ... is it an electoral system that ultimately breeds and perpetuates a two-party system that ultimately results in partisan politicking!?? ...
The Electoral College did the exact job it was intended to do. Democrats do not have an Electoral College problem. They had a Hillary Clinton problem.
The electoral college has failed americans since it's inception ... in reality, it's because of the electoral college that there were 2 horrible candidates for POTUS ...
The US is not a democracy, never has been. The electoral college is working how it is supposed to.
obviously the electoral college is doing what it's supposed to ... it's like saying a bullet that killed someone is doing what it's supposed to ... the issue here is whether or not the electoral college is good for americans ...
popular vote would be worse....unless you have a suggestion similar to what Maine does then the electoral college is whats best for America just because HRC didn't win and we got Trump
this was a rebellion of the middle class that gave us Trump...look above at what JC298 posted its all right there
it's not a one or the other situation ... if the roles were reversed and trump lost the EC and won popular vote - you would be against the system ... that's called partisanship ... that is ultimately the problem ... a system that is based strictly on two parties ...
as far as a rebellion of the middle class - i'm not sure anyone will be able to rationalize that trump will help the middle class considering his taxation policies ...
This is true. Many people would have the exact opposite opinion they hold today if the result went the other way. The Slate images posted above are evidence of that. So too was Republicans screaming bloody murder about the Electoral College in 2012 when they thought Romney was going to be foiled by it. That is partisanship.
I'm not arguing from a partisan position and I would be saying the exact same if the results were opposite. The original point of the EC was to prevent a few large states from dictating who the President would be. Now it prevents a few large cities from doing the same. The same concept still stands. Winning 270 electoral votes requires a national campaign. Winning the popular vote does not. I said it in 2012 and I said it in 2000. Al Gore of course had a much bigger gripe with the EC than does Hillary Clinton.
again ... the issue here isn't a choice between EC and Popular vote ... the issue is what is in the best interests of americans? ... is it an electoral system that ultimately breeds and perpetuates a two-party system that ultimately results in partisan politicking!?? ...
Would a multi-party system result in less partisanship? Would anyone necessarily be less attached to their party if there were more choices? Maybe they would, I don't know. Trump winning was the most surprising result of this election but second most was how relatively few people fled to the Libertarians and the Greens. With the top two being so unlikable this seemed like a year ready made for a third party to grab a foothold.
The Electoral College did the exact job it was intended to do. Democrats do not have an Electoral College problem. They had a Hillary Clinton problem.
The electoral college has failed americans since it's inception ... in reality, it's because of the electoral college that there were 2 horrible candidates for POTUS ...
The US is not a democracy, never has been. The electoral college is working how it is supposed to.
obviously the electoral college is doing what it's supposed to ... it's like saying a bullet that killed someone is doing what it's supposed to ... the issue here is whether or not the electoral college is good for americans ...
popular vote would be worse....unless you have a suggestion similar to what Maine does then the electoral college is whats best for America just because HRC didn't win and we got Trump
this was a rebellion of the middle class that gave us Trump...look above at what JC298 posted its all right there
it's not a one or the other situation ... if the roles were reversed and trump lost the EC and won popular vote - you would be against the system ... that's called partisanship ... that is ultimately the problem ... a system that is based strictly on two parties ...
as far as a rebellion of the middle class - i'm not sure anyone will be able to rationalize that trump will help the middle class considering his taxation policies ...
This is true. Many people would have the exact opposite opinion they hold today if the result went the other way. The Slate images posted above are evidence of that. So too was Republicans screaming bloody murder about the Electoral College in 2012 when they thought Romney was going to be foiled by it. That is partisanship.
I'm not arguing from a partisan position and I would be saying the exact same if the results were opposite. The original point of the EC was to prevent a few large states from dictating who the President would be. Now it prevents a few large cities from doing the same. The same concept still stands. Winning 270 electoral votes requires a national campaign. Winning the popular vote does not. I said it in 2012 and I said it in 2000. Al Gore of course had a much bigger gripe with the EC than does Hillary Clinton.
again ... the issue here isn't a choice between EC and Popular vote ... the issue is what is in the best interests of americans? ... is it an electoral system that ultimately breeds and perpetuates a two-party system that ultimately results in partisan politicking!?? ...
Would a multi-party system result in less partisanship? Would anyone necessarily be less attached to their party if there were more choices? Maybe they would, I don't know. Trump winning was the most surprising result of this election but second most was how relatively few people fled to the Libertarians and the Greens. With the top two being so unlikable this seemed like a year ready made for a third party to grab a foothold.
multi party systems aren't all they're cracked up to be. it can mean, and what it did mean in Canada not long ago, was that everyone had a piece, no one had a majority, and ZERO got done.
The Electoral College did the exact job it was intended to do. Democrats do not have an Electoral College problem. They had a Hillary Clinton problem.
The electoral college has failed americans since it's inception ... in reality, it's because of the electoral college that there were 2 horrible candidates for POTUS ...
The US is not a democracy, never has been. The electoral college is working how it is supposed to.
obviously the electoral college is doing what it's supposed to ... it's like saying a bullet that killed someone is doing what it's supposed to ... the issue here is whether or not the electoral college is good for americans ...
popular vote would be worse....unless you have a suggestion similar to what Maine does then the electoral college is whats best for America just because HRC didn't win and we got Trump
this was a rebellion of the middle class that gave us Trump...look above at what JC298 posted its all right there
it's not a one or the other situation ... if the roles were reversed and trump lost the EC and won popular vote - you would be against the system ... that's called partisanship ... that is ultimately the problem ... a system that is based strictly on two parties ...
as far as a rebellion of the middle class - i'm not sure anyone will be able to rationalize that trump will help the middle class considering his taxation policies ...
This is true. Many people would have the exact opposite opinion they hold today if the result went the other way. The Slate images posted above are evidence of that. So too was Republicans screaming bloody murder about the Electoral College in 2012 when they thought Romney was going to be foiled by it. That is partisanship.
I'm not arguing from a partisan position and I would be saying the exact same if the results were opposite. The original point of the EC was to prevent a few large states from dictating who the President would be. Now it prevents a few large cities from doing the same. The same concept still stands. Winning 270 electoral votes requires a national campaign. Winning the popular vote does not. I said it in 2012 and I said it in 2000. Al Gore of course had a much bigger gripe with the EC than does Hillary Clinton.
again ... the issue here isn't a choice between EC and Popular vote ... the issue is what is in the best interests of americans? ... is it an electoral system that ultimately breeds and perpetuates a two-party system that ultimately results in partisan politicking!?? ...
Would a multi-party system result in less partisanship? Would anyone necessarily be less attached to their party if there were more choices? Maybe they would, I don't know. Trump winning was the most surprising result of this election but second most was how relatively few people fled to the Libertarians and the Greens. With the top two being so unlikable this seemed like a year ready made for a third party to grab a foothold.
More choices should result in less partisanship ... if you compare electoral systems across whatever peer group you want to choose - it should be pretty evident ...
as for the 3rd party ... Libertarians plus Greens garnered 4.3% of the vote vs. 1.3% in 2012 ... so, there was growth ... but the other issue with such a polarizing choice is that many people would feel obligated to vote against a particular candidate ... someone posted a chart showing people who voted against a candidate was the highest its been in some time ...
I'm sure many publications do that. have two copies ready depending on the outcome, ready to go out immediately. kinda like sports teams have their championship merch ready for the end of the game, and it gets destroyed if they lose.
I'm sure many publications do that. have two copies ready depending on the outcome, ready to go out immediately. kinda like sports teams have their championship merch ready for the end of the game, and it gets destroyed if they lose.
I think the losing teams merch gets sent off to the athletic apparel manufacturer workers in places like Bangladesh and Malawi so they have something to wear to work. Not sure what they would do with Madame Clinton copies.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
I'm sure many publications do that. have two copies ready depending on the outcome, ready to go out immediately. kinda like sports teams have their championship merch ready for the end of the game, and it gets destroyed if they lose.
I'm sure many publications do that. have two copies ready depending on the outcome, ready to go out immediately. kinda like sports teams have their championship merch ready for the end of the game, and it gets destroyed if they lose.
I worked in printing, 2 covers are usually digitally created, but money is never to be legitimately wasted on paper and ink. It costs clients a ton of $$$ to stop presses. That was hopefully never actually printed. If so, all those mags get thrown out = $$$$ lost.
I'm sure many publications do that. have two copies ready depending on the outcome, ready to go out immediately. kinda like sports teams have their championship merch ready for the end of the game, and it gets destroyed if they lose.
I worked in printing, 2 covers are usually digitally created, but money is never to be legitimately wasted on paper and ink. It costs clients a ton of $$$ to stop presses. That was hopefully never actually printed. If so, all those mags get thrown out = $$$$ lost.
wait do people still read magazines in print except in doctors offices?
I'm sure many publications do that. have two copies ready depending on the outcome, ready to go out immediately. kinda like sports teams have their championship merch ready for the end of the game, and it gets destroyed if they lose.
I worked in printing, 2 covers are usually digitally created, but money is never to be legitimately wasted on paper and ink. It costs clients a ton of $$$ to stop presses. That was hopefully never actually printed. If so, all those mags get thrown out = $$$$ lost.
wait do people still read magazines in print except in doctors offices?
I'm sure many publications do that. have two copies ready depending on the outcome, ready to go out immediately. kinda like sports teams have their championship merch ready for the end of the game, and it gets destroyed if they lose.
I worked in printing, 2 covers are usually digitally created, but money is never to be legitimately wasted on paper and ink. It costs clients a ton of $$$ to stop presses. That was hopefully never actually printed. If so, all those mags get thrown out = $$$$ lost.
wait do people still read magazines in print except in doctors offices?
I still see so many people grabbing those celebrity gossip rags in the grocery store lineup.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm sure many publications do that. have two copies ready depending on the outcome, ready to go out immediately. kinda like sports teams have their championship merch ready for the end of the game, and it gets destroyed if they lose.
I worked in printing, 2 covers are usually digitally created, but money is never to be legitimately wasted on paper and ink. It costs clients a ton of $$$ to stop presses. That was hopefully never actually printed. If so, all those mags get thrown out = $$$$ lost.
wait do people still read magazines in print except in doctors offices?
I still see so many people grabbing those celebrity gossip rags in the grocery store lineup.
you gotta find out what the fucking Gilmour Girls are doing this week.
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
That Buffalo '13 is an underrated show. Amazing versions of Immortality, I Got Shit, Sometimes, Rats, Present Tense. Immortality stands out as the best version I have heard with my own earballs.
I'm sure many publications do that. have two copies ready depending on the outcome, ready to go out immediately. kinda like sports teams have their championship merch ready for the end of the game, and it gets destroyed if they lose.
I worked in printing, 2 covers are usually digitally created, but money is never to be legitimately wasted on paper and ink. It costs clients a ton of $$$ to stop presses. That was hopefully never actually printed. If so, all those mags get thrown out = $$$$ lost.
wait do people still read magazines in print except in doctors offices?
I still see so many people grabbing those celebrity gossip rags in the grocery store lineup.
you gotta find out what the fucking Gilmour Girls are doing this week.
Hillary Clinton lost the election in the Midwest. Donald Trump won 50 Midwestern electoral votes that went to Barack Obama in 2012 -- Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio -- plus 20 more in Pennsylvania, where the two-thirds of voters beyond metro Philadelphia are Midwestern in culture and concerns. Trump could have lost Florida and still won.
In the popular vote, Clinton came close to equaling Obama's 2012 percentages in the South and not-yet-fully-counted West, and her 4 percent drop in the Northeast cost her no electoral votes. But in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, the Democratic presidential percentage dropped from 54 percent in 2008 and 51 percent in 2012 to 45 percent in 2016.
Hillary Clinton lost the election in the Midwest. Donald Trump won 50 Midwestern electoral votes that went to Barack Obama in 2012 -- Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio -- plus 20 more in Pennsylvania, where the two-thirds of voters beyond metro Philadelphia are Midwestern in culture and concerns. Trump could have lost Florida and still won.
In the popular vote, Clinton came close to equaling Obama's 2012 percentages in the South and not-yet-fully-counted West, and her 4 percent drop in the Northeast cost her no electoral votes. But in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, the Democratic presidential percentage dropped from 54 percent in 2008 and 51 percent in 2012 to 45 percent in 2016.
Yep. There shouldn't be any doubt. This wasn't Comey or Wiki or Sexism or Third Parties. None of those things helped, certainly, but none of them caused this defeat, either. Campaign strategy and messaging, more than anything else, led to Donald Trump.
Comments
Cash Rulez Everything Around Me C.R.E.A.M. get da money dolla dolla bill ya'lllllllllll
McCain Palin 2008 - 60M votes
Did some folks get banned or something?
www.headstonesband.com
I never thought of engaging in pj forum member recon.
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
as for the 3rd party ... Libertarians plus Greens garnered 4.3% of the vote vs. 1.3% in 2012 ... so, there was growth ... but the other issue with such a polarizing choice is that many people would feel obligated to vote against a particular candidate ... someone posted a chart showing people who voted against a candidate was the highest its been in some time ...
Stop the presses!!
www.headstonesband.com
Not sure what they would do with Madame Clinton copies.
www.headstonesband.com
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The latest one that was closed involved Pgrabbing and your avatar appeared frequently in it.
Cmon man stick to topic.
Immortality stands out as the best version I have heard with my own earballs.
In the popular vote, Clinton came close to equaling Obama's 2012 percentages in the South and not-yet-fully-counted West, and her 4 percent drop in the Northeast cost her no electoral votes. But in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, the Democratic presidential percentage dropped from 54 percent in 2008 and 51 percent in 2012 to 45 percent in 2016.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."