The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CC27 on November 21, 2018, 07:50:11 AM
-
iberalFighter (36,736 posts)
I don't remember which show last nite. Probably The Last Word
Someone pointed out that the raw numbers for congressional election results had Democrats with nearly 8 million more votes than the Republicans. That is more than double what Hillary had in votes. The last time the margin was close to that was around Watergate.
We should be able to kick some butts in 2020.
I hope I got the info right.
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100211457995
Always have to throw Nixon in there huh?
-
They really have no clue that they can win California and NY by 65% but it only gains them X electoral votes.
-
They really have no clue that they can win California and NY by 65% but it only gains them X electoral votes.
They throw these little tantrums about how many more votes they got and think it actually means something. Somehow they feel the excess votes in the blue states should be allowed to reflect in red states. Wonder how they would feel if excess Texas votes were allowed to spill over into New Mexico ...
KC
-
:banghead: :thatsright: I'll try to help, for the sake of any DU onlurkers: :thatsright: :banghead:
If Rick Scott won over Nelson by 2 million votes, he would be Senator Scott of Florida.
If Rick Scott won over Nelson by 2 thousand votes, he would be Senator Scott of Florida.
If Rick Scott won over Nelson by 2 votes, he would be Senator Scott of Florida.
If Maxine Waters won her seat by 200 thousand votes, she would be Representative Waters of California.
If Maxine Waters won her seat by 200 votes, she would be Representative Waters of California.
If Maxine Waters won her seat by 2 votes, she would be Representative Waters of California.
-
Another major caveat to this so called analysis.
The Democrat party happened to be defending 23-25 U.S. Senate seats. The opposite will be true in 2020. Therefore a lot of Democrat voters voted in full force to salvage what they could. Also, there was no Republican on the California U.S. Senate ballot. 10 million Democrat vote advantage right there.
Robby O'Rourke came within 3% of Cruz in TX. Garnering millions of votes, enjoy though losing. Governor Abbott in Texas put an ass whooping on Loopy Valdes in Texas by 15-20%, in a race that no one really cared about. The drunken Irishman drew in Hollywood cash and outperformed the governor race.
Math, DUmmies. It is hard, but you can't adjust the reality. :tongue:
-
Robby O'Rourke came within 3% of Cruz in TX. Garnering millions of votes, enjoy though losing. Governor Abbott in Texas put an ass whooping on Loopy Valdes in Texas by 15-20%, in a race that no one really cared about. The drunken Irishman drew in Hollywood cash and outperformed the governor race.
I saw a thread over there the other day where they were talking about how it should be illegal to have private money in elections, and right below that was a thread talking about how much money O'Rourke brought in. Almost ALL of it was from out of state. They seemed to think that it was just fine since O'Rourke was getting it.
I don't think you should be able to donate to out of state races. That's not a lot different than walking into my state and pulling the lever for who you want to win, as far as I'm concerned. It's no different at all than what bigmanpigman does and I think that is abhorrent.
KC
-
I saw a thread over there the other day where they were talking about how it should be illegal to have private money in elections, and right below that was a thread talking about how much money O'Rourke brought in. Almost ALL of it was from out of state. They seemed to think that it was just fine since O'Rourke was getting it.
I don't think you should be able to donate to out of state races. That's not a lot different than walking into my state and pulling the lever for who you want to win, as far as I'm concerned. It's no different at all than what bigmanpigman does and I think that is abhorrent.
KC
Already illegal for Presidential campaigns to accept money from outside the country, so this would be the same. If you can't vote for the person, they can't take your money either.
Downside of that is HOR races. Incumbents already have a massive advantage in name recognition and franking privileges (which should go away) due to being an incumbent, challengers would need to be independently wealthy to match it. But then again, that's what superPACs are for...
-
Always have to throw Nixon in there huh?
Ah, those the the days. Chicago's Daley knew how to steal an election, how far the Dems have fallen :rotf:
-
They really have no clue that they can win California and NY by 65% but it only gains them X electoral votes.
Got shades of Tammany Hall.