You’re an angry little elf, aren’t you.
If it makes anyone feel better, Trump did get less than half the vote.
- Thread starter artradley
- Start date
He got 365 electoral votes and 10 million votes more than mccain.
Nice backtrack on your incorrect statistic. Even your previous post you say "22% willing to vote for". Well, your 22% includes 75 million that are unable to vote. But, keep spouting it off......
I'm the laughing elf. I get great pleasure from laughing at you and your cult comrades.
Fact. Only a paltry 22% of the US population wanted Bonespurs as president. Fact. I know, it's hard for you to accept those. Keep trying.
You're the "laughing elf"?? How sweet!! Nice nickname you gave yourself!! 😂😂
i got you...
obama 2008
% of total voters: 52.9%
% of registered voters: 47.5% (not sure about this one, it's hard to find good data on total registered voters in 2008)
% of total adult citizens in the United States: 30.2% (trump 2024 was actually 29.2%)
Fact - you are an idiot.
I asked my 18 month niece who she wanted for president. She never answered. Again, you are an idiot.
But let’s use your logic to one of the most popular presidents who won reelection recently.
2012 - 21% of the US population wanted Obama.
Thank you. Obama claimed a mandate. Did Democrats call him a liar? Or did you all cheer him on?
considering he outperformed Trump in all 3 metrics, I'm not sure what point you're making
in terms of percentage of popular vote, Obama's 2008 number was (and still is) the highest since 1988
Okay, so you made my point. Only 22% of the US population wanted Bonespurs as president enough to actually vote for him. Thanks for agreeing with me and the facts. Keep up the good work Cletus!
Ok chis. If you cant see that his 22% stat is deeply flawed, then you are as stupid as he is. That is all I have been pointing out as Sabula has referenced it probably 50 times in the last week. Why include 75 million people that arent even able to vote? Because it is dumb.
Trump won by 2.3 million. And how those votes were distributed is irrelevant. Trump won dumbshits by 50 million. Big deal.
Last edited:
The “landslide” is in the MAGAts brains already! Facts? Who needs facts! It was a “landslide” because Don Trump said so……his “mandate” is so because……he said so, too! The “red wave” ran across America the likes we have never seen before!
Hate those facts don't you? Sorry to trigger you so badly. I'll ease up on you going forward
To counter people saying dumb stuff like "half the country supports Trump". It's not even half of voters, let alone half of registered voters. Trump got around 30% of the vote from registered voters if you want to exclude those who can't vote. Is that still "deeply flawed"?
Setting aside the fact that I don't know what a "mandate" is (and whatever it is, it is typically fleeting in terms of its effects), whether a national presidential election result can be described as a "landslide" (which is also pretty meaningless and ephemeral) takes into account multiple factors, including:
1. Popular vote - including margin, majority/plurality, change from prior results, turnout etc.
2. Electoral vote - including margin, competitive state results, # of states, changes from prior results, etc.
3. Bucking incumbency advantages/disadvantages and "map changes" (redistricting, which Senate seats are up, retirements, etc.)
4. Down ballot race results
5. Control of govt branches (including change in control)
Regardless of whether you call it a landslide, Trump did well on pretty much all of these criteria.
Good lord, listen to me, I sound like that numb nuts Alan Lichtman.
1. Popular vote - including margin, majority/plurality, change from prior results, turnout etc.
2. Electoral vote - including margin, competitive state results, # of states, changes from prior results, etc.
3. Bucking incumbency advantages/disadvantages and "map changes" (redistricting, which Senate seats are up, retirements, etc.)
4. Down ballot race results
5. Control of govt branches (including change in control)
Regardless of whether you call it a landslide, Trump did well on pretty much all of these criteria.
Good lord, listen to me, I sound like that numb nuts Alan Lichtman.
I'm not arguing the other posters point but I have a question for you. When they do a survey or research they ask some thousands of people and then extrapolate that out to say some percentage of the country believes this or that. As long as the sample is large enough and inclusive enough it is fair to say that it is representative of the whole country. So, why wouldn’t 152 million people be a large enough sample to be able to say 50% of the country wanted Trump?
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Because we know (from surveys, focus groups, etc) that a large % of those who chose not to vote for President made that choice because they did not like either candidate.
All you have to do is look on HBOT where a huge number of former GOP voters chose not to vote for President.
I dont see it Aardvark….other than him winning the “electoral” by a sizeable amount…..what other “gains” did Republicans make?
They lost a House seat….gained 3 Senate seats….but if Trump calls it a “landslide” so be it……imagine if Trump had met Ol’Landslide himself…in person!
If it was in the shower, for certain he would have mentioned it in his campaign.
No and this is why polls in general should be viewed with a heavy dose of skepticism. How large does a sample need to be to consistently/accurately represent the whole?
I could ask 100 guys if they prefer blondes and 80% could say yes. Then the next 100 guys I ask, 70% say they prefer brunettes.
I will even say that not 100% of Trump voters actually wanted Trump. They just wanted Kamala less.
I believe your last sentence is more correct. Similar to the 2020 election where more folks were tired of trump and his bullshit, than they were in support of Biden. That is where “America” is today….somewhere in the middle and lost.
What is ballot harvesting and in what manner can this method be a route for undetectable voter fraud?
Why even introduce this uncertainty to the legitimacy of an election?
Do other countries allow this? Which?
I don't really think it's a landslide (and don't care if others call it); I'll settle for something like "decisive".
1. He won, and more importantly consistently improved on, popular vote, including some key demographics.
2. He won, substantially, electoral vote, including reversing some prior loss states and basically sweeping the close ones (though that latter thing is not that surprising if nate silver is to be believed)
3. Though neither candidate was 'technically' the incumbent, the more incumbent (Harris) usually has a slight inertial advantage, and in his case, he had his own incumbent baggage.
4. Retaining control of the house actually is overcoming an incumbency, taking control of the senate (with the candidates that made the difference) reflects some down ballot effects.
5. All of the popular branches of the G are aligned to one party, which is not that common. (I don't throw the court in there since they're not elected).
6. And let's be honest, he did it despite generally being both portrayed as the bastard son of Beelzebub, and playing to the part. That's a little counterintuitive given that we usually like our presidents to be either kindhearted old people or cool young ones, and he's neither.
