A More Accurate Red Vs. Blue Map

Submitted by: muert 5 months ago in News & Politics


XKCD illustrates the map based on Population Distribution, which seems to show much better the nature of our population. Way different than the maps that report by County Results as you can see below. (Click the maps for larger images.)

There are 99 comments:
Male 5,927
Republicans only fight for the minority with regards to the Electoral College.
1
Reply
Male 12,053
Because of the electoral college here is a ranking of whose votes are most powerful:

1. Wyoming
2. Vermont
3. D.C.
4. North Dakota
5. Alaska
6. South Dakota
7. Rhode Island
8. Delaware
9. Montana
10. New Hampshire
11. Maine
12. Hawaii
13. Nebraska
14. Idaho
15. West Virginia
16. New Mexico
17. Utah
18. Nevada
19. Kansas
20. Arkansas

3 of those are swing states
6 of those are solid blue
11 are solid red

Gee. I wonder why republicans love the E.C.
1
Reply
Male 4,949
holygod Please just admit that had this went the other way, (which I believe I remember you saying it might before the election) with Clinton winning the EC and Trump the popular you would not be complaining. 
-2
Reply
805
trimble You want a simpler example of why the electoral college sucks? There are states where the electors are not bound to follow the will of the people. The entire state could vote for Team A, and the electors could choose Team B instead.
0
Reply
Male 12,053
trimble I would be complaining that the electoral college was ridiculous and needs to be replaced, but thanking God it was in place to prevent the country the daily embarrassment of a trump presidency.
1
Reply
Male 4,949
holygod Ok, fair enough. You keep being embarrassed, I'll keep being glad Clinton is not our president.
-2
Reply
Male 12,053
trimble I'm glad too. Did you know that bitch used the wrong email account?!?!?!? LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!
0
Reply
Male 4,949
holygod Well, that's not one of my many reasons but whatever.
0
Reply
Male 854
trimble I can't speak for HolyGod, but even if the person I voted for won, ultimately my vote was still wasted, and never had a chance of mattering.  Anyone who doesn't live in a swing state should hate this system.
1
Reply
Male 4,949
muert So what makes a swing state?
-1
Reply
Male 854
trimble I am sure their is a statistical definition out there some where, but I go by feel.  If one party has a population that is larger then the other enough so that the likely winning side thinks "I don't need to worry about voting, we'll win anyway" and the losing side thinks "why bother voting we can't win anyway"  Then they are not a swing state.
0
Reply
Male 854
holygod I am blue(ish) in a solid red state.  My vote is completely worthless.
0
Reply
Male 12,053
muert just like republicans in California.
0
Reply
Male 854
holygod Exactly.  This should be a bipartisan complaint, but since it tend to favor one side it isn't.
1
Reply
Male 5,927
muert No, your vote isnt worthless, your vote still counts for the eventual president and the republicans thank you lol.
0
Reply
Male 854
daegog I love that description, and it makes me hate this system even more.  Thanks!
0
Reply
Male 965
It's the same every time... no matter who wins, the other side cries about how the EC is unfair.  We can all disagree on whether it is unfair or not, but the fact is that it is what's in place, and belly-aching about it after your candidate lost makes you look whiny.  If anyone is really that upset about it, go do something about it.  Has anyone tried to change the EC in recent times?  I would guess so, but the movement to do so was so small that it could get no traction.  Probably because it is ultimately incredibly fair, at least from a more universal perspective.  Individually, no, it doesn't seem reasonable that the vote of someone in Wyoming has more pull than someone in CA.  But cultural tendencies in regions that are very populated should not decide elections for the whole of the country.  That would be unreasonable and unfair.
0
Reply
Male 637
cjeffblanchr Hey welcome back Jeff. I believe we were in the middle of a conversation before you left. 
0
Reply
Male 965
BuckeyeJoe Thanks!  Sorry about that.  I've had things come up that drew me away and distracted me.  Not sure how much I'll be back, or if I'll just peek my head in from time to time.
0
Reply
Male 12,053
cjeffblanchr "no matter who wins"? How so? The electoral college has never worked to a Democrat's advantage. A Democrat has never lost the popular vote and won the presidency. Republicans have done it 2 of the past 5 elections. Republicans love the EC because, along with gerrymandering, it allows them to win elections with fewer votes. However, its even better because unlike gerrymandering it only works to their advantage. 
0
Reply
Male 965
holygod Never worked to  Democrat's advantage?  Well, hell, holygod, no wonder they're all bitching about it.  My argument below in response to muert applies here, so I'll just refer you to that for my opinion on the matter.
0
Reply
Male 12,053
cjeffblanchr It shouldn't work to anyone's advantage. The only system to game should be by getting the most people to vote for you. Anything else is an affront to democracy. 
0
Reply
Male 854
cjeffblanchr Land and population density should not determine the value of your vote.  Also, people are already trying to do something about it, see the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
0
Reply
Male 965
muert Well, we just disagree on that then.  If not for the EC, basically no one's votes would ultimately count unless they are in the highest population density areas.  Civilizations tend to do that--have high concentrations of people in smaller areas.  The influence of ideas in those areas would overwhelm the whole of the nation.  As it is, a balance is established--not by simple vote, but a balance of opposing viewpoints.  I don't think it can be argued that there is in fact balance in place.  We've gone back and forth from liberal to conservative leadership for a long time.  Neither can become supreme with the EC.  But without it, the high population areas with more liberal ideas (in the instance of our nation) would of course multiply that much more quickly and opposing ideas would be squelched.  But of course, this is what most liberals seem to want, so I can see why they complain about the electoral college.
0
Reply
Male 12,053
cjeffblanchr I'm sorry but that statement was idiotic.

"basically no one's votes would ultimately count"

No, everyone's vote would count exactly the same whether they lived in the center of Manhattan or out in the mountains in Wyoming.


"unless they are in the highest population density areas"

Really?
Here are the 20 biggest cities in the country:

1 New York: 8,537,673
2 Los Angeles: 3,976,322
3 Chicago: 2,704,958
4 Houston: 2,303,482
5 Phoenix: 1,615,017
6 Philadelphia: 1,567,872
7 San Antonio: 1,492,510
8 San Diego: 1,406,630
9 Dallas: 1,317,929
10 San Jose: 1,025,350
11 Austin: 947,890
12 Jacksonville: 880,619
13 San Francisco: 870,887
14 Columbus: 860,090
15 Indianapolis: 855,164
16 Fort Worth: 854,113
17 Charlotte: 842,051
18 Seattle: 704,352
19 Denver: 693,060
20 El Paso: 683,080

That totals 34 million people. That is a little more than 10% of the population of the country. 

The top 200 cities in the country have 83 million people total. That is only 25% of the vote. 

Plus that is if you get EVERY vote in that city which would never happen.


"The influence of ideas in those areas"

So you think people in San Francisco and San Antonio have the same homogeny of ideas?


"but a balance of opposing viewpoints"

So in your opinion people in rural areas should have their vote count more to balance out the views of people in urban areas? What about black people? Should their vote be 6 times as powerful to balance out white people? Should the vote of a muslim be 80 times as powerful to balance out the vote of a Christian?


"why they complain about the electoral college."

Anybody with half a brain and no agenda has a problem with the EC. The only reason you like it is because it gives you an unfair advantage.
2
Reply
Male 965
holygod It doesn't give me an unfair advantage, as I'm not running for president.  As you've apparently forgotten, and as I have mentioned before, I have voted both Republican and Democrat in the past.  You disagree with me, and that's fine.  I believe the EC balances cultural, political and other ideas as spread across the whole of the country.  And you can take a screenshot of this post if you want and save it for the day when the EC does benefit a winning candidate whom I did not vote for, and I'll be saying the same thing.

Also, are the populations you listed just for the cities themselves, or for the entire regions that surround them and are influenced heavily by the popular opinions of the city?

And finally, if you want to start pointing out "idiotic" statments, look at your last sentence.  Seriously, are you going to tell me that neither you nor Liberals have an "Agenda"?  You simply don't like the EC because it doesn't let the Liberal AGENDA dominate all aspects of American society.  We still use the EC because it does in fact provide balance.
0
Reply
Male 12,053
cjeffblanchr "I believe the EC balances cultural, political and other ideas as spread across the whole of the country."

Why did you ignore my suggestions on weighing muslim and black votes? Or how about gay votes? Wouldn't that also "balance cultural, political and other ideas"?
0
Reply
Male 12,053
cjeffblanchr "by the popular opinions of the city"

Why is it you think the opinions in a city are so uniform? I live in Phoenix, the 6th biggest city. It went for Trump 48 / 45 in the election.
0
Reply
Male 12,053
cjeffblanchr We use the EC for one simple reason, it was started 200 years ago when it made sense because of the lack of exposure people had with the candidates before television, radio, literacy rates, and national newspapers and now it is too hard to change especially when one party knows it gives them an advantage.
1
Reply
805
cjeffblanchr That is what the Senate is for - all states get equal representation in the upper house.

Anyway, why should the office of the president/first-citizen represent the minority of the people?
0
Reply
Male 965
barry9a I'll answer that by asking this...  why shouldn't the president represent the stronger political view that transcends the entirety of the nation rather than a minority viewpoint?
0
Reply
Male 854
cjeffblanchr You do realize that our current president was elected to represent the minority viewpoint?
1
Reply
Male 7,254
muert Bingo.
0
Reply
Male 4,949
The electoral college is the fairest, most representative way to conduct our elections and to think if we went strictly by popular vote and the outcome we would have had makes me shudder. 
-3
Reply
Male 12,053
trimble see below
0
Reply
Male 12,053
There is only one thing that matters when you are talking about the electoral college:

39,250,000 Californians get 55 electoral votes for President, 713,600 people per vote

585,000 Wyomans get 3 electoral votes for President, 195,000 people per vote

That means an American from Wyoming has 364% as much power in a presidential election as an American from California.

However, just in case that was too hard to follow, just know you can win the presidency with 22% of the vote.

If you can tell me with a straight face that you think that is a system which is in no way broken, I think you are a fucking moron, no offense.


3
Reply
805
holygod having the head of government be of a different political party than the house majority is also a bad thing. You can end up with things like Obama's last 6 years, where the party opposing the president controls the legislature, and you have political gridlock and nothing but grandstanding. And the president has no political capital inside the opposing party, so he can't really force the issue.

Better for the party that wins the house to decide amongst themselves who gets to be top dog - then your top dog is going to have political sway in the house, and is more likely to be able to get things done.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
holygod It is a Republic. Any further questions?
BOTH sides agreed to the rules and regulations BEFORE the election even started: any further questions?

You cannot logically or lawfully change the rules after the game is over: that is bullshit so just admit that is what you offer and move along...
-3
Reply
Male 12,053
5cats please tell me which part of the definition of republic has anything to do with the electoral college. Do you actually know what "republic" means?
1
Reply
Male 1,634
5cats I don't think anyone is arguing that we should change the results of the election, just that we should look at the system and think about changing it before the next one.  So that we agree on it ahead of time, before the game is over.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
waldo863 Well yeah, if they want to change the rules? Change them! there's a clearly defined method to do so legally.
But complaining afterwards that you were somehow wronged? By the way the rules are? That's just like a tantrum.
-1
Reply
Male 12,053
5cats do you understand I would think the electoral college was just as  ridiculous if trump won the popular vote and Clinton won the election? The result doesn't change how asinine it is.
1
Reply
Male 42,934
holygod It is designed specifically to do what it did: to give some power to the lower population states. To prevent what nearly happened: that a few big states dominate the rest. It isn't broken, this is what is supposed to happen.
Don't like it?  There's a clear and simple process to alter the Constitution: go for it!
0
Reply
Male 12,053
5cats "To prevent what nearly happened: that a few big states dominate the rest."

How so? 

2 of the top 3 biggest and 7 of the 10 biggest states went Trump.
0
Reply
805
5cats By 'agreed' do you mean 'had no other choice but to accept'? What happens if one side 'doesn't agree'?
0
Reply
Male 42,934
barry9a If one side doesn't agree? They can:
- not participate
- form their own nation and make their own rules
- suffer silently, no one wants to hear it.
-1
Reply
Male 854
5cats 
- employ their freedom of speech and agitate for change.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
muert Change for the NEXT game yes, not demanding the rules be retroactively applied to change the outcome of the completed game.
And again: there's a clear process to do so: follow it and change the rules, go ahead! No one is stopping them.
0
Reply
Male 854
5cats As far as I can tell no one is trying to argue a retroactive change.  We are just using that as an example of why the system is complete BS.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
muert True, not here in this thread, but the idea has been pushed for before. 
And it's still overlooking the fact that this is what the system is supposed to do: this isn't a flaw it's a feature!
0
Reply
Male 188
want the popular vote to decide who becomes president? then New York and Cali are basically the only 2 states that matter
1
Reply
Male 12,053
boredusernames01 

There are 323 Million people in the United States.

There are 57 Million people in New York and California. That is 17% of the country. If you get every vote in California and New York you still need 40% of the rest of the country.

However, you don't get every vote in a state. In 2016 California and New York went 62/33 and 59/38 respectively.

There is also 57 million people in Texas, Florida, and Illinois.

Stupid comment is stupid.


0
Reply
Male 42,934
holygod Fuck your stupidity. Those were the rules, both sides agreed to them BEFORE the election. Any further stupid shit from your mouth?? No? Then fuck off already.
-3
Reply
Male 12,053
5cats weird response given my efforts for three last few months to treat you cordially. Once again proving your defense of "I only attack those that attack me" is utter bullshit.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
holygod Sorry, I was very grumpy last night, I do apologize.
-1
Reply
Male 12,053
5cats fair enough. I appreciate the apology.
0
Reply
Male 7,254
5cats Ah, 5Cats, my favorite IAB'er. Spreading happiness and goodwill throughout the threads, one comment at a time.
1
Reply
Female 5,561
(Since its flat and stuff ;) )

2
Reply
Male 390
But does it matter? I mean, only the popular vote should count? As in any other democracy?

On the paper, yes. But USA are not a single nation, it is a federation of states. And population is not balanced properly:


I agree, from a citizen perspective, it would be more democratic to simply count the votes nationally, moreover since you can win the presidential election with only 23% of the popular vote (50% of each small state), but it would negate the notion of federation *for the presidential election*.

You may argue that the federation is already well represented at the senate, but partisans of the Electoral college would answer that the population is already well represented at the House.

You may also say that it happened four times in history that this system "failed" the popular vote (Trump 2016, Bush 2000, Harrison 1888, Hayes 1876), so it should be changed. But (at least in 2000 and 2016), the popular vote only reflected the strategy of the elected presidents: target small, winnable, swing-states rather than go for the popular vote since the popular vote is useless in this election. The situation would have been very different with a popular vote in place, because the campaign would have been different, and maybe the exposed ideas too.

For instance, coal mining. Trump supported coal mining. Out of the 25 states with active coal mines in 2016, he won 20. 141 more electoral votes than Clinton in these states. The 25 "greenest" states according to Forbes were mostly won by Clinton (18 vs 7), but she only managed to get an advance of 129 electoral votes on these. It does not sum up to the official counts since arizona, montana, new mexico, colorado and virginia belong to both list. If we exclude these 5 states from the counts, Trump built an advance of 154 electoral votes in the non-green coal states, and Clinton only got an advance of 116 in the non-coal green states. This has been a key to win the election. Trump might have had a different stance on the question with a popular vote system. Or not. We'll never know.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
m3dm3d So?
-1
Reply
Male 854
m3dm3d The way I look at is this:  Representatives, should represent their district.  Senators should represent their state.  And the President should represent the entire country.
0
Reply
Male 1,370
m3dm3d The entire notion of "swing states" is idiotic.  It places certain folk's desires/viewpoints higher than others.

All voting same day.  One and done.  Why drag this out?  

We pay politicians to be our representatives in our governments.  If they are not in the houses of power, they are not working for us.  Get them off their damn stumps and keep them at their desks.

Election periods should be short and intense.  Stop with this idiotic, drawn out process.  All it does is cause money to be wasted on advertising and lobbyists. 

Let's get more bang for our buck.  6 weeks is plenty long enough for an election period.  Keep the incumbents at their desks.  Political posturing should only be around for a short period, the rest of the time, GET BACK TO WORK!
2
Reply
Male 6,397
punko I agree that the election periods should be short and intense. But one day voting makes it impossible for everyone to get to the polls. Some people are only free on certain days. The best thing would be for all states to go to a 100% mail in system. Washington State does this and it works out great. And yes there are checks. Every signature is checked against what is on file. Every name spelling is checked against what is on file. And every address is checked. I know because I interviewed for the part time job when I was off work for a bit.
0
Reply
Male 415
markust123 No one works twenty-hours per day, every day. We are a lot less people, but we do it in one day. 
0
Reply
Male 854
Fojos Sure, but they might have to work 12-16 hours on that particular day.  Combine that with waiting lines, limited polling hours, and exhaustion, and some people who want to vote won't be able to.
0
Reply
Male 854
markust123 That and make voting day a national holiday.
0
Reply
Male 1,370
muert Exactly.  1 day every 4 years is easy to stomach.  Hell, combine it with some random national holiday in the autumn and bob's your uncle.

Make it illegal to not permit employees to have 2 hrs to vote if they must work on the holiday.

I'm sure there are countless ways of doing it.

Just make the entire country vote one damn day, and get rid of 'swing states'

0
Reply
Male 854
punko If only.   Getting rid of swing states means going to a popular vote.  Which conservatives hate because it means the population they are appealing to are more widely dispersed, and take more effort to campaign to.
0
Reply
Male 43,007
This is a more accurate map of who actually controls elections


4
Reply
Male 548
0
Reply
Male 12,053
Gerry1of1 I'm not sure Hooters does all that much lobbying.
1
Reply
Male 1,940
holygod product speaks for itself.
0
Reply
Male 6,397
A more accurate Red vs Blue Map? Where is the 2016 cartogram map that shows the vote accurately by county and population? Link


But even that one is misleading as it only shows red or blue. The clearest way to see how the people voted is with a cartogram map that uses percentages of votes. This accurately shows that we are not an only left or right thinking country like the partisan media would like you to believe, but that we have a mixture of conservative and liberal ideals in each of us.

0
Reply
Male 1,011
markust123 These are some pretty pictures. You gotta admit the Trump team played the electoral system to their advantage more effectively than the Clinton team. 
1
Reply
Male 6,397
boredhuman I would say Trump played people's anger more affectively. Plus Clinton's deplorables comment was idiotic. You never attack the voters. Never. If she had not done that she would have won. I honestly believe that. She killed her election.
2
Reply
Male 1,940
markust123 the election was hers to loose, and she did it in epic fashion.  For an experienced machine politician I'm surprised she wasn't able to simply let Trump implode.  
0
Reply
Male 12,053
woodyville06 we thought he imploded 20 different times. Every time he opened his mouth I thought he was done. His voters simply did not care what he did or said. They were going to vote for him (or against her) no matter what.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
markust123 Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in 2000, so this isn't new. It's foolish to blame Clinton's loss on any one thing. I see a lot of factors:
- Trump was greatly underestimated by everyone
- Russia's meddling (both the effect and the meddling itself are unclear at this point, but the investigations will shed more light into it)
- Trump Team's use of the internet and the news media

The grammar nazi in me wanted to correct "affectively," but in this context it might actually be right. :)
0
Reply
Male 1,940
boredhuman you point only to external factors and completely ignore her many and significant flaws: unlikability, political baggage, crimimal investigation.  She lost that election, it wasnt taken from her
0
Reply
Male 6,397
boredhuman Affect and effect are the two words I have the hardest time with. Do you have a trick for using the right one? I’m wrapping up a book and these were the only two words I specifically had the editor check that they were being used correctly.

The grammar nazi in me would remove your unneeded “actually,” but that could just be because you grammar nazi’d me. Ha ha.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
markust123 muert got you covered for most cases. Here it's an adjective. As an adjective, 'affective' relates to emotions, which fits here. If you were referring to Trump's efficacy of using anger, then 'effectively' should be used.
I used 'actually' "to insinuate that the following is either unusual or contrary to a norm or preceding assumption." These grammar wars are amusing. 
0
Reply
Male 6,397
boredhuman Yes, you used actually that way but it's not needed. It almost never is. Actually is one of the first words you look for to remove when copy editing. 
0
Reply
Male 1,011
markust123 I take Element's of Style as a good guide to writing; and "actually" is not actually in the book at all! I wonder how I should take that... 
All I know for sure is, Grammar Nazis always die in the end. 
0
Reply
Male 6,397
boredhuman Have you tried Grammarly professional? I ran it last week and it is incredible. You can't trust everything it finds but it is so much better than Word's suggestions. Especially at finding repeated words too close together. SmartEdit is also priceless.

"All I know for sure is, Grammar Nazis always die in the end."

That is the truth. Every time I've pointed out a problem in someone else's comment there is always a worse mistake in my comment. It is Murphy's law.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
markust123 You see the AI is going after editors' jobs! Why learn proper grammar/word usage when AI can do it better

Yesterday the AI was just helping us communicate more effectively; today it affects our communication in subtle ways; tomorrow it will anticipate what we're trying to say and speak for us. 

Here's a simple test of the software's effect on meaning: pick your favorite literary passage and put it through the editing software, correcting all the suggestions. 

I don't write nearly enough to make it worth subscribing to the paid service. I haven't used either software, but I'll sure give the 'free' version a try. 
0
Reply
Male 6,397
boredhuman, “Here's a simple test of the software's effect on meaning: pick your favorite literary passage and put it through the editing software, correcting all the suggestions.”

We’ll, yeah, that is going to be a mess. You always have to put reason into the suggestions. At least half of the comma suggestions were not needed on my last run through. A lot of the semicolons were needed so I reworded the sentence so we didn’t have to use them. Still, Grammarly is getting scary good at recognizing errors.
0
Reply
Male 6,397
boredhuman, “Why learn proper grammar/word usage when AI can do it better?”

Totally understand but Grammarly is different because it tells you exactly why something is needed. It helps people improve their grammar knowledge. Here’s an example of a reason it found for a comma: “It appears you are missing a comma before the coordinating conjunction so in a compound sentence. Consider adding a comma.” 

It’s not cheap so it is something I would only use at the end of a project.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
markust123 I sometimes help my father edit his high energy physics research papers. Incidentally, he's working on employing machine learning to overcome saturation of Moore's law in search of exotic matter. Maybe he'll find the premium software useful, since English is his second language. 
0
Reply
Male 6,397
boredhuman Your dad sounds awesome. He can try it for a one month fee. If he doesn’t like it make sure he cancels the subscription. If he does like it have him get the cheaper one year version.
0
Reply
Male 854
markust123 Go with R.A.V.E.N  Remember Affect Verb Effect Noun
0
Reply
Male 6,397
muert I will remember this. My writing partner has an English degree. Even she didn't trust herself with this set of words.
0
Reply
Male 854
markust123 I just wish I would remember, instead of hoping that grammar checker will catch it.  :P
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman You are a retard...
-1
Reply
Male 1,011
5cats Care to elaborate? 

If you're referring to something i said in another thread, please link it, so others can judge for themselves. 
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman Sorry, wasn't in a good mood last night :/ My bad.

But "Russia meddling"? That's a myth, it's a joke now to even suggest this had something to do with the election.
Trump won because Hillary was the worst candidate in US history. That's all there was to it. The MSM is doing cartwheels to try to distract everyone from that, but she's a career criminal with the morality of a snake, that's all.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
5cats You could argue that Russia has meddled in US elections for decades, but to claim it's all a myth... Really?
To be clear: we're all past the Russia collusion 'nothing-burger'- I'll leave it to the Mueller investigation to sort it out. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about things like professional trolls on Facebook or the Fusion GPS dossier.

"Hillary was the worst candidate in US history" Then you must think Obama was the 2nd worst, because Hillary Clinton nearly won the 2008 primary
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman They spent a total of what, $200K? And some of that was attacking Trump. The DNC and Hillary spent $800 million dollars, or more, iirc. It's chump change, it was literally nothing.

Mueller has found jack squat after millions spent and an entire year: he actually found more evidence that Hillary and the DNC colluded with Russia! While breaking various election laws, of course. The Fusion thing was Hillary, not Trump, and it is what Spys do: they spy! You are shocked by this?

Yup, that's 'logic' there. Hillary in 2016 was the worst ever, due to her crimes and corruption which mostly happened between 2008-2016 (but there were plenty of crimes and corruption before that too). Therefor Obama must be the second worst! Logic! Or not...

News flash: she was a 'better' nominee in 2008 than 2016, but was still so flawed she was rejected. She spent the next 8 years rigging the process to buy her the nomination, and she almost lost it anyhow! To a communist who just joined the Democrats no less.

0
Reply
Male 1,011
5cats "They spent a total of what, $200K? ... literally nothing." I could respect this position, if you were to claim Russia's meddling was minute and insignificant to the outcome of the election. In that case, I'd argue that we don't know enough to make the determination and would like to know more. However, you appear to be insisting it's all a myth.

"Mueller has found jack squat..."
You've been missing from the IAB threads relating to the investigation here, here, and here. Four people having been charged as the result of the investigation; Flynn and Papadopoulos plead guilty. Maybe you missed it?

"The Fusion thing was Hillary, not Trump, and it is what Spys do: they spy! You are shocked by this?"
I don't think you've read the dossier (link), otherwise you'd be writing how it's a complete fabrication by the British spy, Steele.

"Hillary in 2016 was the worst ever, due to her crimes and corruption which mostly happened between 2008-2016"
Scandals? - yes. She was not charged with any crimes! We can go all attacks on Clinton if you like (with links). They may be shady, suspicious, yet under close scrutiny I suspect ALL attacks will be inconclusive.

"[Hillary] was a 'better' nominee in 2008 than 2016"
That's debatable. In the years as a secretary of state she gained more experience and became a more seasoned politician. Then again she was getting older, and possibly had more baggage due to promises to donors (speculation).

Hillary's candidacy is old news though. The Steele dossier is in the news cycle now. Get ready to ignore its contents and blame Hillary for it. 
0
Reply
Male 16,992
5cats you can offer no actual facts or logic, hence you are wrong.
0
Reply