Anywhere else in the world the "popular vote" is called the VOTE!
Cons are not the majority, and never will be in the future.
They have not won the vote since 1988 for president.
Thom Hartmann, who needs to get off of Sputnik news (thanks to Profx for reminding me) pointed this out today.
2004 doesnt qualify as an election win since they didn't win 2000 and would not be an incumbent which has the advantage. I assume he goes back to 1988 because of course Bush doesnt beat Kerry in 2004 if Bush didnt win 2000 by NOT getting the majority of votes.
If you support the EC you really dont belong here, it is racist and undemocratic, I suggest you move to Russia. Be prepared though to live a very impoverished life.
Thom Hartmann: cons/GOP have not won a nationwide election since 1988
Thom Hartmann: cons/GOP have not won a nationwide election since 1988
I sigh in your general direction.
Re: Thom Hartmann: cons/GOP have not won a nationwide election since 1988
I’m sorry, I don’t agree. That’s just making up special rules. You can’t say that, Bush DID win the popular vote in 2004. I’m not into overstating reality. Hartmann is wrong on this one.Libertas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 8:40 pm Anywhere else in the world the "popular vote" is called the VOTE!
Cons are not the majority, and never will be in the future.
They have not won the vote since 1988 for president.
Thom Hartmann, who needs to get off of Sputnik news (thanks to Profx for reminding me) pointed this out today.
2004 doesnt qualify as an election win since they didn't win 2000 and would not be an incumbent which has the advantage. I assume he goes back to 1988 because of course Bush doesnt beat Kerry in 2004 if Bush didnt win 2000 by NOT getting the majority of votes.
If you support the EC you really dont belong here, it is racist and undemocratic, I suggest you move to Russia. Be prepared though to live a very impoverished life.
Re: Thom Hartmann: cons/GOP have not won a nationwide election since 1988
He was making the point that they don’t win the majority of the vote. And the only reason they were in a position to win 2004 with a majority of the vote was by not winning with the majority of the vote in 2000.
Gore got more votes and Hillary got more votes.
Gore got more votes and Hillary got more votes.
I sigh in your general direction.
Re: Thom Hartmann: cons/GOP have not won a nationwide election since 1988
There were definitely shenanigans in Ohio by the SoS in 2004. Do I claim the election was "stolen," no, not per se, though yes, that election was the year when Diebold first rolled out its touchscreen voting machines for mass use in OH and many other states.
Again, weird theories about Italian satellites and the ghost of Hugo Chavez aside, the bottom line is many activists - rightly - complained the problem is those machines didn't produce VVPATs or voter receipts and so could not really truly be recounted. I have never been entirely against electronic touchscreen voting, not then, not now, but there is no reason these machines shouldn't a) be open source instead of running on proprietary hardware and software b) be properly secured and c) produce verifiable voter receipts the voter can check, then leave in a lockbox, if a recount is needed.
The Diebold machines that year had all those problems, reducing confidence in the election.
All in all, I think Shrub won that year largely because there is an American tendency "not to change horses midstream" in the middle of a war, even despite the growing realization how much Iraq War II was a deception and a mistake.
Again, weird theories about Italian satellites and the ghost of Hugo Chavez aside, the bottom line is many activists - rightly - complained the problem is those machines didn't produce VVPATs or voter receipts and so could not really truly be recounted. I have never been entirely against electronic touchscreen voting, not then, not now, but there is no reason these machines shouldn't a) be open source instead of running on proprietary hardware and software b) be properly secured and c) produce verifiable voter receipts the voter can check, then leave in a lockbox, if a recount is needed.
The Diebold machines that year had all those problems, reducing confidence in the election.
All in all, I think Shrub won that year largely because there is an American tendency "not to change horses midstream" in the middle of a war, even despite the growing realization how much Iraq War II was a deception and a mistake.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln
Re: Thom Hartmann: cons/GOP have not won a nationwide election since 1988
Thanks for everybody’s input.
He would not have been the candidate as an incumbent if the winner of the 2000 election had been declared the winner which was Gore.
And I am trying to add a picture here of the butterfly ballot where Pat Buchanan got thousands of votes in a county where he would get almost none because of the holes being right next to the one for Gore.
But I’m on my phone and having a hard time doing it.
He would not have been the candidate as an incumbent if the winner of the 2000 election had been declared the winner which was Gore.
And I am trying to add a picture here of the butterfly ballot where Pat Buchanan got thousands of votes in a county where he would get almost none because of the holes being right next to the one for Gore.
But I’m on my phone and having a hard time doing it.
I sigh in your general direction.
Re: Thom Hartmann: cons/GOP have not won a nationwide election since 1988
It's true that Republicans have successfully gamed the system so that the popular vote does not necessarily decide the election. I can't remember a time the Democratic Party won with a smaller popular vote. Right now such an outcome is unthinkable.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22