GOP withdraws from Presidential Debates

#126
#126
luthervol said:
Polarizing to the point of being unelectable.

It was recognized early on that Trump had a core of rabid worshipers, the Trumpers, the 35 percenters.
Their rabid worship and the way Trump earned and kept it is exactly what the other 65% found repulsive.
Click to expand...

“Rabid worshipers”: People that support our nation’s sovereignty, oppose murdering babies, and believe that 8 year olds shouldn’t be having surgery to remove or alter their reproductive organs. Thus they voted for Trump over the current leader of the demonic democrat party.
 
#127
#127
luthervol said:
Polarizing to the point of being unelectable.

It was recognized early on that Trump had a core of rabid worshipers, the Trumpers, the 35 percenters.
Their rabid worship and the way Trump earned and kept it is exactly what the other 65% found repulsive.
Click to expand...
You dont get the second most votes ever if you are unelectable. If you make it to the general you are electable.

Also Trump grew his 35. By a lot. He went from just under 63 million to over 75 million.

And the ONLY demographic he lost votes with with white people, everyone else he gained, as a percentage of how they voted as a whole. He doubled his support amongst AA 6 to 12, added a third to his hispanic pull 24 to 32, got 34% of the asians, which was up. But racist cnn didnt include them in their 2016 breakdown so I dont know by how much they grew.

The only way he was unelectable is if you argue that more people voted specifically against Trump than those that voted for him. So of Bidens 81 million, 75 million must have been anti Trump, while Biden was really only supported by 6 million.

Even you will admit that's wasnt the case.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and SpaceCoastVol
#128
#128
luthervol said:
I have no doubt that some dems were easily manipulated. I've often stated that the ignorant vote needs to split 50/50 and that it usually does. Trump took a large chunk of the ignorant vote from the dems.
In 2016 Trump took 85% of the ignorant vote.
Hopefully in 2024, we can get back to a 50/50 split.
Click to expand...
You and your made up stats 🙄
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and luthervol
#129
#129
VOLS INC. said:
“Rabid worshipers”: People that support our nation’s sovereignty, oppose murdering babies, and believe that 8 year olds shouldn’t be having surgery to remove or alter their reproductive organs. Thus they voted for Trump over the current leader of the demonic democrat party.
Click to expand...
The 35% are those who supported him in the repub primaries and/or support him running in 2024.

I get voting for Trump over Biden or Clinton because of policy.
I DON'T GET supporting Trump over better republicans.
 
#130
#130
LouderVol said:
You dont get the second most votes ever if you are unelectable. If you make it to the general you are electable.

Also Trump grew his 35. By a lot. He went from just under 63 million to over 75 million.

And the ONLY demographic he lost votes with with white people, everyone else he gained, as a percentage of how they voted as a whole. He doubled his support amongst AA 6 to 12, added a third to his hispanic pull 24 to 32, got 34% of the asians, which was up. But racist cnn didnt include them in their 2016 breakdown so I dont know by how much they grew.

The only way he was unelectable is if you argue that more people voted specifically against Trump than those that voted for him. So of Bidens 81 million, 75 million must have been anti Trump, while Biden was really only supported by 6 million.

Even you will admit that's wasnt the case.
Click to expand...
50 million were voting dem no matter what.
31 million were somewhere on the "anybody but Trump" train.
That equals 81 million.
For every new voter in 2020 who voted for Trump, there were 2 new voters who voted against Trump.
I acknowledge that Trump grew the Trump base, but you fail to acknowledge that he grew the anti-Trump base twice as much.
 
#131
#131
LouderVol said:
You dont get the second most votes ever if you are unelectable. If you make it to the general you are electable.

Also Trump grew his 35. By a lot. He went from just under 63 million to over 75 million.

And the ONLY demographic he lost votes with with white people, everyone else he gained, as a percentage of how they voted as a whole. He doubled his support amongst AA 6 to 12, added a third to his hispanic pull 24 to 32, got 34% of the asians, which was up. But racist cnn didnt include them in their 2016 breakdown so I dont know by how much they grew.

The only way he was unelectable is if you argue that more people voted specifically against Trump than those that voted for him. So of Bidens 81 million, 75 million must have been anti Trump, while Biden was really only supported by 6 million.

Even you will admit that's wasnt the case.
Click to expand...
That's a really interesting analysis actually.
 
#132
#132
luthervol said:
50 million were voting dem no matter what.
31 million were somewhere on the "anybody but Trump" train.
That equals 81 million.
For every new voter in 2020 who voted for Trump, there were 2 new voters who voted against Trump.
I acknowledge that Trump grew the Trump base, but you fail to acknowledge that he grew the anti-Trump base twice as much.
Click to expand...
I agree he grew it, but not to the point it made him unelectable. Did he grow it so that he lost? Yes. I have always said Trump was his own worst enemy. But that doesnt mean unelectable.
 
#133
#133
luthervol said:
I have no doubt that some dems were easily manipulated. I've often stated that the ignorant vote needs to split 50/50 and that it usually does. Trump took a large chunk of the ignorant vote from the dems.
In 2016 Trump took 85% of the ignorant vote.
Hopefully in 2024, we can get back to a 50/50 split.
Click to expand...
Are you at all worried yet that the current trajectory is going to push more of the “ignorants” right back to trump?
 
#134
#134
LouderVol said:
I agree he grew it, but not to the point it made him unelectable. Did he grow it so that he lost? Yes. I have always said Trump was his own worst enemy. But that doesnt mean unelectable.
Click to expand...
I think we are using the term unelectable differently.
By unelectable I mean unable to win.
 
#135
#135
85SugarVol said:
Are you at all worried yet that the current trajectory is going to push more of the “ignorants” right back to trump?
Click to expand...
I'm sure that some will be swayed, but my hope is that there are enough non-ignorant repubs that Trump doesn't get the nomination.
 
#136
#136
luthervol said:
I'm sure that some will be swayed, but my hope is that there are enough non-ignorant repubs that Trump doesn't get the nomination.
Click to expand...
2 new faces is what we really need. And I am worried that the big American pendulum in the sky is going to swing too far. Again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#138
#138
luthervol said:
It's a pretty accurate measure of the wishes of the American people....and I view that as a little bit relevant.
Click to expand...
United States is a large country with varying demographic and economic drivers. That is why it is best to win the most states rather than get the most votes.
 
#139
#139
luthervol said:
I think we are using the term unelectable differently.
By unelectable I mean unable to win.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by unable. With 75 million votes it was certainly possible for him to win. In fact in our entire history that vote total would have at least guarenteed him the popular vote.

That particular election, sure. But if he ran again right now against Biden, he would not be unelectable by your definition. And considering he had won previously it's not like he was absolutely unelectable.

Even that election had to be rigged by the DNC to have all the players fall inline behind Biden to make Trump unelectable. Just think what happens if Pete, Kamala, Bernie, and Warren, didnt get bought off and went to the end swinging against Joe. That could easily be a couple million votes. Especially with the woke votes he bought with Kamala.

There are plenty of things outside of Trumps campaign that if different could have changed the vote totals. What if the media didnt bury the Hunter laptop story? Corruption tying back to Joe wouldnt have gone well coming out a few weeks before elections. Obama FINALLY getting off the sidelines to support his old running mate, that's a couple million votes.
 
#140
#140
Rasputin_Vol said:
United States is a large country with varying demographic and economic drivers. That is why it is best to win the most states rather than get the most votes.
Click to expand...
Same can be said for most states. I live in GA and that is certainly true. It's true in TN as well......but one person/one equal vote.
Is one person/one equal vote a fair system at the state level but not the national level? Seems inconsistent.

And winning the most states in no way means you win the election. Are you saying it should?
 
#141
#141
LouderVol said:
Depends on what you mean by unable. With 75 million votes it was certainly possible for him to win. In fact in our entire history that vote total would have at least guarenteed him the popular vote.

That particular election, sure. But if he ran again right now against Biden, he would not be unelectable by your definition. And considering he had won previously it's not like he was absolutely unelectable.

Even that election had to be rigged by the DNC to have all the players fall inline behind Biden to make Trump unelectable. Just think what happens if Pete, Kamala, Bernie, and Warren, didnt get bought off and went to the end swinging against Joe. That could easily be a couple million votes. Especially with the woke votes he bought with Kamala.

There are plenty of things outside of Trumps campaign that if different could have changed the vote totals. What if the media didnt bury the Hunter laptop story? Corruption tying back to Joe wouldnt have gone well coming out a few weeks before elections. Obama FINALLY getting off the sidelines to support his old running mate, that's a couple million votes.
Click to expand...
I see your point.
I was 100% certain he was unelectable in 2016 and you see where that got me.
I still believe he was unelectable in 2016 - I know it happened, but I can't wrap my mind around it, probably never will be able to.
It's actually what brought me to the PF - the search for some type of clarity or explanation - zilch.
 
#142
#142
luthervol said:
Same can be said for most states. I live in GA and that is certainly true. It's true in TN as well......but one person/one equal vote.
Is one person/one equal vote a fair system at the state level but not the national level? Seems inconsistent.

And winning the most states in no way means you win the election. Are you saying it should?
Click to expand...
Depends on what the election is on.

If it's a Senator, they dont represent the people, but the state. A representative, it makes perfect sense. A president of the United States, it's so ingrained it's literally in the name. States, we arent the Peoples Republic of North America that would necessitate one person one vote for everything.

It's another checks and balance. The state shouldnt be too powerful, so we have Representatices of the people. The mob shouldnt be too powerful, so we have Senators. The Senators were specifically given the higher table, where the states are supposed to be equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol and VolStrom
#144
#144
Rasputin_Vol said:
United States is a large country with varying demographic and economic drivers. That is why it is best to win the most states rather than get the most votes.
Click to expand...
You can actually win the election by winning 12 states and losing 38.
 
#145
#145
LouderVol said:
Depends on what the election is on.

If it's a Senator, they dont represent the people, but the state. A representative, it makes perfect sense. A president of the United States, it's so ingrained it's literally in the name. States, we arent the Peoples Republic of North America that would necessitate one person one vote for everything.

It's another checks and balance. The state shouldnt be too powerful, so we have Representatices of the people. The mob shouldnt be too powerful, so we have Senators. The Senators were specifically given the higher table, where the states are supposed to be equal.
Click to expand...
As I just said in a post a couple of minutes ago, a president can win the election by winning 12 states and losing 38.
 
#149
#149
hog88 said:
A candidate can win by winning 11 states CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, MI, GA, NC and VA. Maybe with the new census that's changed a little.
Click to expand...
You're questioning my math?

Smart

It looked like 11 came up about 2 short, but I looked at it quickly.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top