Yeah. You're asking different groups. The Dems are the ones saying Sanders would've won while Conservatives are saying the country doesn't want anything to do with Democrats. You're as accurate as the pollsters.
And that is true, due to the large population centers tending to vote for the Democratic party they have an advantage over the rest of the country. It's how you can have 24 states vote against a candidate and it be a total landslide victory for them anyway like happened in 2012 or have one candidate win 30 states and the result be decided by the slimmest of margins in 2000. Those 30 states are the majority of the country even if they aren't the majority of the population. A majority of the total population which is contained in a small amount of the country. The vast majority of the country voted against her....which is why she lost.
No, Bobby himself has been saying that if the democrats ran anyone else against Trump that they win. Also among others here that are conservatives And like I said if the democrats had chosen a better candidate don't you think that map maybe looks a little different and the election results look a little different? I don't think you can ever come to the conclusion that after an election the majority of the country voted for EVERYTHING that one party stands for.
I don't think that you really understand what I'm saying when I say the majority of the country. I'm not talking about the overall popular vote, I'm talking about the majority of states, the majority of counties.....the majority of the actual country, not what the large population centers thought.
Trump won the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote. Lol at the idea that Trump won "the bulk of the country" because he was able to paint more empty land red.
So you care about surface area. Yes, in terms of surface area, Trump won dramatically but why do you care about surface area? I care more about people.
As the two above me are saying you are are arguing that surface area matters and not if more people? Are you disregarding people living in population centers or something? That someone that lives in a small apartment in New York doesn't matter to some farmer in Texas that has more land to his name? I don't get the argument. If you are arguing for the Electoral College, I understand and I think there are arguments for and against it...but I'll put it like this...a bulk of the country also voted against Trump. More people voted against him than for him unless he ends up winning the popular vote of course.
And you STILL dont understand why Trump won. He beat a career politician who's husband is considered one of the more likable presidents this country has had. There is absolutely no reason why Clinton should not have beaten Trump.... other than America is disgusted by her. Once you take the media noise away, Clinton basically ran on social progressivism and Trump ran on the economy. Trump had no clear plan and he still won. Its not that America doesn't want anything to do with Democrats. What America wants is to take care of its immediate problems. Letting men into womens restrooms does not land Americans good jobs. Threatening to raise taxes constantly does not land Americans good jobs. Continuing to expand lopsided trade agreements takes away good jobs. Threatening to punish businesses for not being green does not land good jobs.
I don't know if you know this but progressives LOATHE Clinton. While she is CERTAINLY liberal she is certainly NOT a progressive. While I know the point you make here is on being a social progressive...more people still voted AGAINST Trump (and it may turn out that Clinton gets closer to Obama's number after all when it's all said and done) I'm pretty confident that if the DNC runs a progressive candidate, a younger Bernie Sanders...then they will win in 2020...especially as Trump surrounds himself with the same billionaire class that he ranted against all year long.
less dense would be the appropriate terminology that isn't offense. He's still correct. People matter. Not surface area.
Because our constitution cares about surface area just as much as it does individual people. This is why every state has 2 representatives in the Senate, regardless of size. This is why we divide up each state to elect a someone into the House of Representatives. The founding fathers fully understood the concept of "two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner". This is exactly what democracy is, regardless of what side you're on.
By definition it is empty land though. That's what density means. New York isn't the biggest state but has the 3rd biggest population. Alaska is the biggest state but is filled with "Empty land" is the actual ground getting to vote here?
Actually the electoral college disregards surface area, if it didn't then Alaska would have the most Electoral votes...
Pardon my use of the word "empty", but as others already noted, a guy who owns 10 acres of land in the middle of the country is not more important that someone who lives in a studio in a major city. It could be called conservative arrogance to claim that large vote margins in cities don't matter as much because they are concentrated.
