Who will win the presidential election

[IStillLoveTheMs]

No, but I'll settle for telling the other they were right and apologizing.

I couldn't care less if you stay or go on the forum enough to care about making that bet. And I can acknowledge that with enough corruption it could still go Bidens way.

Pussy.

There we go. I was waiting for you to pop off again. Grow up.

Maniacal cry baby who can't accept the results of an election but supports a literal child in the Oval office says "grow up."

Tell BPJ to put his money where his mouth is. If he's that confident... take the bet.

[BaseHitDerby]

Are people in California not American citizens?

Do their votes not count just the same as hicks in rural Arkansas?

You don't just get to subtract people from the vote tally because they represent a larger bit of the population that voted for Biden.

Why would 1 state get to decide the outcome for all 50 states?

As it sits, California is actually getting slighted when it comes to total electoral votes the state is getting versus other states.

Take California vs South Dakota vs Texas.

A South Dakota electoral college vote = 1 per every 140,000 voters.

A Texas electoral college vote = 1 per every 296,000 voters.

A California electoral college vote = 1 per every 340,000 voters.

If a California electoral college vote was worth the same as a vote from South Dakota... California would submit 119 electoral college votes toward a candidate.

Tell me how on earth is it fair to get less than half compared to other states?

And here's a wild idea... maybe Trump should work a bit hard to convince California voters to vote for him?

Cause Biden closed in on Trump in the vast majority of states in the 2020 election compared to what Clinton got % wise in 2016.

Edit: meh I'll just answer the question.

This is absurd, so winning CA means a candidate already has 44% of the electoral votes needed to win already (119/270). Again, 1 state should not get to decide the election for the whole country. The last time I checked, this is the "United States of America" not the "California State of America." Why should Trump try to convince CA voters to vote for him when he has a ZERO CHANCE of winning that state? He would have to flip 2-3M votes which is undoable.

[seattlefan-daBronx]

You know Trump only lost NY by 10 percent.
If he had campaigned there he might of had a chance to win the state.
There are 10 million people in the city, but upstate and Long Island were all pro-Trump.
How would liberals feel after finding out that Trump actually flipped a NY or California.
They would never recover.

[IStillLoveTheMs]

Why would 1 state get to decide the outcome for all 50 states?

As it sits, California is actually getting slighted when it comes to total electoral votes the state is getting versus other states.

Take California vs South Dakota vs Texas.

A South Dakota electoral college vote = 1 per every 140,000 voters.

A Texas electoral college vote = 1 per every 296,000 voters.

A California electoral college vote = 1 per every 340,000 voters.

If a California electoral college vote was worth the same as a vote from South Dakota... California would submit 119 electoral college votes toward a candidate.

Tell me how on earth is it fair to get less than half compared to other states?

And here's a wild idea... maybe Trump should work a bit hard to convince California voters to vote for him?

Cause Biden closed in on Trump in the vast majority of states in the 2020 election compared to what Clinton got % wise in 2016.

Edit: meh I'll just answer the question.

This is absurd, so winning CA means a candidate already has 44% of the electoral votes needed to win already (119/270). Again, 1 state should not get to decide the election for the whole country. The last time I checked, this is the "United States of America" not the "California State of America." Why should Trump try to convince CA voters to vote for him when he has a ZERO CHANCE of winning that state? He would have to flip 2-3M votes which is undoable.

You realize in 1980, 1984 and 1988 California went to Reagan and Bush right?

Maybe Trump should do a better job appealing to people in California like Reagan and Bush did?

If a candidate loses a popular vote by 5-6 million and is within range to possibly win the election... then the electoral college, as it sits, is not accurately reflecting the will of the electorate.

[IStillLoveTheMs]

You know Trump only lost NY by 10 percent.
If he had campaigned there he might of had a chance to win the state.
There are 10 million people in the city, but upstate and Long Island were all pro-Trump.
How would liberals feel after finding out that Trump actually flipped a NY or California.
They would never recover.

He didn't lose NY by 10%... only 82% of the vote has been tallied, the vast majority of remaining votes to be tallied in New York come from the New York city and neighboring blue counties. Guess is he'll end up losing NY by 16-20 points.

But yes, that is one state where Trump made up a good % of votes compared to Clinton. The other being Illinois. Trump still is going to lose those states by huge margins. So they're not at risk.

Now imagine if a Dem flipped Texas? Something that appears WAY more realistic considering only a 6% loss by Biden.

[BaseHitDerby]

As it sits, California is actually getting slighted when it comes to total electoral votes the state is getting versus other states.

Take California vs South Dakota vs Texas.

A South Dakota electoral college vote = 1 per every 140,000 voters.

A Texas electoral college vote = 1 per every 296,000 voters.

A California electoral college vote = 1 per every 340,000 voters.

If a California electoral college vote was worth the same as a vote from South Dakota... California would submit 119 electoral college votes toward a candidate.

Tell me how on earth is it fair to get less than half compared to other states?

And here's a wild idea... maybe Trump should work a bit hard to convince California voters to vote for him?

Cause Biden closed in on Trump in the vast majority of states in the 2020 election compared to what Clinton got % wise in 2016.

Edit: meh I'll just answer the question.

This is absurd, so winning CA means a candidate already has 44% of the electoral votes needed to win already (119/270). Again, 1 state should not get to decide the election for the whole country. The last time I checked, this is the "United States of America" not the "California State of America." Why should Trump try to convince CA voters to vote for him when he has a ZERO CHANCE of winning that state? He would have to flip 2-3M votes which is undoable.

You realize in 1980, 1984 and 1988 California went to Reagan and Bush right?

Maybe Trump should do a better job appealing to people in California like Reagan and Bush did?

If a candidate loses a popular vote by 5-6 million and is within range to possibly win the election... then the electoral college, as it sits, is not accurately reflecting the will of the electorate.

Big Tech was not around in CA 30+ years ago and the Cold War has ended. The gap in votes among candidates has increased by a huge amount since then. In 1992, it was 1.5M whereas it is 5M+ now. There's no point for Trump to campaign there.

[D-train]

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/13 ... 3028520960

[bpj]

I doubt I'm the only one thinking, "F*** California."

And New York.

You people are counting your chickens before they hatch. The outrage is going to be fantastic.

Put your money where your mouth is. I've laid out my terms. Accept the bet, if I lose you'll never see me here again.

You are a coward.

What don't you get?

I don't care if you leave or stay, but I'm sure not leaving. Your act doesn't bother me a bit, I'm happy to see you people show your true colors so the other posters here who think I attack people get a good look at what I'm usually reacting to.

At this point I'm chill as a cucumber and unconcerned about the blind leading the blind.

It's out of the peoples hands and will resolve one way or another now. I still think Trump played his cards how they had to and it will fall into place. If not, I'll give socialism a chance with the rest of you.

[IStillLoveTheMs]

This is absurd, so winning CA means a candidate already has 44% of the electoral votes needed to win already (119/270). Again, 1 state should not get to decide the election for the whole country. The last time I checked, this is the "United States of America" not the "California State of America." Why should Trump try to convince CA voters to vote for him when he has a ZERO CHANCE of winning that state? He would have to flip 2-3M votes which is undoable.

You realize in 1980, 1984 and 1988 California went to Reagan and Bush right?

Maybe Trump should do a better job appealing to people in California like Reagan and Bush did?

If a candidate loses a popular vote by 5-6 million and is within range to possibly win the election... then the electoral college, as it sits, is not accurately reflecting the will of the electorate.

Big Tech was not around in CA 30+ years ago and the Cold War has ended. The gap in votes among candidates has increased by a huge amount since then. In 1992, it was 1.5M whereas it is 5M+ now. There's no point for Trump to campaign there.

Ok that's fine.

But explain to me why one states electoral vote is worth 2.42 times more than another?

In 1992, California had an electoral vote number of 54... just over 11 million people voted.

In 2020, California had an electoral vote number of 55... 16.8 million people voted.

That change alone should have resulted in an electoral vote number for Cali of 84.

You're telling me a voting boost of nearly 6 million people is worth just 1 vote?

Yes, it's not the United States of California... but it's also not the United States of Rural People either.

[D-train]

Gee Scott is such a bitch. He is the guy that cried on the radio reading about the Michael Bennett Las Vegas incident.

Now he is crying on twitter when he could just get tested and then go see his mother. See my reply.

https://twitter.com/GeeScottSr/status/1 ... 8861895680