Who will win the presidential election

[seattlefan-daBronx]

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

Look. Obviously he was by himself. Older man.
No street smarts. Wrong place. Wrong time.
The shitstains jumping him why didn't do that earlier when all the MAGA folks were around?

[BaseHitDerby]

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.

It's because the Constitution grants each state at least 3 votes since each of them have 2 senators and a least 1 House member. You cannot subtract votes from states like ND, who already only get a measly 3 votes. Using your same argument, shouldn't FL have more votes since their population has grown by about 10% since 2012? Nope, their number of votes has stayed the same.

[BaseHitDerby]

There are wayyyyy more people in CA, so there will be wayyyyy more people pumping out babies than other states. You can't just give states a number of electoral college votes based on their population total.

[IStillLoveTheMs]

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.

It's because the Constitution grants each state at least 3 votes since each of them have 2 senators and a least 1 House member. You cannot subtract votes from states like ND, who already only get a measly 3 votes. Using your same argument, shouldn't FL have more votes since their population has grown by about 10% since 2012? Nope, their number of votes has stayed the same.

Yes. They should. I would be totally on board. That goes for every state.

Just increase the vote threshold needed to win... fuck this 270 shit... adjust the number based on voting and population growth the year prior.

If your state is going up by a large % in population then it doesn't make sense for your electoral number to remain the same.

It's the candidate's job to get people in every state to vote for them. Which is why I don't get this California nonsense. You wan't people in California to vote for Trump? Maybe he should give them a reason to. And no, they don't agree with you that he has.

I understand there needs to be a balance... but the rural vote is worth far more in the current system.

[IStillLoveTheMs]

There are wayyyyy more people in CA, so there will be wayyyyy more people pumping out babies than other states. You can't just give states a number of electoral college votes based on their population total.

OK... and Trump/future Republicans should do their jobs and convince the babies of the people born in California to vote for them.

I know it's crazy... but just 28 years ago Clinton won Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia. It's not unthinkable for a candidate to sway people with great campaigning and ideas.

[HawkBowler 2.0]

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.

Your ignorance is on display with this post. There's a finite number of electoral votes (538) equal to the number of people represented in Congress. Giving 30 more electoral votes to CA would take electoral votes from other states. Duh

California always provides the popular vote victory to Democrats. Take that state away and Biden is losing the popular vote right now to Trump. We are not the United States of California.

[HawkBowler 2.0]

More disturbing attacks on Trump supporters:

https://twitter.com/_xoxoxoxoxxoxo_/sta ... c-video%2F

The BLM thugs wait until the crowds starts to thin then they isolate people, surround them and beat the shit out of them. The worst part is that there are cops everywhere and they don't do anything.

[BaseHitDerby]

There are wayyyyy more people in CA, so there will be wayyyyy more people pumping out babies than other states. You can't just give states a number of electoral college votes based on their population total.

OK... and Trump/future Republicans should do their jobs and convince the babies of the people born in California to vote for them.

Most of the babies are already born into Democrat parents and the Big Tech/Hollywood presence there ensures CA will be blue for probably our lifetimes. That's a reason why the gap between blue/red votes has increased by so much the last 30 years. There's no point for a Republican to put effort in that state when he has less than a 1% chance there.

[IStillLoveTheMs]

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.

Your ignorance is on display with this post. There's a finite number of electoral votes (538) equal to the number of people represented in Congress. Giving 30 more electoral votes to CA would take electoral votes from other states. Duh

California always provides the popular vote victory to Democrats. Take that state away and Biden is losing the popular vote right now to Trump. We are not the United States of California.

I'm not saying California should get 84 votes.

I obviously understand there's a balance.

But a voting jump of 6 million people should not result in just 1 additional electoral college vote when smaller states get to keep their standing despite a lack of growth.

There needs to be some sort of an adjustment or your disenfranchising millions of voters to favor very few.

[IStillLoveTheMs]

There are wayyyyy more people in CA, so there will be wayyyyy more people pumping out babies than other states. You can't just give states a number of electoral college votes based on their population total.

OK... and Trump/future Republicans should do their jobs and convince the babies of the people born in California to vote for them.

Most of the babies are already born into Democrat parents and the Big Tech/Hollywood presence there ensures CA will be blue for probably our lifetimes. That's a reason why the gap between blue/red votes has increased by so much the last 30 years. There's no point for a Republican to put effort in that state when he has less than a 1% chance there.

I know plenty of people my generation who vote different than their parents.

Your political beliefs should be your own... if you only vote a certain way because your parents do... I'd call that embarrassing.

It's up to the candidate to sway the voter... You can't tell me Reagan won 489 electoral votes in 1980 because people voted solely on family ideals. It's clear he presented a vision for the country the masses could get behind.