7 Likes
8 Likes
And blue ones. It only takes a few minutes. I have a reminder in my calendar to check twice a year. Though I’ve already checked twice this election and will do so again a week before the voter registration deadline 
I hate talking to ppl so I’m doing post cards. I got Georgia voters Postcards to Swing States - Progressive Turnout Project
ETA: why is that gif called “bored cat?” That isn’t a bored cat. That is a cat biding her time.
15 Likes
My take is he could have come on stage wearing a nappy and rolled around on the floor for 90 minutes shrieking and crapping himself, and 70 million Americans would still vote for him.
But the electoral college votes are going to depend on about 500,000 people in a few swing counties in 4 toss-up states. Kamala could win the popular vote by a landslide and still lose.
9 Likes
My enemies enemies can also be my enemies.
14 Likes
Speaking of:
15 Likes
When Cretins Collide!
17 Likes
You can win 12 states and win the election, although that includes Texas and California both voting for the same person. The only good news of the calculation is the 12 states do represent about 60% of the population.
Edit - 11 states and one of the NE/Maine districts, per my test on 270. Scary.
6 Likes
Exactly. I don’t know who came up with “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” but it’s often bullshit.
7 Likes
What’s scary about a scenario where the winner of an election carried the states representing 60% of the population? States aren’t people and in a rational and fair system the number of states won would be meaningless as long as the majority of the country’s population supported the winner.
The truly perverse outcomes that the electoral college makes possible are when a plurality of voters in enough smaller states (which have disproportionate numbers of electors) throw the election to a winner who may have gotten the most states but didn’t even get anywhere near a majority. That’s happened before, but the mathematical possibilities for just how skewed it could theoretically get are absolutely absurd. If the most populous states representing just under half of the total EC votes all voted 100% for one candidate, and a bare plurality (not even a majority) of voters in the rest of the states voted for the other candidate, the winner could come into office with much less than 25% of the popular vote.
5 Likes
(excerpt)
“[Racism] does not represent who we are as Republicans or MAGA. This does not represent President Trump. This type of behavior should not be tolerated ever.”
Of course it’s total bullshit. She and many other Republicans and MAGA have tolerated Trump’s obvious racism from Day One. Who the hell does she thinks she’s kidding? Undecided voters who were concerned (but not enough) about Trump’s racism?
6 Likes
(As requested above)
7 Likes
The debate was exhausting.
Which is why I decided not to watch it and rely on articles such as yours for the highlights (and lowlights).
God/Goddess/Gaia/Galaxy bless you and all the others who watched then reported on the debate. Your service to the country (and the world) is greatly appreciated.
6 Likes
Because you only need to win 51% of each of those states. So 30.6% of the popular vote could, in principle take the win, and that is BS
5 Likes
I think we all agree here that the whole EC system is BS and can lead to terrible results, but I was responding to the notion that winning the election with only 11 or 12 states (representing 60% of the population) was especially unfair or scary, when that’s among the more fair scenarios.
And, regardless of how many states are won, the mathematical possibilities are so, so much worse than someone winning with only 30.6% of the popular vote.
For one thing, you don’t need to get 51% of a vote in a state to win it. You only need a plurality. That’s why, for one example, Clinton won states like Nevada, Montana, Maine and New Hampshire in 1992 with less than 40% of their votes. And if there are enough strong 3rd party candidates running there’s almost no lower limit to how many votes constitute a plurality. (Basically I guess the lowest possible limit would be 2 votes for one candidate and 1 vote each for a bunch of others?)
So in my post above I said that a candidate could win with much less than 25% of the vote, but that’s not really even close to the worst possible result. In the most extreme scenario where the candidate won a plurality in the 38 least-populus states with 2 votes each, and the other candidate won 100% of the votes in the most populous states, the popular vote outcome could be something like 76 votes to 155 million, with the 76 votes winning.
2 Likes
We’re going to get so many great memes out of this president. Can’t wait to see her give that look to Putin.
5 Likes
Obligatory A/F:
12 Likes
That’s not mental illness, it’s moral bankruptcy, and it’s both deeply unfair and against the forum rules to treat them as equivalent. Maybe try again without that.
8 Likes
I can’t even imagine what anyone could say that would be so bad as to make MTG say it’s racist. Other than maybe saying something about white people.
4 Likes
