• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump Agrees He'll Unite Democrats Against Him?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It appears President Trump agrees with Fox commentator Brit Hume that Dems will unite against him:

Trump RT's Brit Hume Post Predicting Dems Unify Against Him

Does the President not want the job anymore? Is he clueless? Does he just carelessly RT anything he reads on Twitter from Fox employees?

Who can say what it means? Maybe he agrees that Dems will unify against him, but maybe he doesn't care or doesn't think it will matter in November. He's still riding high over the Democrats' bungled impeachment and probably overconfident, thinking he has the election all but sewn up.

But U.S. politics can be unpredictable. That's why I never put much stock in these kinds of predictions anyway.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How so? Actual vote counts are factual data. Are you saying facts and data are irrelevant?
Im saying that the popular vote was based on the electoral college system—the system dictated the campaign’s strategy. If the system had been “win by popular vote” then the parties would have campaigned differently and the popular vote would have been different. We don’t know who would have won under such a scenario, but because the system used was not “win by popular vote,” the popular vote is irrelevant and doesn’t necessarily reflect the national consensus.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You mean before when the Democrats tried to impeach him they weren’t united?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Im saying that the popular vote was based on the electoral college system—the system dictated the campaign’s strategy. If the system had been “win by popular vote” then the parties would have campaigned differently and the popular vote would have been different. We don’t know who would have won under such a scenario, but because the system used was not “win by popular vote,” the popular vote is irrelevant and doesn’t necessarily reflect the national consensus.

So your argument is that if we had presidential elections by popular vote, Trump would've gotten over 3 million more votes than he did in places like California and New York (ie the places where most voters live) because of his campaigning? How do you figure that?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
It appears President Trump agrees with Fox commentator Brit Hume that Dems will unite against him:

Trump RT's Brit Hume Post Predicting Dems Unify Against Him

Does the President not want the job anymore? Is he clueless? Does he just carelessly RT anything he reads on Twitter from Fox employees?


Well duh-uh! All the Dem candidates have made it clear that their main purpose is to defeat Trump. Not much of a platform, if you ask me.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So your argument is that if we had presidential elections by popular vote, Trump would've gotten over 3 million more votes than he did in places like California and New York (ie the places where most voters live) because of his campaigning? How do you figure that?
It’s not an argument. It’s pure speculation as to how the vote would turn out. Maybe Trump wins. Maybe Hillary. The point is we don’t know and the popular vote from 2016 is indicative of nothing where the game was not played by “win by popular vote.”
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It’s not an argument. It’s pure speculation as to how the vote would turn out. Maybe Trump wins. Maybe Hillary. The point is we don’t know and the popular vote from 2016 is indicative of nothing where the game was not played by “win by popular vote.”

Well the thing is, although we don't know for sure, we have data on people's political opinions and preferences all across the county. And pollsters spend their careers projecting hypothetical scenarios to gather precisely that kind of data. And the only way for Trump to win in a popular election in this country is to convince more voters in blue (ie populous) places to vote for him. And I've never seen the data on where such support would magically emerge - on the contrary, those are the places where he's least popular. So, I'm at least glad to be on the same page that it's totally baseless speculation to say Trump would've won an election by popular vote.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well the thing is, although we don't know for sure, we have data on people's political opinions and preferences all across the county. And pollsters spend their careers projecting hypothetical scenarios to gather precisely that kind of data. And the only way for Trump to win in a popular election in this country is to convince more voters in blue (ie populous) places to vote for him. And I've never seen the data on where such support would magically emerge - on the contrary, those are the places where he's least popular. So, I'm at least glad to be on the same page that it's totally baseless speculation to say Trump would've won an election by popular vote.
And it’s speculation that Hillary would have won. And pollsters were embarrassing fly wrong last time.
 
Top