BDKJMU wrote:Anyone catch earlier in the week when Biden called AOC “brilliant” Lawl, he’s truly lost it if he believes she’s brilliant..
She just looks brilliant because of the competition, and they only look smart because the Republicans exist.

BDKJMU wrote:Anyone catch earlier in the week when Biden called AOC “brilliant” Lawl, he’s truly lost it if he believes she’s brilliant..
CID1990 wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
What's interesting about that is that Trump does not have a "clear advantage" over any of the Democrat choices offered.
The last one is the interesting one.
Right now, the candidates are simply “not Trump”
But if the Dems nominate anyone other than Biden, the gap is going to close within the margin of error, and Trump will win the rust belt states again
Because the socialist label will stick easily to any of them except Biden
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gil Dobie wrote:Surfs up Dude's
Tulsi 2020
houndawg wrote:CID1990 wrote:
The last one is the interesting one.
Right now, the candidates are simply “not Trump”
But if the Dems nominate anyone other than Biden, the gap is going to close within the margin of error, and Trump will win the rust belt states again
Because the socialist label will stick easily to any of them except Biden
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They're lazy deadbeat scum and they better to piss in a cup before they get one single cent in handouts from my hard-earned taxes.
houndawg wrote:CID1990 wrote:
The last one is the interesting one.
Right now, the candidates are simply “not Trump”
But if the Dems nominate anyone other than Biden, the gap is going to close within the margin of error, and Trump will win the rust belt states again
Because the socialist label will stick easily to any of them except Biden
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They're lazy deadbeat scum and they better to piss in a cup before they get one single cent in handouts from my hard-earned taxes.
Cid1990 wrote:It is going to be a sad day for a lot of people when all that comes of all of this is Flynn getting whacked.
Mueller is going to take a beating on the left before this business is over
Skjellyfetti wrote:You've been posting a metric **** of HotAir articles
CID1990 wrote:Skjellyfetti wrote:You've been posting a metric **** of HotAir articles
And you posted a metric ton of conspiracy theory, Reek
HotAir does very good poll analysis
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CID1990 wrote:houndawg wrote:
They're lazy deadbeat scum and they better to piss in a cup before they get one single cent in handouts from my hard-earned taxes.
Oh yes
Gonna spread your paltry wealth all over the place
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CID1990 wrote:Biden is still chugging along:
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrisse ... ps-keepin/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AZGrizFan wrote:National polls don’t mean shit.
Chizzang wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:National polls don’t mean ****.
Considering that you don't have to win the popular election - they sure as hell don't
JohnStOnge wrote:Chizzang wrote:
Considering that you don't have to win the popular election - they sure as hell don't
Guys, the first election in which the popular vote was recorded was 1824. That was a weird one. Nobody won a majority of the popular vote and nobody won a majority of the electoral college. After that we've had 48 elections. There have been four instances in which someone won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. So in 44 of 48 instances, the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college. That's 92% of the time.
Also, there has only been one instance in which a candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. That was in 1876.
I understand that it is not 100% predictive. But if you win the majority of the popular vote nationally you are probably going to win the electoral vote.
AZGrizFan wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
Guys, the first election in which the popular vote was recorded was 1824. That was a weird one. Nobody won a majority of the popular vote and nobody won a majority of the electoral college. After that we've had 48 elections. There have been four instances in which someone won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. So in 44 of 48 instances, the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college. That's 92% of the time.
Also, there has only been one instance in which a candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. That was in 1876.
I understand that it is not 100% predictive. But if you win the majority of the popular vote nationally you are probably going to win the electoral vote.
I’ll give you one thing...you’re consistent.![]()
![]()
When libs are SO concentrated in 2-3 states, it’s meaning less and less, John. Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....
It’s not a NATIONAL election. It’s 52 individual elections. There’s a reason Donks want to abolish the electoral college. They all live in about 7 or 8 states.
AZGrizFan wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
Guys, the first election in which the popular vote was recorded was 1824. That was a weird one. Nobody won a majority of the popular vote and nobody won a majority of the electoral college. After that we've had 48 elections. There have been four instances in which someone won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. So in 44 of 48 instances, the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college. That's 92% of the time.
Also, there has only been one instance in which a candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. That was in 1876.
I understand that it is not 100% predictive. But if you win the majority of the popular vote nationally you are probably going to win the electoral vote.
I’ll give you one thing...you’re consistent.![]()
![]()
When libs are SO concentrated in 2-3 states, it’s meaning less and less, John. Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....
It’s not a NATIONAL election. It’s 52 individual elections. There’s a reason Donks want to abolish the electoral college. They all live in about 7 or 8 states.
AZGrizFan wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:
Guys, the first election in which the popular vote was recorded was 1824. That was a weird one. Nobody won a majority of the popular vote and nobody won a majority of the electoral college. After that we've had 48 elections. There have been four instances in which someone won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. So in 44 of 48 instances, the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college. That's 92% of the time.
Also, there has only been one instance in which a candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. That was in 1876.
I understand that it is not 100% predictive. But if you win the majority of the popular vote nationally you are probably going to win the electoral vote.
I’ll give you one thing...you’re consistent.![]()
![]()
When libs are SO concentrated in 2-3 states, it’s meaning less and less, John. Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....
It’s not a NATIONAL election. It’s 52 individual elections. There’s a reason Donks want to abolish the electoral college. They all live in about 7 or 8 states.
mainejeff2 wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
I’ll give you one thing...you’re consistent.![]()
![]()
When libs are SO concentrated in 2-3 states, it’s meaning less and less, John. Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....
It’s not a NATIONAL election. It’s 52 individual elections. There’s a reason Donks want to abolish the electoral college. They all live in about 7 or 8 states.
#FakeNews
Hillary won in 22 states.
AZGrizFan wrote: Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....
Cid1990 wrote:It is going to be a sad day for a lot of people when all that comes of all of this is Flynn getting whacked.
Mueller is going to take a beating on the left before this business is over
CID1990 wrote:But if the Dems nominate anyone other than Biden, the gap is going to close within the margin of error, and Trump will win the rust belt states again
CID1990 wrote:mainejeff2 wrote:
#FakeNews
Hillary won in 22 states.
You aren’t good at that readin stuff are ya?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mainejeff2 wrote:CID1990 wrote:
You aren’t good at that readin stuff are ya?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
7 or 8 = 22? Huh.