It's fun how your only argument here is to twist logic in order to assert that 2 wrongs make a right, but yet you still somehow seem to consider yourself a moral person.
They don’t need to.
They certainly are the general public in red states
Democrats have also self gerrymandered themselves. Gerrymandering didn’t cause Democrats to lose the Rust Belt.
You left out the part of how contemptuous that pluralistic minority is of the majority of Americans, to the extent that they often don't even consider that majority to be Americans, but I digress.you’re right they don’t need a majority of votes in order to gain power and look where this has gotten us, an ultra right wing extremist party that is contemptuous of science, facts, and is now engaging in rampant, naked corruption on a scale never before seen in the US.
maybe that’s a sign the current system is bad.
You use the most beautiful strawIt's fun how your only argument here is to twist logic in order to assert that 2 wrongs make a right, but yet you still somehow seem to consider yourself a moral person.
Thank you.You use the most beautiful straw
Field the team that puts Americas workers first and we'll be rewarded.
It's fun how your only argument here is to twist logic in order to assert that 2 wrongs make a right, but yet you still somehow seem to consider yourself a moral person.
Should have clarified. I don’t recall a huge push from Democrats to reform the electoral college after Obama won the White House. The lamentations of electoral injustice only seem to come from the losing party.Wait wut?
Should have clarified. I don’t recall a huge push from Democrats to reform the electoral college after Obama won the White House. The lamentations of electoral injustice only seem to come from the losing party.
Ah #bothsides
It's the Democrats' fault for dressing provocatively.Ah #bothsides
Should have clarified. I don’t recall a huge push from Democrats to reform the electoral college after Obama won the White House. The lamentations of electoral injustice only seem to come from the losing party.
Should have clarified. I don’t recall a huge push from Democrats to reform the electoral college after Obama won the White House. The lamentations of electoral injustice only seem to come from the losing party.
Have you thought about why those are different?
Our electoral system does not necessitate a popular vote victory, by design. The difference is electoral victory vs defeat. Evoking the popular vote after electoral defeat is just sour grapes. You may have more touchdowns, but that doesn’t matter if your opponent beats you on points with field goals.Have you thought about why those are different?
Our electoral system does not necessitate a popular vote victory, by design. The difference is electoral victory vs defeat. Evoking the popular vote after electoral defeat is just sour grapes. You may have more touchdowns, but that doesn’t matter if your opponent beats you on points with field goals.
Only a fool would think that is meaningless. If presidential elections don’t consistently track what the majority of voters want they will lose legitimacy and the system will collapse.
We are a democracy. What the most people want is at the heart of why our system exists.
That analogy has nothing to do with anything.....roflOur electoral system does not necessitate a popular vote victory, by design. The difference is electoral victory vs defeat. Evoking the popular vote after electoral defeat is just sour grapes. You may have more touchdowns, but that doesn’t matter if your opponent beats you on points with field goals.
Then you should find it highly relatable. You’re right though, we should revert back to an over abundance of concern for Tulsi Gabbard.That analogy has nothing to do with anything.....rofl
I responded to your question as posed. Within the context of this thread, there is a subset of the Democrat coalition that rejects globalism, military interventionism, the military industial complex and, while they reject Trump, they also see impeachment as a distraction that potentially helps Trump more than it harms them.what does this have to do with my point.
I responded to your question as posed. Within the context of this thread, there is a subset of the Democrat coalition that rejects globalism, military interventionism, the military industial complex and, while they reject Trump, they also see impeachment as a distraction that potentially helps Trump more than it harms them.
Tulsi is speaking to that subset. Dismiss them, and they splinter off.
That puts her in the Yang, Booker and Castro tier. I don’t hear many people questioning the legitimacy of their candidacies.Tulsi polls at around 1-2% among those who identify as Democrats, which is statistically indistinguishable from zero so no, there really isn’t, haha.
The primary source of what little support she has among democratic primary voters are those who identify as Republicans but happen to live in states with open primaries. Ie: people who aren’t going to actually vote for a democrat anyway.