2024 Election Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reddit and Twitter are abuzz with voter fraud by starlink

Let me know when any leaders in the Democratic Party, including either Harris or Biden, start pushing this theory and planning their protest.

Why are magas so jittery? Nervous that Dems aren’t interested in discourse with you. It’s a bit quiet in current Potus administration. I know why, do you?

I don't know why MAGAs are jittery but I'm a Democrat and I'm nervous that Dems won't learn anything from the loss if we continue to rationalize it away like many are doing here. Candidates for next election will need to make themselves known in 2 years. They better focus their messaging on the economy and immigration and turn away from wokeness.

+100

The Democrats unfortunately seem to be setting themselves up for failure again and perhaps will need to lose in 2028 in order to hit rock bottom. The media is doing the party no favors here by serving up red meat to make them feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

Can you re-attempt the point you're trying to make here?

Screaming “no mandate” is a foolish argument.

It is not a foolish argument. The "mandate" argument is being used as support for Trump re-inventing all of government. He doesn't have a mandate for that. Most of the country doesn't even want that (even his voters only prioritized a couple of issues personal to them). He won a paper-thin victory in three states that decided the election.

His mandate is control of all 3 branches of government. Just four years ago, Biden had complete control of all 3 branches of government winning by an even narrower EC margin in just a couple battlegrounds states and proceeded to impose a lot of super progressive policies. If this was a sincere argument, you would have been telling Biden four years ago to back off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

Can you re-attempt the point you're trying to make here?

Screaming “no mandate” is a foolish argument.

It is not a foolish argument. The "mandate" argument is being used as support for Trump re-inventing all of government. He doesn't have a mandate for that. Most of the country doesn't even want that (even his voters only prioritized a couple of issues personal to them). He won a paper-thin victory in three states that decided the election.

His mandate is control of all 3 branches of government. Just four years ago, Biden had complete control of all 3 branches of government winning by an even narrower EC margin in just a couple battlegrounds states and proceeded to impose a lot of super progressive policies. If this was a sincere argument, you would have been telling Biden four years ago to back off.

First, you're not describing a mandate. And second, I presume you mean two branches of government (executive and legislative) and not including the judicial branch (which isn't supposed to be controlled or political).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

Can you re-attempt the point you're trying to make here?

Screaming “no mandate” is a foolish argument.

It is not a foolish argument. The "mandate" argument is being used as support for Trump re-inventing all of government. He doesn't have a mandate for that. Most of the country doesn't even want that (even his voters only prioritized a couple of issues personal to them). He won a paper-thin victory in three states that decided the election.

His mandate is control of all 3 branches of government. Just four years ago, Biden had complete control of all 3 branches of government winning by an even narrower EC margin in just a couple battlegrounds states and proceeded to impose a lot of super progressive policies. If this was a sincere argument, you would have been telling Biden four years ago to back off.

First, you're not describing a mandate. And second, I presume you mean two branches of government (executive and legislative) and not including the judicial branch (which isn't supposed to be controlled or political).

Okay, go and yell at your representatives that Trump doesn’t have a mandate. I am sure that conversation will go as you expect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

Can you re-attempt the point you're trying to make here?

Screaming “no mandate” is a foolish argument.

It is not a foolish argument. The "mandate" argument is being used as support for Trump re-inventing all of government. He doesn't have a mandate for that. Most of the country doesn't even want that (even his voters only prioritized a couple of issues personal to them). He won a paper-thin victory in three states that decided the election.

His mandate is control of all 3 branches of government. Just four years ago, Biden had complete control of all 3 branches of government winning by an even narrower EC margin in just a couple battlegrounds states and proceeded to impose a lot of super progressive policies. If this was a sincere argument, you would have been telling Biden four years ago to back off.

First, you're not describing a mandate. And second, I presume you mean two branches of government (executive and legislative) and not including the judicial branch (which isn't supposed to be controlled or political).

Okay, go and yell at your representatives that Trump doesn’t have a mandate. I am sure that conversation will go as you expect.

For example, Gaetz dropping out because he wouldn't have a mandate-proof way of getting confirmed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

Can you re-attempt the point you're trying to make here?

Screaming “no mandate” is a foolish argument.

It is not a foolish argument. The "mandate" argument is being used as support for Trump re-inventing all of government. He doesn't have a mandate for that. Most of the country doesn't even want that (even his voters only prioritized a couple of issues personal to them). He won a paper-thin victory in three states that decided the election.

His mandate is control of all 3 branches of government. Just four years ago, Biden had complete control of all 3 branches of government winning by an even narrower EC margin in just a couple battlegrounds states and proceeded to impose a lot of super progressive policies. If this was a sincere argument, you would have been telling Biden four years ago to back off.

Please go learn what the three branches of government are, TIA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

Can you re-attempt the point you're trying to make here?

Screaming “no mandate” is a foolish argument.

It is not a foolish argument. The "mandate" argument is being used as support for Trump re-inventing all of government. He doesn't have a mandate for that. Most of the country doesn't even want that (even his voters only prioritized a couple of issues personal to them). He won a paper-thin victory in three states that decided the election.

His mandate is control of all 3 branches of government. Just four years ago, Biden had complete control of all 3 branches of government winning by an even narrower EC margin in just a couple battlegrounds states and proceeded to impose a lot of super progressive policies. If this was a sincere argument, you would have been telling Biden four years ago to back off.

First, you're not describing a mandate. And second, I presume you mean two branches of government (executive and legislative) and not including the judicial branch (which isn't supposed to be controlled or political).

Okay, go and yell at your representatives that Trump doesn’t have a mandate. I am sure that conversation will go as you expect.

My representative knows he doesn’t have a mandate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

So 50% equals mandate, but not 49.9%? Hmm, if you say so. Feels like a mandate, and a strong one, under the circumstances.

No, neither is really a mandate. It has been pointed out that in the last 4 elections the popular vote margin has been extremely close, much closer than in the entire previous century.
This shows that there is pretty even support for both sides. However the electoral college suppresses the popular vote because a lot of people feel their vote doesn’t matter.

The absolute absurdity of the electoral college. A person's vote in New York doesn't count in the same way that a person's vote in Alabama doesn't count. Why bother showing up when a handful of voters in a handful of states get to decide.

It’s designed so that the states that produce the New Yorkers’ food don’t leave the union. Why choose to grow food if your voice is never heard because the dense city dwellers keep drowning your concerns out?

People that poo poo the EC truly do not understand human behavior or history of civilization