When is a landslide not a landslide?

hislegacy said:

A huge margin of victory

Would that not be winning everything?

Click to expand...

No. The number of times that you win relative to the competition does not constitute your margin of victory. Your margin of victory is how much you win by. Words have meanings.

You could argue that he won a landslide in the electoral count, but that ignores the fact that votes there are awarded en bloc and many states he won in the college he won by pretty small margins. As for the Senate and the House races, even though they are held at the same time they are separate races from the PResidential one. Trying to credit the Presidential candidate for those victories doesn't make sense.

Not only was it a landslide, it was a red tsunami. One of the greatest political comebacks in history.

hislegacy said:

Can we agree to at least be intellectually honest?

Click to expand...

Intellectually honest???

You're talking about the progressive Left here. They insist that boys can be girls, and girls can be boys; or, if you prefer, that both can be "something else", as they insist there are 427 genders. They think men can menstruate and breastfeed, and that if a woman has a double mastectomy and takes enough testosterone supplements to grow facial hair, that makes her a man.

They think that two males or two females can "get married" and adopt children, and that there's absolutely no difference between that and a man and a woman marrying and procreating naturally. Some of them think that there should be approved unions between any number of males and females, on both sides; or that adults should be able to "marry" children, and that all this should be accepted as perfectly normal.

They believe that children in the womb are not children; indeed, that they are not even human. They are a "blob of cells", or at most, an "unformed fetus"---and not being human, it is perfectly licit to kill them and not be charged with murder. (Unless, of course, the mother wants the child, and miscarries because she is physically assaulted---then, hey, presto-chango, abracadabra, hocus-pocus, alakazam! Now it's a baby, and the assaulter can be brought up on charges.)

Now, I ask you: do you really think that people who firmly believe such outlandish, insane nonsense are capable of intellectual honesty???

Please.

hislegacy said:

What do you call it when one sides wins everything?

Click to expand...

RocksInMyHead said:

Not a landslide. You could call it a sweep, a "red wave", tossing the bums out, etc.

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure that it matters what you call it. You could call it a big win; or you could call it a mandate; you could call it a demand for change, or you could call it peanut butter guacamole, if you wanted to. The name doesn't really matter, IMHO. What matters is that the People at large sent a message to the people on one side of the political spectrum, and the people on that side of the spectrum ignore or dismiss that message to their detriment. Apparently affordable gas and groceries, lower medical costs, and safer neighborhoods that are not overrun with Salvadoran gang criminals raping their daughters is more of a concern to the People at large than state-funded sex change operations for incarcerated felons, taxpayer aid being sent to foreign terrorist organizations, and mandatory purchasing of electric vehicles that don't work.

Im going to try the red text thing and see if it help my previous lonely and neglected post.

The electoral college is a distortion of what We The People prefer.

Of course its the the valid constitutional method for tabulating the results. But it does not reflect the size of the mandate from We The People - which is actually very slender re the president.

durangodawood said:

Im going to try the red text thing and see if it help my previous lonely and neglected post.

The electoral college is a distortion of what We The People prefer.

Of course its the the valid constitutional method for tabulating the results. But it does not reflect the size of the mandate from We The People - which is actually very slender re the president.

Click to expand...

Even the Founders themselves felt that the Electoral College wasn't perfect; they thought that it needed some tweaking somehow to make it better, but they couldn't figure out what to do with it. So, they decided to leave it alone, with the hopes that some successive generation of American statesmen could perfect it.

That never happened, however. In the 230+ years since the Constitution was ratified, no generation of American statesmen---or any generation of American politicians---has ever perfected the system. And it's extremely unlikely to happen now, since the US government has gone from this, in 1791:



To this, in 2025:

hislegacy said:

The Electoral College was set up by We the People to protect We the People.

In this case. We the People spoke very clearly in the Electoral College, the popular vote, the Senate and the House

Click to expand...

We The People (thats the voting citizens) prefered Trump by a margin of appx 2%. Thats very slender.

The electoral college is how we determine who wins. But the popular vote is literally what We The People want. Its the sentiment of the voting citizens.

Wolseley said:

Even the Founders themselves felt that the Electoral College wasn't perfect; they thought that it needed some tweaking somehow to make it better, but they couldn't figure out what to do with it. So, they decided to leave it alone, with the hopes that some successive generation of American statesmen could perfect it.

That never happened, however. In the 230+ years since the Constitution was ratified, no generation of American statesmen---or any generation of American politicians---has ever perfected the system. And it's extremely unlikely to happen now, since the US government has gone from this, in 1791:

Click to expand...

Im not arguing against the EC (I do that plenty elsewhere).

I'm just pointing out where citizen sentiment is at re the choice of president. There is no landslide in what We The People preferred re the pres. Merely a quite slender margin.

hislegacy said:

We know that in reality President Trump won a landslide election. With 312 electoral college votes, with 2.93 million more in the popular vote - all seven swing states - The majority in the House - The Majority in the Senate.

That is undeniable, so what's a group to do? Admit a major defeat. And to their credit, there are some on the left who are doing just that.

But then there is this:

Trump’s win has been described as resounding. It was closer than you think

The vice president improved on Biden’s margins in some swing states, but Trump swept them all

www.independent.co.uk

A deeper look at the results in key states from the 2024 races shows just how close Harris could have made it to the presidency.​

​

Some have gone so far out of reality to take the votes that went to other candidates (RFK and others) and say that these votes that were not for Trump closes the gap between the popular vote.

But they were also not for Kamala - if you use the same method, Kamala lost by even greater.

The independent votes did not hurt one candidate and help the other - they are unassigned to either candidate.

So let's follow the math - and not make up things so the devastating loss doesn't seem as devastating.

Trump won the electoral college vote 312 to 226 - or 58% to 42%
Trump won the Popular vote 76,068,135 to Harris' 73,134,346 - a difference of 2,933,738
Republicans won the Senate - 53 to 47
Republicans won the House - 218 to 209

A complete Sweep of elections.

Can we agree to at least be intellectually honest?

Click to expand...

Nope, just watch the thread and watch the media.

hislegacy said:

We know that in reality President Trump won a landslide election. With 312 electoral college votes, with 2.93 million more in the popular vote - all seven swing states - The majority in the House - The Majority in the Senate.

That is undeniable, so what's a group to do? Admit a major defeat. And to their credit, there are some on the left who are doing just that.

But then there is this:

Trump’s win has been described as resounding. It was closer than you think

The vice president improved on Biden’s margins in some swing states, but Trump swept them all

www.independent.co.uk

A deeper look at the results in key states from the 2024 races shows just how close Harris could have made it to the presidency.​

​

Some have gone so far out of reality to take the votes that went to other candidates (RFK and others) and say that these votes that were not for Trump closes the gap between the popular vote.

But they were also not for Kamala - if you use the same method, Kamala lost by even greater.

The independent votes did not hurt one candidate and help the other - they are unassigned to either candidate.

So let's follow the math - and not make up things so the devastating loss doesn't seem as devastating.

Trump won the electoral college vote 312 to 226 - or 58% to 42%
Trump won the Popular vote 76,068,135 to Harris' 73,134,346 - a difference of 2,933,738
Republicans won the Senate - 53 to 47
Republicans won the House - 218 to 209

A complete Sweep of elections.

Can we agree to at least be intellectually honest?

Click to expand...

If I am being honest - the difference in the Popular Vote is actually greater than we know - since Harris did so well in States that don't require voter ID and she flooded the country with illegal aliens so they could vote for her.

hislegacy said:

The Electoral College was set up by We the People to protect We the People.

In this case. We the People spoke very clearly in the Electoral College, the popular vote, the Senate and the House

Click to expand...

For some reason the California vote takes longer to count than almost everywhere else. I know there have been lots of problems with fires etc. but the hurricane ravaged southeastern states counted their votes promptly.

Trump’s popular margin was somewhat larger when CA started their count & has been at a crawl for days. As Trump’s popular margin decreases, I am thankful we still have the electoral college.

Certainly no huge win in the House. The GOP will end up with another single digit majority, probably not much different from the current one.

And while the GOP did gain a couple of seats in the Senate, two of those were expected regardless of who was running for President, and a third was won by only .3% of the vote. Trump scored a decent victory, but calling it a landslide or acting as if it gives him carte blanch to do whatever he wants is a bit much.

In Pennsylvania we have an interesting situation in the US Senate race between GOP candidate Dave McCormick and the demo incumbent. For days the AP has had the vote count at 99% complete and called the race in favor of Dave McCormick and his margin of victory stood at around 40,000 votes in a tight race.

Election officials have reassured everyone that the narrow margin of victory results in a recount. Ok fine and the vote margin is starting to shift in favor of the incumbent. It always seems like the demos popular support becomes more evident after the smooth running aspect of the election has seemed to have been established and on the recount.

The situation with Dave McCormick is really starting to look farcical. Much of the alleged, sudden support for the incumbent seems to be out of the Philadelphia area. This is starting to remind me of Trump having the popular vote for days in Pennsylvania after Election Day in 2020 but somehow the good ol dems won ( I know, I know the debunked “conspiracy” ).

Some examples o the late “surge” for the demo incumbent: