Closest election in 21st Century

[headshuck]

Rachel Maddow dropping her head was quickly clipped. It probably hit the desk.

[Caveira]

She’s already selling books before she retires lol

of the yalls who bashed Fox for lying this week.  How many of the lefties here will say msnbc and Rachel maddow sure are shading the truth.  I’ll bet 0 of y’all will 

Edited yesterday at 01:51 AM by Caveira

[ionel]

13 minutes ago, Caveira said:

She’s already selling books before she retires lol

of the yalls who bashed Fox for lying this week.  How many of the lefties here will say msnbc and Rachel maddow sure are shading the truth.  I’ll bet 0 of y’all will 

Is it true the book is titled:  Kamala Salad.

[headshuck]

Is it true the book is titled:  Kamala Salad.

Saladala

[ThreePointTakedown]

 

What is your claim? Maybe I can address it. 

Just to get ahead of it. If your claim is that it wasn't the closest presidential election in the 21^st century. It was(1.47% difference, side note; how can any election be considered a landslide if you win less than 50% of the popular vote? But I digress). Go back and look at the numbers. Next closest was in 2000 at .5% difference. But then again that wasn't in the 21^st century. Seeing as how that moron put it in quotations, I assume that is the claim and they are absolutely wrong. But glad you took the time to post your support.  

If you have contrary information please present it? 

 

[mspart]

20 hours ago, headshuck said:

Rachel Maddow dropping her head was quickly clipped. It probably hit the desk.
 

2000 (not technically 21st century)   Bush 271 Gore 266  and this after SCOTUS involvement

2004   Bush 286   Kerry  251    Closer than 2024 election

2008  Obama 365   McCain  173

2012   Obama  332  Romney  206

2016   Trump  304   clinton  227    Closer than 2024 election

2020   Biden  306    Trump  232   Closer than 2024 election

2024   Trump 312   Harris  226     4th closest election in the 21st century

And there you have it.   Kamala still can't tell the truth when the facts are staring her in the face.  In fact she got the least electoral votes of 2 of the other losers.   So not even close to being the closest race in the 21st century.   Even when Trump lost he got more electoral votes than Kamala.   

mspart

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

2000 (not technically 21st century)   Bush 271 Gore 266  and this after SCOTUS involvement

2004   Bush 286   Kerry  251    Closer than 2024 election

2008  Obama 365   McCain  173

2012   Obama  332  Romney  206

2016   Trump  304   clinton  227    Closer than 2024 election

2020   Biden  306    Trump  232   Closer than 2024 election

2024   Trump 312   Harris  226     4th closest election in the 21st century

And there you have it.   Kamala still can't tell the truth when the facts are staring her in the face.  In fact she got the least electoral votes of 2 of the other losers.   So not even close to being the closest race in the 21st century.   Even when Trump lost he got more electoral votes than Kamala.   

mspart

Exactly...the goal isn't to get more popular votes.  To talk about how close the popular vote was is a losers mentality.

[Paul158]

5 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

 

What is your claim? Maybe I can address it. 

Just to get ahead of it. If your claim is that it wasn't the closest presidential election in the 21^st century. It was(1.47% difference, side note; how can any election be considered a landslide if you win less than 50% of the popular vote? But I digress). Go back and look at the numbers. Next closest was in 2000 at .5% difference. But then again that wasn't in the 21^st century. Seeing as how that moron put it in quotations, I assume that is the claim and they are absolutely wrong. But glad you took the time to post your support.  

If you have contrary information please present it? 

 

Maybe the Democrats will learn one day that you don't win or lose an election with the popular vote. It has been the electoral votes that count and only the electoral votes. Trump won by 86 electoral votes. 312 t0 226. Right around a 16 Percent win.

[red viking]

6 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Maybe the Democrats will learn one day that you don't win or lose an election with the popular vote. It has been the electoral votes that count and only the electoral votes. Trump won by 86 electoral votes. 312 t0 226. Right around a 16 Percent win.

The electoral college AND Senate BOTH need to be abolished. They're both crap and undermine principles of a representative democracy. I'd gut both of them with impunity. 

[Caveira]

Just now, red viking said:

The electoral college AND Senate BOTH need to be abolished. They're both crap and undermine principles of a representative democracy. I'd gut both of them with impunity. 

Good thing pro terrorist anti American people aren’t in charge boss. 

[ionel]

Pretty sure Vikings were not part of our founding fathers for a reason.  

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

11 minutes ago, red viking said:

The electoral college AND Senate BOTH need to be abolished. They're both crap and undermine principles of a representative democracy. I'd gut both of them with impunity. 

More threats of physical violence...

[El Luchador]

13 minutes ago, red viking said:

The electoral college AND Senate BOTH need to be abolished. They're both crap and undermine principles of a representative democracy. I'd gut both of them with impunity. 

You sound like someone who just fell out of a coconut tree.

[mspart]

mspart

[jross]

It’s sort of like watching a baseball game.  The Jumbotron lists a rare scoped fact to tell a narrative.  On Tuesday nights, against left handed pitchers, in the sixth inning, when batting eighth in the lineup, Jonny is batting .294.

Meanwhile his season average is 0.193.

[headshuck]

It’s sort of like watching a baseball game.  The Jumbotron lists a rare scoped fact to tell a narrative.  On Tuesday nights, against left handed pitchers, in the sixth inning, when batting eighth in the lineup, Jonny is batting .294.
Meanwhile his season average is 0.193.

Did you unwittingly share an unposted Tripnsweep narrative?

[Offthemat]

Naw, trippin would have known Jonny, or been related to him. 

[Gene Mills Fan]

14 hours ago, red viking said:

The electoral college AND Senate BOTH need to be abolished. They're both crap and undermine principles of a representative democracy. I'd gut both of them with impunity. 

cocktail thoughts  at the Viking Social Club bar?

[Offthemat]

46 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

cocktail thoughts  at the Viking Social Club bar?

Backyard bbq and nose piercings.

[ThreePointTakedown]

Rather than asking yourself what metric Kamala may have been citing and starting the discussion there. Did you ask yourself why your knee jerk reaction was to brand the claim as a lie. It wasn't. Clearly. Based on everyone tacitly agreeing with Ms. Harris and not refuting the fact that the percentage of the vote was closer than any presidential election in the 21st century. Just simply pivoting to, 'well that's not the metric I feel is the best' and not put forth a reason why it should be prioritized over another. 

Just so you could dunk on someone that you don't like. Have you asked yourself why you all tend to do that? Is it just so you can more comfortably retain your cognitive biases without having to address them? That's my guess. Because an honest person would say, 'Kamala is correct in one area, but also there are other metrics that paint a different picture'. But y'all aren't honest. 

 

Kamala was correct. I know it's difficult for some of you all to see a person like that challenging your version of reality. So much so that you need to scream into the void in the hopes that others rally to your side. But you will always get push back from me and my big text. Because you are almost always wrong about everything you think and feel. And I'm more than happy to point it out with a smile on my face
 

and I know that pisses some people off. ;D

[Paul158]

17 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

Rather than asking yourself what metric Kamala may have been citing and starting the discussion there. Did you ask yourself why your knee jerk reaction was to brand the claim as a lie. It wasn't. Clearly. Based on everyone tacitly agreeing with Ms. Harris and not refuting the fact that the percentage of the vote was closer than any presidential election in the 21st century. Just simply pivoting to, 'well that's not the metric I feel is the best' and not put forth a reason why it should be prioritized over another. 

Just so you could dunk on someone that you don't like. Have you asked yourself why you all tend to do that? Is it just so you can more comfortably retain your cognitive biases without having to address them? That's my guess. Because an honest person would say, 'Kamala is correct in one area, but also there are other metrics that paint a different picture'. But y'all aren't honest. 

 

Kamala was correct. I know it's difficult for some of you all to see a person like that challenging your version of reality. So much so that you need to scream into the void in the hopes that others rally to your side. But you will always get push back from me and my big text. Because you are almost always wrong about everything you think and feel. And I'm more than happy to point it out with a smile on my face
 

and I know that pisses some people off. ;D

Do you think Kamala was your best candidate to put forward? If not, who would you have chosen? Do you agree with Kamala that she just needed more time?  How much time would be enough to secure her victory?

[jross]

The greater dishonestly is in telling an incomplete picture.  Both statements can be true and the collection of metrics indicates a more comprehensive truth.

[ThreePointTakedown]

Thought Stopper Alert

 

What I take from you saying that is, 'if you don't put forth a fully accurate picture of every topic, to my satisfaction, I am within my right to dismiss your information as false and not consider it at all.' 

 

Where do we go from there? You are setting it up so you can move the goal posts as much as you want whenever you want. My toddler does the same thing when not getting their way. 

 

You're all branding yourselves as biased, dishonest, and unable/unwilling to even consider information as true that challenges your opinion. Why should anyone take you seriously? And do you even care? 

 

Every attempt to pivot, muddy, and shift goal posts is a defense mechanism your brain forces you to type so your opinions are not challenged in a meaningful way.

[Paul158]

9 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

Thought Stopper Alert

 

What I take from you saying that is, 'if you don't put forth a fully accurate picture of every topic, to my satisfaction, I am within my right to dismiss your information as false and not consider it at all.' 

 

Where do we go from there? You are setting it up so you can move the goal posts as much as you want whenever you want. My toddler does the same thing when not getting their way. 

 

You're all branding yourselves as biased, dishonest, and unable/unwilling to even consider information as true that challenges your opinion. Why should anyone take you seriously? And do you even care? 

 

Every attempt to pivot, muddy, and shift goal posts is a defense mechanism your brain forces you to type so your opinions are not challenged in a meaningful way.

I was wondering if you would be so kind to answer some of the questions I asked you. Thanks.

[Gene Mills Fan]

'if you don't put forth a fully accurate picture of every topic,  I am within my right to consider your information as cherry picked"