MikeO Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Is this getting wide coverage? http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120?rm=eu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Is this getting wide coverage? http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120?rm=eu First I'd heard of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith B Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 We have a really stupid system of selecting a president. The actual vote count doesn't matter. The state by state vote is what matters and Hillary starts with an overwhelming advantage just by carrying California, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. If she wins Pennsylvania, and she's up by 8 points there, she wins. That's the key state. Ignore the national polls. Sibdane 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 First I'd heard of it. Is Newsweek a reputable source? Another story linked... http://europe.newsweek.com/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373 If the stories are accurate why isn't Hilary using them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjazzbassist Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Is Newsweek a reputable source? Another story linked... http://europe.newsweek.com/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373 If the stories are accurate why isn't Hilary using them? Accurate and already known. No one cares. Logic and reason are all voting for Hillary or third party. Trump voters don't care about facts and reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibdane Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 We have a really stupid system of selecting a president. The actual vote count doesn't matter. The state by state vote is what matters and Hillary starts with an overwhelming advantage just by carrying California, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. If she wins Pennsylvania, and she's up by 8 points there, she wins. That's the key state. Ignore the national polls. Exactly. Trump will dominate in Southern states but those states usually only around 6-9 electoral votes apiece, whereas Clinton will win California which has 55 I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 From what I've heard, the mid west states are going his way too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjazzbassist Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 We have a really stupid system of selecting a president. The actual vote count doesn't matter. The state by state vote is what matters and Hillary starts with an overwhelming advantage just by carrying California, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. If she wins Pennsylvania, and she's up by 8 points there, she wins. That's the key state. Ignore the national polls. Yes and no. It's stupid but also makes sense. The Deep South is empty and sparsely populated yet new York is massively populated, I get that NY should have more pull due to population than GA or AL. But I don't like that it's all or nothing. I wish it was percentage of the win gets percentage of the electoral votes. The all or nothing is stupid. Sibdane 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibdane Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Yes and no. It's stupid but also makes sense. The Deep South is empty and sparsely populated yet new York is massively populated, I get that NY should have more pull due to population than GA or AL. But I don't like that it's all or nothing. I wish it was percentage of the win gets percentage of the electoral votes. The all or nothing is stupid. I agree with this. If the majority of the people in your country vote for you, that should have an impact on your numbers. I also agree that it makes sense to give states like CA, NY, TX & FL a lot more pull. I guess no system is perfect, but it was pretty crazy when Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush had the most electoral votes and won the election that year. markjazzbassist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibdane Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 From what I've heard, the mid west states are going his way too They also don't have a lot of electoral votes -- similar to the South. Hillary will have the big wins I think, except for maybe Texas, but it's more competitive there than ever, so who knows. Polling averages should be taken with a grain of salt too. Romney and Obama were pretty close percentage-wise right up until the election, but Obama pretty much blew him away on election day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 They also don't have a lot of electoral votes -- similar to the South. Hillary will have the big wins I think, except for maybe Texas, but it's more competitive there than ever, so who knows. Polling averages should be taken with a grain of salt too. Romney and Obama were pretty close percentage-wise right up until the election, but Obama pretty much blew him away on election day. hope you're right. My visit to the inlaws this Christmas is getting more and more worrying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjazzbassist Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) I agree with this. If the majority of the people in your country vote for you, that should have an impact on your numbers. I also agree that it makes sense to give states like CA, NY, TX & FL a lot more pull. I guess no system is perfect, but it was pretty crazy when Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush had the most electoral votes and won the election that year. yeah it's weird. Basically the founding fathers didn't want the popular vote because they realized the uneducated outnumbered the educated so they gave the power to the population centers with the Electoral College. I do think modernizing it would be to give percentage of votes based on their win percentage. That would mean each candidate would have to fight hard to campaign everywhere not just the big states. Plus it would give the sparse states a little more pull. Lastly, it would give those living in a Red/Blue dominated state but who vote the other way a voice and an actual impact in the election (unlike my vote in Louisiana). This would make voting more important and vital. Edited November 3, 2016 by markjazzbassist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibdane Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 yeah it's weird. Basically the founding fathers didn't want the popular vote because they realized the uneducated outnumbered the educated so they gave the power to the population centers with the Electoral College. I do think modernizing it would be to give percentage of votes based on their win percentage. That would mean each candidate would have to fight hard to campaign everywhere not just the big states. Plus it would give the sparse states a little more pull. Lastly, it would give those living in a Red/Blue dominated state but who vote the other way a voice and an actual impact in the election (unlike my vote in Louisiana). This would make voting more important and vital. Same in my state -- it will always vote Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 I was traveling in New Jersey and Virginia this week. In NJ, there were as many Trump posters as Hillary posters, which surprised me. In Virginia, I never saw a single Hillary poster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 I was traveling in New Jersey and Virginia this week. In NJ, there were as many Trump posters as Hillary posters, which surprised me. In Virginia, I never saw a single Hillary poster. Not surprised, with the neanderthals behind Trump I'd hesitate to advertise the fact that I disagreed with them. Same in my state -- it will always vote Republican. Works the same over here, wherever I've lived has always been a solid Conservative constituency so my vote has never counted for anything. holystove 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Works the same over here, wherever I've lived has always been a solid Conservative constituency so my vote has never counted for anything. You're underestimating your potential influence. It would make the headlines if the Monster Raving Loony Party achieved a 4-digit total. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 You're underestimating your potential influence. It would make the headlines if the Monster Raving Loony Party achieved a 4-digit total. http://www.loonyparty.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubecula Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU I remember this very very well. still makes me laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubecula Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 however as this is American Vote for a Dick Head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 Is this getting wide coverage? http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120?rm=eu Nope and wont matter, Trump supporters cant read anything longer that a headline or a tweet, This didnt have an effect either: http://nordic.businessinsider.com/economists-denounce-trump-in-open-letter-2016-11?r=US&IR=T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 What sort of time can we expect to have a decent idea of the results on Tuesday (or will it take longer)? I know the last general election over here the exit polls on the BBC called it virtually exactly right the moment voting closed, even though nobody really believed them because the outcome was so different to everything every poll had said on the run-up. Realise the different time zones across the US complicates matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 What sort of time can we expect to have a decent idea of the results on Tuesday (or will it take longer)? I know the last general election over here the exit polls on the BBC called it virtually exactly right the moment voting closed, even though nobody really believed them because the outcome was so different to everything every poll had said on the run-up. Realise the different time zones across the US complicates matters. In most cases, the outcome is clear by midnight Eastern time. This time around, though, it might be another "hanging chad" election, with the result in question for a while. I have this awful sense of foreboding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 In most cases, the outcome is clear by midnight Eastern time. This time around, though, it might be another "hanging chad" election, with the result in question for a while. I have this awful sense of foreboding. I share it. What's "midnight Eastern time" in real money (GMT)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 I share it. What's "midnight Eastern time" in real money (GMT)? Since our clocks went back last night, 5am your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 Since our clocks went back last night, 5am your time. I'll set my alarm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 Don't lose your beauty sleep you need it the result will still be the same at 7am Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 Don't lose your beauty sleep you need it the result will still be the same at 7am Don't need that any more; have a long standing understanding wife who loves me ugly thankfully . Have to watch it live, it's potentially life-changing for my kids/grandkids, can't look them in the face in twenty years time and tell them I watched it on Sky+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted November 6, 2016 Report Share Posted November 6, 2016 Brilliant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 7, 2016 Report Share Posted November 7, 2016 Clinton cleared again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.