• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

(CNN) Democrats’ flip in California concludes final unresolved US House race

Captain Adverse said:
Well, when Democrats get to count the votes, and especially when they get to "rehabilitate" them, one can expect those vote tallies to swing their way. :coffee:
Click to expand...
Cool conspiracy theory!

Now can you do the one about how Obama is a foreigner and a secret Muslim?!
 
Chomsky said:
What are you implying by the bolded? Are you implying voting fraud?

And yes, curing is part of the GOTV effort. That's the whole idea - get out the vote!
Click to expand...
It's not voter fraud if it's allowed by state law.

So...in your day, did you try to get people to cure their faulty votes? Did you target voters from a particular party?

That seems to be what was done in CA.
 
watsup said:
The thread is fine. It is your posts that so often are in the wrong forum. Do you still not know where the conspiracy forum is?
Click to expand...
My comments are on-topic, so no...this is not the wrong forum.

Bye.
 
Mycroft said:
It's not voter fraud if it's allowed by state law.

So...in your day, did you try to get people to cure their faulty votes? Did you target voters from a particular party?

That seems to be what was done in CA.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, when do you plan to get around to sharing your incontrovertible proof of 2020 massive electoral fraud that you've been claiming for years to have had?

I swear, you're procrastinating even more than Donald on his health care plan when it comes to making good on your promises. It's been years and still not a shred of evidence. Look, I get that sometimes you forget the passcode to the safe where you stored your evidence, but you can hire someone to help you with that.
 
SuperDS77 said:
Why the focus on the popular vote? It is not relevant.
Click to expand...

It would seem to be relevant in determining "mandate".

SuperDS77 said:
When was the last time there was a true "mandate"? How would that be defined?

Even Obama only had 52% of the popular vote. Clinton had a plurality of even less than Trump.

312 to 223 is quite a large margin. 30 states to 20 states. 50% more states than Harris. The largest in quite some time. Some might call winning so many states a "mandate".
Click to expand...


As to how it's defined, one would have to ask those promoting the concept.

But whatever the technical definition, I can't see it being proclaimed where the majority of the electorate voted against the candidate proclaiming he has a mandate!
 
Chomsky said:
(CNN) Democrats’ flip in California concludes final unresolved US House race
--



--

With the final federal election tally in, it appears Republicans actually lost seats in the People's House.

With Trump not even getting half the popular vote, only 1-1/2 pts over Harris, and only besting his losing 2020 performance by a bit over 3%, I'm at an absolute loss to understand the vociferous claims of a "mandate".

How can there be a mandate, when the majority of the electorate voted against the candidate?

Oh well . . .
Click to expand...
The alleged liberal MSM saturated their “reporting” with the “overwhelming victory” and “election sweep” BS Trump hypnotized his cult into bleating over and over.
 
Mycroft said:
My comments are on-topic, so no...this is not the wrong forum.

Bye.
Click to expand...

That is true. Your conspiracy theories often do relate to the topic at hand. That does not make them true. It simply embarrasses the poster.
 
Chomsky said:
Time is irrelevant. It's the votes that count.
Click to expand...
GOPs didn’t have a problem with late counting in California when Democrats lost 7 total seats
in 2020 and 2022 while Repubs gained 6 back, with one lost due to reapportionment. ☕️
 
Last edited:
Luce said:
I'm just here for the froth.

Thread delivers.
Click to expand...
It's a rather pleasant pastime, watching Election Truthers in their natural habitat.

That said, these days I direct my attention toward the more elusive Birther, seldom seen in public.
 
Chomsky said:
It would seem to be relevant in determining "mandate".




As to how it's defined, one would have to ask those promoting the concept.
Click to expand...
Fair. But if one claims that it is not a mandate, one would have to also define the concept.
Chomsky said:
But whatever the technical definition, I can't see it being proclaimed where the majority of the electorate voted against the candidate proclaiming he has a mandate!
Click to expand...
I do get your point. It is a rhetorical issue, regardless of whether there is a so-called "mandate" that person won by the rules of our system. If defined by electoral votes, which is how we elect the president, winning 312 to 226 is a fairly large margin, especially compared to recent history.

To be even more clear, the majority of those who voted (50.1% to 49.9%) not the majority of the eligible voters.
 
SuperDS77 said:
Fair. But if one claims that it is not a mandate, one would have to also define the concept.

I do get your point. It is a rhetorical issue, regardless of whether there is a so-called "mandate" that person won by the rules of our system. If defined by electoral votes, which is how we elect the president, winning 312 to 226 is a fairly large margin, especially compared to recent history.

To be even more clear, the majority of those who voted (50.1% to 49.9%) not the majority of the eligible voters.
Click to expand...
I would see a mandate as something like a president or party getting 75% or more of the popular vote.
 
SuperDS77 said:
To be even more clear, the majority of those who voted (50.1% to 49.9%) not the majority of the eligible voters.
Click to expand...
Elections are decided by the people that show up.
 
A mandate, IMO, is best reflected in a candidate whose policies are so popular that they [handily] won a second consecutive term. Reagan scored that mandate, as did W and Obama. I would not say Trump (or Biden) had a "mandate" by that measure. But, it's my measure and therefore completely arbitrary.
 
Slartibartfast said:
I would see a mandate as something like a president or party getting 75% or more of the popular vote.
Click to expand...
The only mandate that matters is who won the election.
 
Chomsky said:
Hey, don't get me involved. Talk to the mods!
Click to expand...
Good thing for gops the scotus allowed the apartheid gerrymander in North Carolina, GIVING the gop an easy flip of 3 seats.
That 'pink' state went from 7-7 in 2022 to 10-4 R due to STATE supreme court elections, breaking the 17th amendment, imo. ☕️
 
Luce said:
The only mandate that matters is who won the election.
Click to expand...
I would say priorities. The word mandate implies mass popular backing.
 
Linc said:
Good thing for gops the scotus allowed the apartheid gerrymander in North Carolina, GIVING the gop an easy flip of 3 seats.
That 'pink' state went from 7-7 in 2022 to 10-4 R due to STATE supreme court elections, breaking the 17th amendment, imo. ☕️
Click to expand...
Yeah cause North Carolina is the ONLY place that engages in "gerry mandering". :rolleyes:

I am sure no democrat run states did this, right? /s
 
SuperDS77 said:
Fair. But if one claims that it is not a mandate, one would have to also define the concept.

I do get your point. It is a rhetorical issue, regardless of whether there is a so-called "mandate" that person won by the rules of our system. If defined by electoral votes, which is how we elect the president, winning 312 to 226 is a fairly large margin, especially compared to recent history.

To be even more clear, the majority of those who voted (50.1% to 49.9%) not the majority of the eligible voters.
Click to expand...
Trump did not win the majority of those who voted, his popular vote total is under 50%.

In 2022, the hyped pre-election Red Wave spin collapsed after Bidren experienced the slimmest first term mideleaction losses in Congress in more than 50 years.
 
Slartibartfast said:
I would see a mandate as something like a president or party getting 75% or more of the popular vote.
Click to expand...
By that definition there will never be a "mandate".

I agree with @Luce the candidate who won has the "mandate" such as it is....
 
Ikari said:
Yeah....you're supposed to count votes. That's sort of how it works.
Click to expand...
Were all the votes counted or did they stop when they got the answer they wanted. That is why I like the polls. All votes are counted in real time by We the People. Mistakes are fixed in real time by We the People. The results of the election are posted on the door for all to see when We the People leave that night. No finding and fixing ballots for a month until the people counting get the results they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom