Electoral College Final Results

nytimes.com/interactive/2016 … .html?_r=0

A total of 7 faithless electors, more than we’ve ever seen before, I believe.

5 of them were Democrats that were supposed to vote Hillary.

So all that bluster about the Electoral College being the one power that can save us from Trump, and she under performed there as well. There were commercials with major Hollywood actors, countless interview, articles and news stories about how faithless electors were going to ditch Trump, and about how concerned they were about Trump, and about how the Russia nonsense puts some special obligation on them, and in the end, twice as many faithless electors ditched Hillary.

Will this finally cause Democrats to realize this loss is Hillary and the DNC’s fault? No, it won’t. The next step will be January 6th, where the Congress has to certify the results. Watch for Democrats to tell us how Congress doesn’t have to do that, how the Consitution allows for Congress to say no, and watch for more Hollywood actors to implore Congress to do the democratic thing and ignore the vote.

Constitution does allow for Congress to say no actually, in regards to every electoral vote, if they refute the legitimacy of it, they can have it thrown out, on a basis of I don’t fucking know…

Honestly, I don’t know, never happened. Says you can though.

The media slanted it.

Not only do we know that republicans are more likely to vote, we also know that if a winner is declared before voting, that people are less likely to vote for that “landslide”, and most dems know about diebold anyways.

Trump in a 1998 interview with people magazine said “if I ever run for president, I’ll run as republican, because they’re stupid and will believe anything I tell them.”

We now have brainscans that prove progressives process information from the reason areas of the brain, and republicans from the fear centers of the brain.

Either way, diebold invalidates every election

Can you give me a link to these psychological studies please?

braindecoder.com/post/politics- … 1282982492

Easy to find… The science journal article came out about 4 years ago, can’t remember the source…

I’ll look more

I know conservatives hate huffington… Sorry


Basically, what’s occurring is that democrats process from the area of the brain considered “the seat of consciousness” (the part of the brain - mirror neurons - which abstract another’s thoughts and feeling - theory of other, theory of consciousness)

Conservatives process information from fight or flight (the amygdala) …

This is why conservatives vote more… If you give them a fear campaign, they will vote in larger numbers than people who are less afraid, if not jaded, like liberals are

Trumps election was textbook socioneurology

Personally, I think trumps campaign was a social experiment and I think he knew exactly what he was doing

Slanted what? Do you actually know what the electoral college is?

You know how to use the internet, so why do you spread lies when you could fact check them in 30 seconds?


… geeezzz… :icon-rolleyes:

For one, the media and the electoral college are two different topics.

The point of the electoral college is to prevent tyranny by the minority and majority, I know quite well why it was put in place!

Here’s the deal Uccisore, socioneurology was used by republicans to win this election, if I had been Hillary’s campaign manager, trump wouldn’t have had a chance in hell

google.com/amp/www.aol.com/ … ent=safari

I’m willing to accept that’s not true…

I heard it from 3 different people and never checked it.


You were completely duped like a clown by the “People magazine” thing, so why should people believe what you say about anything else? You’ve demonstrated that you don’t actually follow this stuff with any rigor, and aren’t familiar with the basic tools and means of fact checking.

Because I actually gave links to the other stuff Uccisore …

I read scientific journals all the time…

Sorry if I got a pop culture sentence wrong !!


This is misleading. Just as you have (correctly) pointed out that we can’t read too much into Trump’s unprecedented (and frankly embarrassing :slight_smile: loss in the popular vote, due to the fact that they weren’t running a popular vote race, we can’t read too much into electors being faithless against Clinton, because they were doing so in the context of Trump having won the majority of the electors based on the vote. It was low-cost for electors to defect from Clinton, because they did not expect her to win in the first vote. Most were defecting to try to entice Trump electors to vote for a compromise candidate who could win if it went to the House; three of the five voted for Colin Powell.

In other words, you seem to be presenting the faithless Democratic electors as votes against Clinton, and that does not seem to be the best supported interpretation.

We can’t read too much into Trump’s popular vote loss - except that it’s embarrassing, apparently. But you know what? People lose the popular vote all the time. Somebody loses the popular vote in every single election- usually multiple people! For example, Hillary Clinton lost her party’s popular vote when Obama beat her ass for the nomination. So embarrassing! John Kerry must have been deeply humiliated and embarrassed when he lost the popular vote to W.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton had more faithless electors than any presidential candidate in American history- or just since 1808, if you don’t count the two that tried to vote against her but were blocked by the courts. So now you go on and tell me how that’s no big deal. And you can go on to tell me, while you’re at it, all about how you’d STILL think it was no big deal if it was Trump that had record-breaking faithless electors.

And yet it doesn’t seem to happen to other losing candidates for whatever reason. Best not to think about it too much.

And the Trump electors didn’t do so! It’s almost like the left was huffing it’s own farts to think that something like that was a plausible scenario in the first place.

Wasn’t the Clay-Van Buren election something like the entire state of PA refused to back their voters? I heard it passing on the news, haven’t researched it cause surprise to probably everyone here, I just don’t care about Van Buren, it may well be that presidency your referring to, but I don’t know.

Given the strong rift in electors in Washington State doing their own independent thinking, I would say they are most ripe for a third party split. They wanted Colin Powell (why?) so guessing their outlook is left of that if they saw him somehow as a compromise candidate. We could obviously do worst than him, just… his strategy in Iraq/Kuwait didnt have a obvious pullout nechanism for Iraq,and we ended up staying multiple presidents for no good reason. It was a good idea for the most part, save for that nasty oversight. I dont recall Powell ever standing up and saying that shit should of fucking ended by now, and just make peace, cause it was pointless bombing them to oblivion. We kept them in a anaconda like strangle for years, alot died, many more developed birth defects. I hold Powell responsible for not considering this shit. You only do that uf your a imperial power seeking to absorb a state directly into yourself,but cant initially cause they are too strong to digest directly. Unless we wanted to make Iraq the 51st state, we really should of sought peace, and treaty with earnest. The outcome was absurd… this is what the left in Washington thinks is a fucking compromise candidate. No, not till at the very least I hear Powell digested his mistajes and came to terms with it, advising a very different take in the future. Desert Shield and Storm okay, the utter lack of vision afterwards genocidal.

There were a couple instances like that, but they were all Vice Presidential candidates that were rejected. Hillary is the first presidential candidate to get 7 faithless electors. if you don’t count the 2 that tried to vote against her but were blocked by the courts, 5 still makes gives her the most faithless electors since 1808.


blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016 … ifference/

Read what I wrote, then read the link you posted. Like I said, VP candidates.

Electoral college back then voted differently. Wasn’t together, you had to elect them both. Why we never developed the Chancellor-Prime Minister/President deal, we eventually chucked that system. Biden or Pierce couldn’t run around doing their own thing for long.