I don’t agree with it but it’s worth reading. The crux of the argument is this:
Consider this: In 2016, Hillary Clinton famously won the nationwide popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, but lost the election to Donald Trump in the Electoral College, doing much to enflame American progressives’ distaste for the college. What’s worth noting is that Clinton’s popular vote margin that year within the borders of California was well over 4 million votes. In short, outside California, Trump won the popular vote across 49 states.
I don’t know if that makes any kind of point. Republicans don’t win national majorities. It’s not relevant which parcels of land they live on - land doesn’t vote (at least at the present, I’m sure someone at the heritage foundation is working on it)
Yeah, I misread the argument and thought it was saying something more interesting 🤦 It’s actually a silly argument and now I regret posting the article, but at least there was some good discussion of how bad it is.
I don’t agree with it but it’s worth reading. The crux of the argument is this:
I don’t know if that makes any kind of point. Republicans don’t win national majorities. It’s not relevant which parcels of land they live on - land doesn’t vote (at least at the present, I’m sure someone at the heritage foundation is working on it)
Yeah, it turns out that changing the data changes the results 🙄
Since we’re just doing random shit and seeing what it looks like, how much did she win by if we remove Texas?
Yeah, I misread the argument and thought it was saying something more interesting 🤦 It’s actually a silly argument and now I regret posting the article, but at least there was some good discussion of how bad it is.