LOVE THE JUDGE

[Deleted User 8570]

Take Texas out and he loses fair and square... what's your point?

How do you figure? He won 306-232. Removing Texas from the union would put him at 268-232 which would send it to the House of Representatives, which, I'm pretty sure republicans would still control even without Texas reps, so Trump would still win.

Switch Texas to Clinton and she wins... I assumed we were switching California to Trump so I offered an alternative that assumes California didn't switch. I know he didn't switch Texas for me in his.

Or give each state and DC one vote and Trump wins in a bigger landslide, where his support goes up to 59% (30/51) from 57% (306/538).

While such a system would never work I see your point. The demographic challenges facing your party make this kind of election less likely as time goes by...

[Matt]

Take Texas out and he loses fair and square... what's your point?

How do you figure? He won 306-232. Removing Texas from the union would put him at 268-232 which would send it to the House of Representatives, which, I'm pretty sure republicans would still control even without Texas reps, so Trump would still win.

Switch Texas to Clinton and she wins... I assumed we were switching California to Trump so I offered an alternative that assumes California didn't switch. I know he didn't switch Texas for me in his.

Or give each state and DC one vote and Trump wins in a bigger landslide, where his support goes up to 59% (30/51) from 57% (306/538).

While such a system would never work I see your point. The demographic challenges facing your party make this kind of election less likely as time goes by...

Just like Hillary started with 242 EVs, right?

I think this election proved that racial minorities are not automatic democrats. Now the Republicans have a chance to run everything and bring more diverse demos to the party. Young people who don't pay taxes tend to become more conservative once they start to work, pay taxes, and raise a family.

[Deleted User 8570]

Take Texas out and he loses fair and square... what's your point?

How do you figure? He won 306-232. Removing Texas from the union would put him at 268-232 which would send it to the House of Representatives, which, I'm pretty sure republicans would still control even without Texas reps, so Trump would still win.

Switch Texas to Clinton and she wins... I assumed we were switching California to Trump so I offered an alternative that assumes California didn't switch. I know he didn't switch Texas for me in his.

Or give each state and DC one vote and Trump wins in a bigger landslide, where his support goes up to 59% (30/51) from 57% (306/538).

While such a system would never work I see your point. The demographic challenges facing your party make this kind of election less likely as time goes by...

Just like Hillary started with 242 EVs, right?

I think this election proved that racial minorities are not automatic democrats. Now the Republicans have a chance to run everything and bring more diverse demos to the party. Young people who don't pay taxes tend to become more conservative once they start to work, pay taxes, and raise a family.

Just because she started there doesn't mean she finished there...

The question now is can they? If things get worse the finger only goes towards them... the economy comes to mind. We've had 7 years of job and housing price growth and economic expansion... wages are now starting to significantly rise on average, the markets are at all time highs. If it tanks, which it is due for it, then that will be blamed on Trump and the Republicans. That sort of blame isn't fair but it's how the public rolls. The party in power gets the blame, just like Bush did for the Great Recession.