If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   333,000 votes in four swing states would have given Romney the Presidency. Also, a set of external genitalia would have given him an uncle instead of an aunt   (breitbart.com) divider line 323
    More: Unlikely, Mitt Romney, presidents, swing states, President Obama, socialist country, aunts, uncles, international  
•       •       •

6282 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Nov 2012 at 8:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



323 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 09:45:55 AM  

Krymson Tyde: Palin/Santorum 2016


Santorum/Palin. We can't have a woman being anything other than submissive to a man.

// Which is why Coulter/Bachman would work...
 
2012-11-12 09:46:34 AM  

Dr. Whoof: Linux_Yes: Obama won by ~3.3 Million popular votes.


Handle it, Repugs!!

According to Donald Trump, Obama lost the popular vote.

This is what Republicans actually believe.

/and why they will continue to lose.



well, someone has to lose. may as well be republicans. snicker.
 
2012-11-12 09:46:52 AM  

Karac: All it really indicates is that democratic districts are urban and republican districts are rural. It's much harder to organize rural districts, due to the lower population density.

Why would they be harder to organize? How many times does somebody see their representative in person?
A congressman in an urban district has pretty much the same number of constituents to robocall as a congressman in an urban district.
If anything, the urban congressman would have it harder, since advertising space and time in NYC is exponentially more expensive than it is in Bumfark, Flyover.


Organize = get people to ballot boxes

The Internet is great, but it doesn't solve the realspace problem where distance still matters.
 
2012-11-12 09:47:08 AM  

What about reducing the number of electors in each state by one, to bring the proportions somewhat more in line with population distribution, but also continuing to recognize that all of the states do matter?


That would lower the influence of small states. Mississippi would have 5 EV instead of 6, so 5/488==> 1.0245% of the total college votes versus its current strength 6/538==> 1.1152%. New York on the other hand would go from 29 to 28, with initial vote percentage 5.39% to a new percentage of 5.735%. Any state with more than 10 EV would gain influence, while any state with less would lose.

if you added an elector to each state, however, the opposite would happen.
 
2012-11-12 09:48:40 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.


It's also mathematically possibly to become president by only winning 21% of the popular vote by only concentrating on the smallest states. Tell me that's a fair system and I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you.
 
2012-11-12 09:48:44 AM  

kronicfeld: Linux_Yes: Obama won by ~3.3 Million popular votes.

Not only that, but Romney (as of the current count) received fewer total votes than even John McCain and John Kerry.



time to pop open another bottle of Republican Tears bubbly.
 
2012-11-12 09:48:59 AM  
If it weren't for the dancing horse, I wouldn't have spent the year in Electoral College.
 
2012-11-12 09:49:07 AM  

Le Grand Inquisitor: Free Radical: If Obama wouldn't have won by a landslide it wouldn't have been a mandate.

That election was not a mandate...popular vote was close and the the house stayed GOP. If you expect political capital and change, you are sorely mistaken


The composition of the house is determined primarily by gerrymandering (by both sides). It says nothing about mandates.
 
2012-11-12 09:49:25 AM  

Moosecakes: So hey, terrible idea! National Popular Vote is the only reasonable way to go.


And via some imaginary mechanism, you'll convince the 31 states whose votes you need to disenfranchise themselves.
 
2012-11-12 09:49:40 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: 332 to 206. That's how close the election was.

Words like "blowout" or "landslide" or "squeaker" or even "mandate" are all subjective terms, fraught with ambiguity. They generate their own spin, depending on how they're used. But whatever.

332 to 206. That's what happened. Period.


I have another pair of numbers: 17% and 50.3%.

The former is the Congressional Approval and latter is Obama's.
 
2012-11-12 09:50:40 AM  

Martycrane: It's also mathematically possibly to become president by only winning 21% of the popular vote by only concentrating on the smallest states. Tell me that's a fair system and I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you.


It's the same problem the gay rights lobby has, really. As it would take a constitutional amendment, and what 2/3 or 3/4? of the states to ratify it. Good luck getting Wyoming, Nebraska, etc. to go along with that. Even if (hypothetically, I don't know what the case is) the popular vote WOULD support such a measure nationwide.
 
2012-11-12 09:51:24 AM  

brobdiggy: Not protesting Obama or anything, but the Electoral College "winner take all" system is absolutely stupid.

Every election we hear the "your vote counts" garbage. That's not true. The message should be "your vote counts if you live in Ohio or Florida".

I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.


Then CHANGE THE MINDSET OF YOUR STATE. Get involved if it bothers you so much. Moving to a district level in no way solves the problem you describe...since then people would just b*tch about their district being too red/blue. Plus, you're proposal makes the Presidential election system completely at risk to gerrymandering.

Fail. Hard.

I'd be fine going to a pure popular vote system, but we would need federally standardized voting equipment and practices and take state-level sh*t out of Presidential election day. Good luck with that.
 
2012-11-12 09:51:55 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.


Hasn't this been beaten to death already? Those two states only made up 13% of total voters, nowhere near a majority as you make it sound. As it stands now a vote in Wyoming is currently worth 3.6 votes in either California or New York, how is that at all fair? All the Electoral College does is suppress voters in states that heavily lean one way or another. You act like making candidates focus on well populated states is at all different then the current system of focusing on a few swing states.

Seriously, give one good reason for the current system or how popular vote would be a "disaster".
 
2012-11-12 09:52:02 AM  
So that's how it is in their family.
 
2012-11-12 09:53:54 AM  
I read an article somewhere that quoted one of Romney's campaign staff as basically saying " We came really close. We just needed to get our message out stronger to certain areas, bought more airtime, convinced more voters, do a better job of "getting" the Latino vote, blah blah blah."
It's as if they look at it as some kind of game that can be cracked. Buy more airtime and fill it with negative ads and you can swing the vote your way. Have more town hall meetings so the people can get to know the "real" you. It had nothing to do with more people seeing through Romney's bs. It had nothing to do with running on zero message other than "The other guy sucks and I can do better, just trust me. I'm a millionaire."
If only they suppressed more voter turnout they could have won the game.
"We'll try harder next time."
 
2012-11-12 09:53:58 AM  

Martycrane: It's also mathematically possibly to become president by only winning 21% of the popular vote by only concentrating on the smallest states. Tell me that's a fair system and I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you.


It's about as fair as only having to visit three cities and win CA, NY, and TX, to win a popular election.
 
2012-11-12 09:54:08 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Plus, you're your proposal makes the Presidential election system completely at risk to gerrymandering.


FTFM.

Anyway, a district-level system would make things WORSE, not better.
 
2012-11-12 09:54:40 AM  
You know what twice 333,000 is? 666,000!!1!eleventyone!

Does that mean RMoney is half the anti-christ?
 
2012-11-12 09:55:27 AM  

SwiftFox: nekom: Skw33tis: I also sympathize with the argument that, under a pure popular-vote system, populous states like New York, California, and Texas would have disproportionate influence. To be fair, if most of the population lives in a few states, those states probably should be disproportionally influential, but smaller states shouldn't be de-facto shut out of the process, either.

Yeah, I can certainly understand a small state's desire to appear relevant, but as you said it's also easy to argue that a state with a higher population rightfully SHOULD have more clout.

I always figured perhaps it once made sense in logistics in the days when ballots were carried on horseback or whatever.

Um, so "disproportionally" means everyone's vote means the same and "proportionally" means the vote of the guy in the littlest state (population) has a lot more influence?


I used the term "disproportionally" to refer to the influence of populous states over sparsely populated states under a pure popular-vote system. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the issue.

The electoral college was designed as a way for states, not individuals, to select a president. Of course, this was designed this way because, in the 18th century, a president was little more than a foreign-policy interface between the states and the rest of the world. Now that the scope of the office is so much larger, I think there is an argument for updating the system. However, given that I'm somewhat temperamentally (though not really politically, anymore) conservative, I tend to favor updating with smaller, incremental changes.
 
2012-11-12 09:55:42 AM  
A change in just six of the numbers to the winning ones on my Megamillions quick pick and I would now be a millionaire.
 
2012-11-12 09:56:45 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: swaniefrmreddeer: The electoral college is a f*cked up system.

Why? It prevents one or two states from completely disenfranchising the rest of the nation. As much as you'd like it to be, the United States is not "California and New York".  The Electoral College isn't a perfect system, but going strictly by popular vote would be a disaster.


Your argument would make more sense if electoral votes weren't handed out based on state population. As it ALREADY STANDS, the system is setup to roughly approximate a popular vote solution.

We all share this country...sorry. I don't think you know what "disenfranchise" means.
 
2012-11-12 09:56:55 AM  
Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.
 
2012-11-12 09:57:53 AM  

This text is now purple: Moosecakes: So hey, terrible idea! National Popular Vote is the only reasonable way to go.

And via some imaginary mechanism, you'll convince the 31 states whose votes you need to disenfranchise themselves.


The 16th and 17th amendments took away pretty much all of the power of the states over the federal government, but hey still passed those. All it takes is enough bribery and you can get anything done.
 
2012-11-12 09:58:30 AM  

sweetmelissa31: If Bapp hadn't designed that poorly fitting dressage horse costume he might not have been turned into a slurry.


If only Mitt hadn't bought that Stericycle stock, Bapp might just have been sent off to live with a more... ice-cream oriented family.
 
2012-11-12 09:58:58 AM  

Saners: As it stands now a vote in Wyoming is currently worth 3.6 votes in either California or New York, how is that at all fair?


Because that was part of their contract with the Federal Government when they became a state?

It's amusing that given their relative positions in 1791, Georgia and South Carolina each voted the wrong way on the Electoral College.
 
2012-11-12 09:59:06 AM  
We don't have slaves anymore. We don't need the electoral college.
 
ecl
2012-11-12 09:59:36 AM  

Billy Bathsalt: If it weren't for the dancing horse, I wouldn't have spent the year in Electoral College.

  

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-11-12 09:59:43 AM  
Gore just needed 600 in Florida to carry the 2000 election. Sorry GOP, you even lose at being the victim.
 
2012-11-12 09:59:50 AM  

Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.


What a Debbie Downer....
 
2012-11-12 10:01:29 AM  
330,000 aint nothing to laugh at.
 
2012-11-12 10:03:39 AM  
If I log out of my Fark account, this thread becomes twice as long....
 
2012-11-12 10:06:08 AM  

Scut Farcus' Ugly Brother: You know what twice 333,000 is? 666,000!!1!eleventyone!

Does that mean RMoney is half the anti-christ?


No! It means Obama is the double anti Christ!
 
2012-11-12 10:07:02 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.


And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.
 
2012-11-12 10:07:44 AM  

Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.


NooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOoooooooooooOOO O OOOOoooooo
 
2012-11-12 10:07:49 AM  

Gough: If I log out of my Fark account, this thread becomes twice as long....


No on cares about your pagination settings.
 
2012-11-12 10:08:09 AM  

AngryPoet: Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.

What a Debbie Downer....


Does America's future look bright to you? We will be 20-22 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's 2nd term. Growth at best will be maybe 2%. Taxing the evil rich will not put even a dent in the deficit, and all projections on that do not factor in the negative aspects of taxing people, many who run businesses.

All you did was win an election and further divide the country. No thought it given to anything long term. We really are done as a country unless something changes. Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff. Eventually, even Fark can see where that leads. There is no such thing as free stuff. Eventually, capital will move away.

Was what, 67% of debt to GDP ratio when Obama took over? Now 101%, and climbing fast. By the end of his second term, interest payment on the debt alone will be in the 500 billion dollar range. We would need a 500 billion dollar surplus to even start paying down the debt. Do any of you really thing it is possible to get out of debt, ever?
 
2012-11-12 10:09:04 AM  

Shaggy_C: Holocaust Agnostic: Small states are already overrepresented in the House and wildly overrepresented in the Senate. They have a voice in government. The EC needs to go.

And then, rather than campaigning in 13 states, presidential candidates will only campaign in the NYC, Chicago, Houston, Philly, and LA metro areas.


Campaigning where people live? The horror.
 
2012-11-12 10:09:19 AM  

Thunderpipes: AngryPoet: Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.

What a Debbie Downer....

Does America's future look bright to you? We will be 20-22 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's 2nd term. Growth at best will be maybe 2%. Taxing the evil rich will not put even a dent in the deficit, and all projections on that do not factor in the negative aspects of taxing people, many who run businesses.

All you did was win an election and further divide the country. No thought it given to anything long term. We really are done as a country unless something changes. Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff. Eventually, even Fark can see where that leads. There is no such thing as free stuff. Eventually, capital will move away.

Was what, 67% of debt to GDP ratio when Obama took over? Now 101%, and climbing fast. By the end of his sec ...


http://blogs.igalia.com/xrcalvar/files/2012/05/Dancing_Troll.gif
 
2012-11-12 10:09:23 AM  
So what they're saying is that if Mittens had gotten more votes and Obama less then he would have carried those states and won? Is that how it works? Mind=Blown.

And if you people would like to go by popular vote instead of the EC that's fine since the result is the same in this case.
 
2012-11-12 10:09:43 AM  

BeesNuts: 2. There *was* a reason for the electoral college. Technology has since removed that reason.


As long as the "United States" is still a union of "States", the reason remains. The EC was not designed as a "working approximation" to nationwide popular vote, but to give each state the same leverage over the election that each state has in congress (note that for each state electors = congressmen+2 = congressmen+senators). The problem of presidential-campaign ignored states vs. swing states is a result of "winner take all" rules (with two exceptions noted above).

There is technology driving the NPV movement: the national news media, mainly TV news networks. Having only one election to cover for the whole country makes their job easier, and they already push it on the audience as the only election that matters. Complaining about how the Electoral College "doesn't correspond to the popular vote" gives them a post-election story to run about how voters might be 'cheated' by an 'antiquated' system.

I hope people see through this news industry scam, and can convince their states to abandon "winner take all" and reclaim their electoral relevancy. NPV would be "winner take all" on steroids, giving away any remaining State leverage over the only nationally-elected offices, president and vice president.
 
2012-11-12 10:10:22 AM  

This text is now purple: Martycrane: It's also mathematically possibly to become president by only winning 21% of the popular vote by only concentrating on the smallest states. Tell me that's a fair system and I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you.

It's about as fair as only having to visit three cities and win CA, NY, and TX, to win a popular election.


That's not entirely true though. NYC is by far the largest city with 8 million people, then LA with 3.8, then Chicago with 2.5. That works out to less than 5% of the whole country. Even if you win every single vote in NY, CA and TX, that's 82 million people, or ~25% of the population. Still no where near enough to win the popular vote.

A win off the popular vote will not "steal" the election. It WOULD make every vote equal however. This "disenfranchisement" is complete crap if you throw out the electoral college.
 
2012-11-12 10:10:33 AM  

Billy Bathsalt: If it weren't for the dancing horse, I wouldn't have spent the year in Electoral College.


Awesome...
 
2012-11-12 10:11:44 AM  

Schubert'sCell: What about reducing the number of electors in each state by one, to bring the proportions somewhat more in line with population distribution, but also continuing to recognize that all of the states do matter?

That would lower the influence of small states. Mississippi would have 5 EV instead of 6, so 5/488==> 1.0245% of the total college votes versus its current strength 6/538==> 1.1152%. New York on the other hand would go from 29 to 28, with initial vote percentage 5.39% to a new percentage of 5.735%. Any state with more than 10 EV would gain influence, while any state with less would lose.

if you added an elector to each state, however, the opposite would happen.


That's by design. The thought behind my idea is to bring electoral vote proportions more in line with relative state populations, but allow small states to exercise more influence than they would under a pure popular vote system.

Currently, small states do have disproportionate influence on the process. I'll arbitrarily use NY and VT as examples, mostly because they're geographically close: NY has 19,465,197 people, and 29 electoral votes, or one electoral vote for every 671,214 people. VT has 626,431 people, and 3 electoral votes, or one electoral vote for every 208,810 people. So, every VT voter has three times the influence of every NY voter. If we take one electoral vote from every state, then NY has one electoral vote for every 695,186 people, and VT has one electoral vote for every 335,607 people. Now, a VT voter has twice the influence of a NY voter.

Basically, it's a compromise between the electoral college and a pure popular vote system.
 
2012-11-12 10:12:10 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And if he'd not been born rich and spoiled, he'd just be some random Mormon dude.


I honestly believe if his personality hadn't been channeled by business and high society he'd have been a serial killer. Animal abuse, lying, lack of empathy.... yea...
 
2012-11-12 10:14:17 AM  

Thunderpipes: AngryPoet: Thunderpipes: Headso: Breitbart's corpse is right, republicans shouldn't take this loss as meaning anything, the "squeaker" win that Zerobama pulled off shouldn't cause them to change their OP one bit. If anything the votes they did get were because of them and they should double down on the anti-science, morality police, anti-immigration rhetoric and throw in some more fear mongering and promises of military adventurism too all while ignoring any criticism or fact checking from the liebral-leftist-lamestream-driveby-media conspiracy. In short, suck it libs!

Dems just have the advantage. Mexicans, blacks are all in their corner no matter what and they breed like crazy. That alone gives them elections. Then you have moron young people, who cannot get a job out of college but still scream for Obama's nut droppings.

Just going to get way worse before, if ever, it gets better. Math is simple, and we cannot afford this route as a country. Eventually, you run out of successful people to tax because their won't be enough, and the screaming hordes of young unemployed Democrats will never see reality because they are idiots.

What a Debbie Downer....

Does America's future look bright to you? We will be 20-22 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's 2nd term. Growth at best will be maybe 2%. Taxing the evil rich will not put even a dent in the deficit, and all projections on that do not factor in the negative aspects of taxing people, many who run businesses.

All you did was win an election and further divide the country. No thought it given to anything long term. We really are done as a country unless something changes. Minorities really do breed much faster. So do poor people. They all vote for whomever gives them the most free stuff. Eventually, even Fark can see where that leads. There is no such thing as free stuff. Eventually, capital will move away.

Was what, 67% of debt to GDP ratio when Obama took over? Now 101%, and climbing fast. By the end of his sec ...


That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son.

tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-12 10:14:59 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: 330,000 aint nothing to laugh at.


Go ahead and spread those votes out as much as you want and tell me how it could have won the election for Romney.
 
2012-11-12 10:15:21 AM  
The electoral college doesn't exist to protect smaller states rights.

It exists because the founding fathers were terrified of mob rule having just witnessed France burn itself to the ground. It was a deliberate attempt to put a buffer between the people and the executive.
 
2012-11-12 10:16:27 AM  
So if Romney got more votes, he might have won the election?

Well, that's, uh... I mean it's true. I guess that counts for something. Good job, Breitbart Dot Com. You have managed to find a fact.
 
2012-11-12 10:20:06 AM  
I am going to say uh yeah and if the Sun were the Moon we'de all be colder. What was the point of this article?

If pigs had wings they would be able to fly.

If the moon had hit the earth instead of being in orbit we wouldn't have to listen to weird arse what ifs.
 
2012-11-12 10:20:49 AM  

brobdiggy: I understand why we don't do national popular voting (recount nightmares... yikes)... but voting should be done electorally be DISTRICT instead of at the STATE level.
In other words, All states should do what Nebraska and Maine do..
It makes the most sense, and it doesn't leave voters feeling disenfranchised like the current system does.

However, it would never pass, because liberals in blue states and conservatives in red states wouldn't allow it.


It should never pass unless a law passes forcing gerrymandering to go away somehow. Obama won Ohio in voter count, but would have taken less EVs than Romney if Ohio copied Maine/Nebraska.

Democratic House candidates received more votes than Republican House candidates, and yet we have a Republican House by a fairly large margin.
 
Displayed 50 of 323 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report