On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:07:16 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/18/16 12:29 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 08:34:42 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/17/16 9:32 PM, wrote:


Do you really think anyone but the democrat will have a snowball's
chance in hell of carrying Maryland whether you or even 20,000 of you
stayed home?
Richard is in the same situation. I don't see any Reagans out there.



Your disdain for the American political system is almost comical.
As for my vote, as I stated, I want to contribute to the Democratic
landslide in the popular vote. As for "Reagans," your boy Ronnie never
impressed me.

As usual you either missed the point or you intentionally ignored it.
Reagan won Mass in 80 and 84. He won Maryland in 84 too.
Since then Md and Mass have been solid blue and a few more GOP votes
or a few less dem votes were not going to change that.

As for the political system, are you saying that you like the EC now
or are you just trolling again? The popular vote is actually
irrelevant. Once a candidate wins a state, the rest of the votes there
are pretty much wasted.


Gosh, you took civics in high school or read an article.

I know what the "popular vote" is and what it means. I also know a
landslide in the popular vote can have meaning politically, and it can
also help elect downticket candidates.

You are confusing popular vote with voter turnout.
I take a lot of care in who I vote for in the state and local
elections where the popular vote actually means something but the
circus that the presidency has become does not really merit that much
thought.
Most states are decided long before the first vote is cast and the
fact that Maryland, Massachusetts or California goes democrat 90% or
50%+1 is just gee whiz information.
I have only voted in one race in 68 years where my vote would even
show up and if I had voted for Bush in 2000 it would have been 538
votes instead of 537