Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5807877ee4b0b994d4c2ddb8







Swing voters are stupid, apparently.


I thought Seth Mcfarlane was just farting into the wind when he had Brian call them the stupidest people on the planet, but I guess this is something people really believe.

Really depends on the choices at hand.


If the election had come down to say Sanders and Kasich, the voter who isn't someone who strictly votes to whichever chimp has a "D" or an "R" next to their name would have to look closely and weigh each candidate to see how many of their policies more closely align. Then again, the majority of US voters across the board are one, maybe two issue votes.

Now in 2016, Clinton was clearly the better choice of the two compared to Trump. This fact will not sit well with Trumpers.

I thought it was Bidens turn.

cherry-pick public interviews are lame, though I imagine it's a far easier job with trump voters. cleanest cutting room floor ever

Bash go **** yourself.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Bash go **** yourself.

Youre happy that everyone hates you. Nice!

Originally posted by Blakemore
Youre happy that everyone hates you. Nice!

^^pedophile who hates me because I won't allow his enablement.

^ dickhead thinks being edgy is edgy. Nice.

Originally posted by Robtard
Really depends on the choices at hand.


If the election had come down to say Sanders and Kasich, the voter who isn't someone who strictly votes to whichever chimp has a "D" or an "R" next to their name would have to look closely and weigh each candidate to see how many of their policies more closely align. Then again, the majority of US voters across the board are one, maybe two issue votes.

Now in 2016, Clinton was clearly the better choice of the two compared to Trump. This fact will not sit well with Trumpers. Tell me why you think Clinton was the better choice in 2016. Would her policies have been better for you personally, or do you think her policies would have been better for the USA, or both?

Originally posted by Robtard
Really depends on the choices at hand.


If the election had come down to say Sanders and Kasich, the voter who isn't someone who strictly votes to whichever chimp has a "D" or an "R" next to their name would have to look closely and weigh each candidate to see how many of their policies more closely align. Then again, the majority of US voters across the board are one, maybe two issue votes.

Now in 2016, Clinton was clearly the better choice of the two compared to Trump. This fact will not sit well with Trumpers.

I agree with Robtard on that point. That said, I do believe undecided voters are generally more careless with their votes, and probably don't even tune in until the general election, where they likely vote along their own political slant anyhow. I was pretty much the same way until I became more involved in politics and was bothered enough to vote.

This is my perception and based on anecdotal evidence, of course. Still, when I talk to people or see interviews with potential voters and hear them talk about whom they support, most undecided voters have been all over the place between progressive, centrist, and conservative candidates. It's like they're forming their opinions more on personality, energy, age, and looks than the policies being proposed.

That's not to say that those who are set on whom or what they are voting for are always more careful. As Rob pointed out, lots if not most people are one-or-two issue voters, and can end up voting for someone or something that is against their own interest and that of the majority of the country, all because they were promised those one or two things.

Originally posted by Badabing
Tell me why you think Clinton was the better choice in 2016. Would her policies have been better for you personally, or do you think her policies would have been better for the USA, or both?

Policy-wise. She wouldn't have tried to repeal the ACA without a better replacement ready to go and when that failed, started chipping away at it's foundations, she wouldn't be looking to build a costly useless wall, she wouldn't have enacted a tax policy that heavily favors large corporations and the top 1%, she wouldn't have focused on coal, which set us back in the solar and wind markets, something China was quick to jump on. She wouldn't have started a trade war with China with seemingly a "lets see what happens" approach, though China's shit practices need to be curbed.

The fears that she was going to get us into a war with Russia were nonsense, there's no money in that. The fears she was going to take away guns was further nonsense.

If only the supposedly educated side had seen Clinton wouldn't win. Oh well.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I agree with Robtard on that point. That said, I do believe undecided voters are generally more careless with their votes, and probably don't even tune in until the general election, where they likely vote along their own political slant anyhow. I was pretty much the same way until I became more involved in politics and was bothered enough to vote.

This is my perception and based on anecdotal evidence, of course. Still, when I talk to people or see interviews with potential voters and hear them talk about whom they support, most undecided voters have been all over the place between progressive, centrist, and conservative candidates. It's like they're forming their opinions more on personality, energy, age, and looks than the policies being proposed.

That's not to say that those who are set on whom or what they are voting for are always more careful. As Rob pointed out, lots if not most people are one-or-two issue voters, and can end up voting for someone or something that is against their own interest and that of the majority of the country, all because they were promised those one or two things.



Abortion, gun rights, marriage rights, all large single-issue platforms. Though marriage rights is probably far weaker than it was 10 or so years ago.

Originally posted by Surtur
If only the supposedly educated side had seen Clinton wouldn't win. Oh well.

There's a winner and loser in every presidential election and she did win the majority of the US vote, which means she was more popular with the people. Though lost due to our EC, it happens. She should have played a smarter game in certain states.

As George Carlin said: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.", Trumpers showed us the truth of those words in 2016.

Originally posted by Surtur
If only the supposedly educated side had seen Clinton wouldn't win. Oh well.

@Bada: If Clinton had won we'd all probably be either dead or dying from nuclear war by now.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a winner and loser in every presidential election and she did win the majority of the US vote, which means she was more popular with the people. Though lost due to our EC, it happens. She should have played a smarter game in certain states.

As George Carlin said: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.", Trumpers showed us the truth of those words in 2016.

I love the projection here. It's why you're not to whine if Trump wins in 2020. You bring it on yourselves.

Originally posted by Robtard
Policy-wise. She wouldn't have tried to repeal the ACA without a better replacement ready to go and when that failed, started chipping away at it's foundations, she wouldn't be looking to build a costly useless wall, she wouldn't have enacted a tax policy that heavily favors large corporations and the top 1%, she wouldn't have focused on coal, which set us back in the solar and wind markets, something China was quick to jump on. She wouldn't have started a trade war with China with seemingly a "lets see what happens" approach, though China's shit practices need to be curbed.

The fears that she was going to get us into a war with Russia were nonsense, there's no money in that. The fears she was going to take away guns was further nonsense. Is illegal immigration a problem that needs addressed in your opinion? Do you think the Trump tax cuts helped kick start the economy? This isn't exactly coal related, but do you take issue with the USA developing its own fossil fuels? I'm just trying to better understand a more liberal POV. There are no wrong answers here.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a winner and loser in every presidential election and she did win the majority of the US vote, which means she was more popular with the people. Though lost due to our EC, it happens. She should have played a smarter game in certain states.

As George Carlin said: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.", Trumpers showed us the truth of those words in 2016.

Agreed, There is a winner and loser in every presidential election; Hillary is that loser.