A policy wonk with below average analysis and understanding. McCain and Biden fought for the Senator most wrong on foreign policy most often. Kerry and Clinton may have led that category if we included damage done but I put them into the Secretary of State Competition.
People liked McCains pick because she was an unknown conservative woman who checked all the boxes. Then she opened her vagi... I mean mouth and people realized McCain never vetted her properly and it showed a lack of competance and good decision making ability. Things that Trump proved you don't need to win but at that time it mattered and he sank hard for it.
The only low population state that enjoys being a swing state has been New Hampshire. The Cook Political Report, as of Jan. 10, 2019, believes “There are just five toss up states, representing 86 electoral votes: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.” The Columbus Dispatch, as of Jan. 9, 2019, believes there will be “just seven states [with 105 electoral votes, where the winner is not predictable already] to allocate. Trump will be 66 electoral votes shy of re-election and the Democratic ticket will need 41 electoral votes to win back the presidency. The seven states are Arizona (11), Florida (29), Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10).” Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.” Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill In 2017, Saul Anuzis and Michael Steele, the former chairmen of the Michigan and national Republican parties, wrote that the National Popular Vote bill was “an idea whose time has come”. The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4. Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill. In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill. In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin. In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill Since 2006, the bill has passed 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).
Colorado's proposal would not "disqualify their vote." It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count. The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire, Ohio, or Florida. The National Popular Vote plan would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.
The bill does not use a popular vote only. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority. Every voter will be equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count. The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire, Ohio, or Florida. The National Popular Vote plan would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist. All Democrats on the coasts do not outnumber Republicans in the country. A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere. With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to campaign in any Red or Blue state, or for a Republican to campaign in any Red or Blue state. The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas. Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western, southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored. Our presidential selection system has cut out 4 of every 5 people living in America from the decision. Presidential elections shrink the “sphere” (to use Madison’s coinage) of public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states. The Cook Political Report, as of Jan. 10, 2019, believes “There are just five toss up states, representing 86 electoral votes: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.” The Columbus Dispatch, as of Jan. 9, 2019, believes there will be “just seven states [with 105 electoral votes, where the winner is not predictable already] to allocate. Trump will be 66 electoral votes shy of re-election and the Democratic ticket will need 41 electoral votes to win back the presidency. The seven states are Arizona (11), Florida (29), Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10).” Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends” “I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.” “I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.” Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview “I would rather have a popular vote. “ Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
A national popular vote is best but to say Colorado jumping into the deep end by throwing its electoral votes toward the national vote will make every voter matter is not accurate. The courts have ruled that states can steer electors to cast votes in with the states will, nothing has been ruled whether a state can legally force an elector to cast a faithless vote, though. Arguing that this power is implicit onto the states is a little shaky, imo.
Oh yes agree, but she frequently went against advice of the campaign managers, said stupid shit at a time when that was not taken well. Trump gets credit for creating an environment for himself to succeed in due to his popularity and voter disgust at the pool of clowns.