Wait... it's happened 4 times but that's only 5%? That means there have been 80 elections yet only 44 presidents? And that would mean the first election was in 1692...

And while it happened 4 times, it has only occurred once in past 30 elections...

If you want to be really precise about it, it's 3 times in 57 elections, which comes out to 5.26%, which can be abbreviated to "5%" to save me around 2 keystrokes.

The fourth one I mentioned when I said "3 or 4" was the election of 1824. While the candidate who won technically didn't receive the most popular votes, the guy who did (Andrew Jackson) only won around 40%. In addition to this there were four candidates running who were all from the same party, so it honestly didn't even matter that much.

Edited 7/15/2016 03:28:15

Nope. 4 times in 56 elections. The current one is 57th. 7.14%

Fact still stands is it's happened once in the past 120+ years... the first three were 1824, 1876 and 1888... Not exactly relevant to modern politics.

Ah well, so much for all that anti-establishment talk...

Nope. 4 times in 56 elections. The current one is 57th. 7.14%

Fact still stands is it's happened once in the past 120+ years... the first three were 1824, 1876 and 1888... Not exactly relevant to modern politics.

The current election is 58th, so even if you count all four out of 57, it's only 7.0% (and by the way, It doesn't detract from my original point if only 93% of elections have been decided by the popular vote rather than 95%). And as I've already explained, It's a pretty poor choice to count 1824 since it was before the modern two-party system had evolved and there were four candidates running from the same party, so something weird was bound to happen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

And even if jackson had won the presidency, this still wouldn't have been very fair since he only received 41% of the vote, which isn't exactly democratic.

I'll concede that there have been 57 elections. Strangely enough, I saw the 56 reference in two different sources, including wikipedia which listed 56 on one page and 57 on another page.

Still doesn't take away from my point that it only happened once in the last 120+ years...

'cause the first one wasn't really much of an election. It's much closer to the process you see when you pick an interim president in other countries.

Bernie Sanders isn't running in the same party as Trump, so false analogy.

Obviously if you're running as democrat then you're going to make it a huge part of your campaign to stop the republican from winning, but to be honest it makes absolutely zero sense to try to stop the republican nominee from winning if you are a republican.

sorry, meant 2 type obama not romney hahah

and ya obv u wanna stop the other party from winning, but paul never made it such a point to stop obama cus he's da ultimate evil like bernie did 2 trump.. not 2 mention tht paul didnt have nearly as much support tht bernie has

endorsing hillary was the right move (and not a sellout) for da losing candidate in order to crush trump

bernie got wat he wanted - the democrats were pushed farther to the left and the "political revolution" is continuing thru downballot candidates

Edited 7/15/2016 14:56:45

I'm pretty sure the majority of Sander's campaign was about socialism, hating the rich and the establishment, etc, not going against Trump.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton actually have known each other for a long time... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnVrd1QWcAAyFh0.jpg:large

#Trump2016 #TrumpTrain #HillaryForPrison #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

I'm pretty sure the majority of Sander's campaign was about socialism, hating the rich and the establishment, etc, not going against Trump.

he always made it a point tht stopping trump was important and tht he was the best candidate to stop trump

look how that worked out for him

For most of Sanders campaign Trump wasn't even taken seriously, stop your bullshit. Sanders campaign was built on hating rich folk and free stuff, not stopping Trump.

Really? Almost every poll says otherwise

stop being characteristically retarded smedley

stopping trump became a big part of bernie's platform once it was apparent trump would be the nominee

and ya ur right it didnt become a part of his campaign until the later stages of the campaign but tht still doesn't mean bernie is a sellout for endorsing hillary once he got what he wanted in order to stop trump

lemme spell it out for u since ur 2 retarded to get it:

• democratic platform shifted way left of wat it was a year ago - Bernie HAPPY
  
• hillary moved from pro-tpp to anti-tpp (so she says, i would take it with a grain of salt but meh) - Bernie HAPPY
  
• bernie obviously wasnt going to get the nomination so he decided to continue the political revolution thru downballot candidates tht actually have a shot of winning if young ppl get out to vote - Bernie HAPPY
  
• bernie continuing to be stubborn and fighting hillary and/or endorsing stein/johnson would hand the presidency over 2 trump on a silver platter which would make bernie a HUGE sellout given how much he stressed stopping trump in the later stages of the campaign

obviously all of his democratic socialist shit was more important than stopping trump, but like i said, he got wat he wanted so endorsing hillary to stop trump was the logical next move

Edited 7/16/2016 20:30:34

stop being characteristically retarded smedley

Stop being a democrat shill

lemme spell it out for u since ur 2 retarded to get it:

No let me spell it out for you, you democrat shill.

Sanders spent his entire campaign targeting Clinton, and said for the later half that he would take it not just all the way to the convention, but he would not concede at all. That means he was lying, and stopped running when he would get more benefits in the scenario that he dropped out, compared to if he actually did what he said he would do. Meaning he's a sellout.

Then again he always was a democrat shill, working with the democrats back when he was supposedly a independent, and worked with them to prevent legitimate third party candidates. He threw out folk who were protesting his stance on the bombing of Beograd, and had police gaol them. He silenced folk trying to speak out against his stance on Yugoslavia during the supposedly pluralist rallies he held, and had several folk speaking, only one of which had any objection whatsoever to the campaign in Yugoslavia.

He was always a sellout.

You mean he lied during a presidential campaign? Who would do such a thing!!

No honest person has ever been elected president.

Edited 7/17/2016 03:30:40

To be frank, shut up. You know that all these Sandroids think he's sincere and honest, and I'm saying he's not. So unless you have anything relevant to say, shut up.

Edited 7/17/2016 03:44:43

Trump2016

ooo 'democrat shill' good 1!!

he targeted clinton until the walloping he got in california drowned all hope of getting the nomination... remember tht he still had hopes of somehow convincing the superdelegates to switch sides with a strong performance in california which didnt happen cus he got owned there

his plan to take it all da way to da convention was if the democratic platform didnt listen 2 him and adopt some of his policies... they ended up adopting some so he was satisfied

and ya sure u can call him out for being a liar... mayb all of that talk of taking it to the convention and not conceding was done to make the democrats actually fucking listen 2 him for once - they didnt want bernie to keep nipping at their golden girl when she has 2 deal with trump

bernie got appeased so he stopped being a problem for da greater good of the democratic party and america in general

u can call it selling out all u want, i call it logical but i'm not surprised tht a braindead anarchist like u cant comprehend logic

why dont u go back to whining about how statism is a religious cult

Edited 7/18/2016 02:40:45