[KSCITYBOY]

btt

[zeestephen]

Re: “There are arguments even from conservatives for why instituting a national popular vote may not necessarily mean the end of conservatives winning national elections.”

Have those arguments studied the last seven presidential elections?

I think not.

Just one GOP nominee has received a popular vote majority since 1988.

George W. Bush got 50.7% in 2004.

[Right Wing Assault]

It would make things a lot easier for candidates. They just have to visit the few important large states where the race is close and can ignore everyone else. Not much money will be spent in those little states. The only reason a candidate might show up is to put in a good word for some locals who are in a close race.

[Deplorable American1776]

JFK would not be a Dem today. He’d be a a RINO today.

[Wuli]

Neither a nation, much less a republic, as large as the United States can long survive as a nation on mere “national popular vote” majorities by which the interests of majorities of the distinct regional parts that make up the nation are disrespected, discarded, over ruled, crushed.

The “national popular vote” will DIVIDE FURTHER, not “unite” the nation, and only how long it remains a nation will remain in doubt, not that it will survive - it won’t.

[Chode]

the popular vote is two wolfs and a sheep deciding whats for dinner...

[1FreeAmerican]

[Albion Wilde]

bump