Thank you
Your email has been added to our waiting list and we will send an invite to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.
In the meantime, if you happen to run a blog, our newly launched Blog Enhancement Suite can utilize the immense power of community to help you get more audience, engagement, content, and revenue with your own embeddable community! It will breathe new life into your blog and can automate many of the tedious tasks that come with the territory, so you can focus more on what matters most... writing.
Help spread the word about Snapzu:
Let others know about Snapzu by tweeting about us. We appreciate every mention!
Tweet it!
Join the Discussion
There was, but the DNC got rid of him to kiss Hillary's ass.
"There Was No One to Vote For’", perhaps, but Trump's robust support would seem to belie that, while Hillary's tepid support would affirm.
they essentially got the same amount of votes, so it's not fair to call trump's support 'robust' and HIllary's support 'tepid'
Yes it is, just look to Penn, Mich, Wis, and the number of Dem voters who stayed home or even crossed over.
you can call Trump's support "stronger than expected" and Hillary's support "weaker than expected" but they got the same support. Trump just had it in the right states so that he got more electoral votes.
I completely agree with the fact that Bernie likely would have won Penn, Mich, Wisc (46 electoral votes).
Bernie? Irrelevant.
To what? To there being a candidate to vote for in this election? I can see how that’s relevant. Can’t you?
He wasn't a candidate, "th, th, th, that's all folks".