For some reason beyond our comprehension, Matthew Dowd makes a living as a political analyst for ABC News. We honestly can’t figure it out, because if this is what passes for analysis at ABC News, our media is in even worse shape than we thought:

Vast majority of Americans support a President being elected who gets the most total votes. Abolishing the electoral college is not a radical position. Electing the President by popular vote would expand the number of states that are campaigned in and give more Americans a say. — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) March 19, 2019

Bless your heart, Matthew. But that’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

Abolishing would definitely not expand the campaigning in more states. — Alex (@clockworkgarnet) March 19, 2019

It would do the opposite. This is a mathematically and politically challenged tweet. — Mike Staresinic (@MikeStaresinic) March 19, 2019

That’s how Matthew rolls.

"would expand the number of states that are campaigned in and give more Americans a say." might appeal to some, in theory, what this will end up being about is the largest liberal states deciding every president from now on will be a Democrat. — Joe Bowles (@JoeWBowles) March 19, 2019

Huh? Every vote should count the same in America. Why do you want only a few states to determine the president? — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) March 19, 2019

Why do you want only a few states to determine the president, Matthew?

Except that it would flame the fires of urban vs. rural divide like nothing we've ever seen. They'd only campaign to the population centers. Only really focus on places where the most votes are. I think your argument here is really weak. — Joel Searby (@Joel_Searby) March 19, 2019

Joel. You are just wrong on this. A national popular vote would increase where candidates campaign. Today they only campaign in five or six states. Under popular vote candidates would have to campaign in 40 states. — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) March 19, 2019

What the hell is he talking about?

Uh, they wouldn't have to bother with tiny states with only a few votes. They would no longer need the electoral votes there and could ignore the small rural populations for massive urban crowds. Representation of rural areas would disappear and they wouldn't care. — Aldous Huxley's Ghost™ (@AF632) March 19, 2019

They would campaign where the highest concentration of votes are, dummy. That isn't Mississippi or North Dakota lol. Try a few cities on the East & West coasts instead. — Bo Bruhn ?? (@Rev_Odinson) March 19, 2019

Completely asinine. You literally remove 30 states from any political power whatsoever. The entire government would work to placate the whims of the largest population centers. This stupidity has to stop. We already have a branch of govt representing the populous. The House — Harry Parker (@RaidersHLP) March 19, 2019

What?? No they’d just go to the most populous areas in the nation. No brainer. That’s why we as STATES elect a president and not the people. We’re a republic not a democracy https://t.co/bb7pxySTBN — Matt Dawson (@SaintRPh) March 19, 2019

would campaign in LESS states Nobody would ever go to the Dakotas, Delaware, Alaska, Rhode Island, etc Talk about having just a few states elect the Pres. Might as well abolish states altogether then. States have different needs, EC makes each states indiv needs equal importance — Frankie O (@GarbageMan44) March 19, 2019

This guy is a political analyst and he can’t figure that out ? Embarrassing — Big E Dog (@therealbigEdog) March 19, 2019

I follow facts and truth. You might try that. — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) March 19, 2019

Is there no limit to Matthew Dowd’s delusion?

Facts are since trump won the election all of a sudden people want to abolish the electoral vote. It’s a system that’s been in place for over 200 years. What about when bush lost the popular vote in 2000. Why wasn’t it a problem than ? — Big E Dog (@therealbigEdog) March 19, 2019

It was a problem then. And has been a problem for a long time. — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) March 19, 2019

Maybe it was. But you never heard anyone say anything about it. It’s a coincidence that since Trump became president all of a sudden its time to be abolished. I’m not pointing a finger at you but it’s a coincidence I guess that’s all — Big E Dog (@therealbigEdog) March 19, 2019

It’s not a coincidence. Liberals like Matthew Dowd are the sorest of losers, and it’s only when they’re at a disadvantage that they want to get rid of longstanding and valuable institutions. It’s why they want to reconfigure the Supreme Court. It’s why Harry Reid and the Democrats triggered the nuclear option. And what they never seem to realize is that they’re only setting themselves up to lose even more.

Would bet cash money these idiots would be praising the wisdom of the founders if Hillary had won electoral and Trump had won popular vote.https://t.co/xkaEOVPMnd — ¡El Sooopèrr! ن c137 (@SooperMexican) March 19, 2019

And you’d win that bet.