If popular vote counted, Trump would have campaigned to get that instead, and would have won anyway

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking about Donald, L-A. Clinton is gone, good. Now Trump is next.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If popular vote counted, Trump would have campaigned to get that instead, and would have won anyway


It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

 

[FA_Q2]

Trump couldn't get a majority of the vote in this country in a million years.

And you were saying the same thing about his election chances.

It is very possible that he would have won the popular vote had that mattered in the campaign. We will never know. That reality though is why the popular vote really does not mean much in the grater context as we have no idea what the popular vote would have been had it mattered.

 

[FA_Q2]

The reason people bring up the pop vote is to counter this false notion that the right has a mandate .

This.

The popular vote really does not matter much but the victory itself does give insight into what the president needs to keep in mind when starting off the new term. The fact that he lost the popular vote does mean, IMHO, that he needs to be very cognizant of those Americans that did not vote for him and show them why they should have.

Had Trump won a landslide victory he could pay far less attention to those people and push his core agenda harder.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are where we are at right now. All the far right and far left yelling mean nothing.

Trump is president. Eleven million more voted against him than for him. If anyone believes that is not weighing on him and his advisers, such people are dupes.

Donald already is turning away from his promises to the alt right, the far right, and the socons.

If he can give something of real worth to the working class without giving the store to the rich, he has a real chance to make a good mark.

 

[U2Edge]

If popular vote counted, Trump would have campaigned to get that instead, and would have won anyway


It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

The problem with this theory though is that each candidate is actually campaigning for the popular vote, not nationally, but in each individual state. So its incorrect to say that the campaigning had nothing to do with the popular vote and was about something else.

The reason why Hillary won the popular vote is California. She blew Trump away by 4.5 million votes in California. Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states by 1.6 million. Trump could have campaigned all he wanted in California, but I doubt the outcome would have been much different in that state.

 

[Care4all]

If popular vote counted, Trump would have campaigned to get that instead, and would have won anyway


It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

The problem with this theory though is that each candidate is actually campaigning for the popular vote, not nationally, but in each individual state. So its incorrect to say that the campaigning had nothing to do with the popular vote and was about something else.

The reason why Hillary won the popular vote is California. She blew Trump away by 4.5 million votes in California. Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states by 1.6 million. Trump could have campaigned all he wanted in California, but I doubt the outcome would have been much different in that state.

But Trump did NOT win the popular vote in all the other 49 states....Hillary won the popular vote in 19 States? Not JUST California???

 

[Billy000]

It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

God you are such a moron. He campaigned to win the electoral college and not the popular vote? Oh right because we're supposed to believe Trumpster even has a basic understanding of political science.

If Hillary had won the electoral college and not the popular vote you dumbasses would be bitching non stop about it being a rigged system. Gee how convenient you gave up on that narrative now that he's won. This post is republican douche baggery at its finest.

 

[Care4all]

BOTH CANDIDATES would have campaigned differently if it were the popular vote alone that counted...

There is no way to assume Trump would have gotten more of it? Hillary could have gotten even more of the popular vote with her pop vote strategy over Trump's pop vote strategy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If it were a popular vote campaign alone, Clinton would have beat him by ten million votes.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

God you are such a moron. He campaigned to win the electoral college and not the popular vote? Oh right because we're supposed to believe Trumpster even has a basic understanding of political science.

If Hillary had won the electoral college and not the popular vote you dumbasses would be bitching non stop about it being a rigged system. Gee how convenient you gave up on that narrative now that he's won. This post is republican douche baggery at its finest.

Yup, no understanding at all of politics and campaigns and that is why he lost terribly this last election cycle.

Wait...

 

[U2Edge]

If popular vote counted, Trump would have campaigned to get that instead, and would have won anyway


It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

The problem with this theory though is that each candidate is actually campaigning for the popular vote, not nationally, but in each individual state. So its incorrect to say that the campaigning had nothing to do with the popular vote and was about something else.

The reason why Hillary won the popular vote is California. She blew Trump away by 4.5 million votes in California. Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states by 1.6 million. Trump could have campaigned all he wanted in California, but I doubt the outcome would have been much different in that state.

But Trump did NOT win the popular vote in all the other 49 states....Hillary won the popular vote in 19 States? Not JUST California???

I'm not talking about each individual state, I'm talking about the COMBINED POPULAR VOTE in the 49 states outside of California. Trump won that by 1.6 million. Yes, Hillary won the popular vote in 19 of those states while Trump won the popular vote in 30 of those states, but when you COMBINE total votes in those 49 states, Trump edges out Clinton by 1.6 million votes in the total popular vote for those 49 states.

 

[Care4all]

If popular vote counted, Trump would have campaigned to get that instead, and would have won anyway


It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

The problem with this theory though is that each candidate is actually campaigning for the popular vote, not nationally, but in each individual state. So its incorrect to say that the campaigning had nothing to do with the popular vote and was about something else.

The reason why Hillary won the popular vote is California. She blew Trump away by 4.5 million votes in California. Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states by 1.6 million. Trump could have campaigned all he wanted in California, but I doubt the outcome would have been much different in that state.

But Trump did NOT win the popular vote in all the other 49 states....Hillary won the popular vote in 19 States? Not JUST California???

I'm not talking about each individual state, I'm talking about the COMBINED POPULAR VOTE in the 49 states outside of California. Trump won that by 1.6 million. Yes, Hillary won the popular vote in 19 of those states while Trump won the popular vote in 30 of those states, but when you COMBINE total votes in those 49 states, Trump edges out Clinton by 1.6 million votes in the total popular vote for those 49 states.

TY, I had misunderstood, cuz I began reading the thread from the last post working towards the first post!
(always a guaranteed foot in the mouth, I don't know why I can't stop doing that!?!)

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's hilarious to hear the liberals whining that if Hillary gets more popular votes than Trump, while Trump gets far more electoral votes as specified in the Constitution, somehow that makes Trump less elected or something.

Trump got more electoral votes because that's what he was trying to get. He succeeded, and Hillary failed.

If the Constitution said that the person with more popular votes becomes President, instead of electoral votes, then Trump would have (obviously) changed his tactics, campaigned more in big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Denver, Philly, Chicago, Dallas/FW etc., and the result would be the same: He would get more votes from people he campaigned among. And it's reasonable to assume he would have more popular votes than Hillary, and would still be our next President. While Hillary would fail, again.

And no doubt, by now, the liberals would be whining that without the Electoral College the big cities were too likely to overwhelm smaller states whose cities weren't so big, and the this somehow made Trump less elected or something.

The Constitution says that the person who gets the most electoral votes becomes President. So Trump campaigned to get electoral votes. If it said instead that the popular vote would determine the next President, than Trump would change tactics, obviously, and campaigned to get those instead.

Liberals whining about the Electoral College now, are displaying the classic dodge of moving the goalposts after the game is over. This misdirection is typical of those who can't win the game when you play by the rules.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Trump has shown a much greater ability to pivot and try something different, than Hillary has.

If the rules changed and suddenly you had to win the popular vote to become President, Trump wouldn't have any trouble.

But Hillary would have lots of trouble. Every time she put in a public appearance, the more people saw of her the less they liked her - something she just cannot change.

 

[elektra]

If we recounted Southern California, we would find 3 million illegal votes.

 

[TheDude]

Water is wet