Proclaiming Hillary received the most popular votes is HIGHLY overrated

[DigitalDrifter]

Proclaiming that Hillary received more votes is simple-minded and not looking at the whole picture.

Most of the time the candidate that receives the most electoral votes, ALSO receives the most popular votes.
However, this doesn't have to be the case at all, and in fact it's now happened FIVE times where the electoral college winner did NOT receive the most popular votes.

As we all know the goal is to reach 270 electoral votes. All campaigns map out a strategy that gives them the best chance to reach that goal. The campaigns then concentrate most of their resources on the areas inside the map they've created.
States where the candidate has a very little chance of winning, will therefore mostly be ignored.
States where the candidate already is likely to win will simply be shored up, but will see fewer campaign visits, and fewer advertising dollars.
States that could easily swing either way, will be heavily attacked with a continual blitz of campaign rallies, and non-stop commercials being ran throughout the campaigning days.

Now If the goal was simply to receive the most overall votes, all campaigns would have MUCH DIFFERENT strategies if the electoral college wasn't involved.
States and cities that have large populations will be primarily concentrated on. These areas will see the overwhelming majority of a campaigns resources.

In the end, the final vote count would likely look different under the electoral college system versus a popular vote only system.

 

[Mac1958]

It was certainly close enough that the Republicans are in danger of over-interpreting their "mandate".

I saw Paul Ryan saying yesterday that the party "has to go big". Really?

Danger, danger.
.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

70% of Americans dont believe she got more votes, such a lie,,,,and considering 70% of all Americans cant stand her.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Proclaiming that Hillary received more votes is simple-minded and not looking at the whole picture.

Most of the time the candidate that receives the most electoral votes, ALSO receives the most popular votes.
However, this doesn't have to be the case at all, and in fact it's now happened FIVE times where the electoral college winner did NOT receive the most popular votes.

As we all know the goal is to reach 270 electoral votes. All campaigns map out a strategy that gives them the best chance to reach that goal. The campaigns then concentrate most of their resources on the areas inside the map they've created.
States where the candidate has a very little chance of winning, will therefore mostly be ignored.
States where the candidate already is likely to win will simply be shored up, but will see fewer campaign visits, and fewer advertising dollars.
States that could easily swing either way, will be heavily attacked with a continual blitz of campaign rallies, and non-stop commercials being ran throughout the campaigning days.

Now If the goal was simply to receive the most overall votes, all campaigns would have MUCH DIFFERENT strategies if the electoral college wasn't involved.
States and cities that have large populations will be primarily concentrated on. These areas will see the overwhelming majority of a campaigns resources.

In the end, the final vote count would likely look different under the electoral college system versus a popular vote only system.

Electing the president by popular vote would increase turnout, and that always favors Democrats.

That's one good reason conservatives hate democracy.

 

[Alex.]

The Clinton crew, an experienced bunch, simply lost the election. No more tears please.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How can you call the truth over rated? She won the popular vote. You can call it anything you like except a lie.

 

[easyt65]

"You won the Presidency? Oh Yeah...well...I ummm, I ummm, I ummm ... have these really cool shoes. So there!"

 

[Alex.]

How can you call the truth over rated? She won the popular vote. You can call it anything you like except a lie.

She lost the election.

 

[gipper]

Proclaiming that Hillary received more votes is simple-minded and not looking at the whole picture.

Most of the time the candidate that receives the most electoral votes, ALSO receives the most popular votes.
However, this doesn't have to be the case at all, and in fact it's now happened FIVE times where the electoral college winner did NOT receive the most popular votes.

As we all know the goal is to reach 270 electoral votes. All campaigns map out a strategy that gives them the best chance to reach that goal. The campaigns then concentrate most of their resources on the areas inside the map they've created.
States where the candidate has a very little chance of winning, will therefore mostly be ignored.
States where the candidate already is likely to win will simply be shored up, but will see fewer campaign visits, and fewer advertising dollars.
States that could easily swing either way, will be heavily attacked with a continual blitz of campaign rallies, and non-stop commercials being ran throughout the campaigning days.

Now If the goal was simply to receive the most overall votes, all campaigns would have MUCH DIFFERENT strategies if the electoral college wasn't involved.
States and cities that have large populations will be primarily concentrated on. These areas will see the overwhelming majority of a campaigns resources.

In the end, the final vote count would likely look different under the electoral college system versus a popular vote only system.

If one subtracts the illegal vote and consider the millions of D voters who either refused to vote or voted down ballot, Trump wins the popular vote. But...whatever.

At any rate, the D party is going to attack Trump 24/7 in an effort to control and denigrate him. The funny thing is Trump is a progressive on most issues. So, Ds are not very smart. They are putting party first over all other things.

 

[depotoo]

If so, according to your logic thats why Dems hate the Constitution.

Proclaiming that Hillary received more votes is simple-minded and not looking at the whole picture.

Most of the time the candidate that receives the most electoral votes, ALSO receives the most popular votes.
However, this doesn't have to be the case at all, and in fact it's now happened FIVE times where the electoral college winner did NOT receive the most popular votes.

As we all know the goal is to reach 270 electoral votes. All campaigns map out a strategy that gives them the best chance to reach that goal. The campaigns then concentrate most of their resources on the areas inside the map they've created.
States where the candidate has a very little chance of winning, will therefore mostly be ignored.
States where the candidate already is likely to win will simply be shored up, but will see fewer campaign visits, and fewer advertising dollars.
States that could easily swing either way, will be heavily attacked with a continual blitz of campaign rallies, and non-stop commercials being ran throughout the campaigning days.

Now If the goal was simply to receive the most overall votes, all campaigns would have MUCH DIFFERENT strategies if the electoral college wasn't involved.
States and cities that have large populations will be primarily concentrated on. These areas will see the overwhelming majority of a campaigns resources.

In the end, the final vote count would likely look different under the electoral college system versus a popular vote only system.

Electing the president by popular vote would increase turnout, and that always favors Democrats.

That's one good reason conservatives hate democracy.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Proclaiming that Hillary received more votes is simple-minded and not looking at the whole picture.

Most of the time the candidate that receives the most electoral votes, ALSO receives the most popular votes.
However, this doesn't have to be the case at all, and in fact it's now happened FIVE times where the electoral college winner did NOT receive the most popular votes.

As we all know the goal is to reach 270 electoral votes. All campaigns map out a strategy that gives them the best chance to reach that goal. The campaigns then concentrate most of their resources on the areas inside the map they've created.
States where the candidate has a very little chance of winning, will therefore mostly be ignored.
States where the candidate already is likely to win will simply be shored up, but will see fewer campaign visits, and fewer advertising dollars.
States that could easily swing either way, will be heavily attacked with a continual blitz of campaign rallies, and non-stop commercials being ran throughout the campaigning days.

Now If the goal was simply to receive the most overall votes, all campaigns would have MUCH DIFFERENT strategies if the electoral college wasn't involved.
States and cities that have large populations will be primarily concentrated on. These areas will see the overwhelming majority of a campaigns resources.

In the end, the final vote count would likely look different under the electoral college system versus a popular vote only system.

Electing the president by popular vote would increase turnout, and that always favors Democrats.

That's one good reason conservatives hate democracy.

Since there are more registered Dimocrats, why even bother to have an election?

And by the way, I'm not necessarily opposed to a popular vote system.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

How can you call the truth over rated? She won the popular vote. You can call it anything you like except a lie.

She lost the election.

we already figured in 3 to 4 million fraudulent votes. look at what they tried to pull in Broward County? and could it be the rats tried to pull that stunt in other swing states?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

How can you call the truth over rated? She won the popular vote. You can call it anything you like except a lie.

You obviously didn't bother reading beyond the thread title.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Proclaiming that Hillary received more votes is simple-minded and not looking at the whole picture.

Most of the time the candidate that receives the most electoral votes, ALSO receives the most popular votes.
However, this doesn't have to be the case at all, and in fact it's now happened FIVE times where the electoral college winner did NOT receive the most popular votes.

As we all know the goal is to reach 270 electoral votes. All campaigns map out a strategy that gives them the best chance to reach that goal. The campaigns then concentrate most of their resources on the areas inside the map they've created.
States where the candidate has a very little chance of winning, will therefore mostly be ignored.
States where the candidate already is likely to win will simply be shored up, but will see fewer campaign visits, and fewer advertising dollars.
States that could easily swing either way, will be heavily attacked with a continual blitz of campaign rallies, and non-stop commercials being ran throughout the campaigning days.

Now If the goal was simply to receive the most overall votes, all campaigns would have MUCH DIFFERENT strategies if the electoral college wasn't involved.
States and cities that have large populations will be primarily concentrated on. These areas will see the overwhelming majority of a campaigns resources.

In the end, the final vote count would likely look different under the electoral college system versus a popular vote only system.

Electing the president by popular vote would increase turnout, and that always favors Democrats.

That's one good reason conservatives hate democracy.

Your full of shit. That means you think the founders hated democracy and any of them have more virtue in their pinkie than you will ever have in your entire, blighted existence.

Our country was founded on popular elections, so much so that today we have 53 of them every presidential election. Why do you hate democracy so much?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

How can you call the truth over rated? She won the popular vote. You can call it anything you like except a lie.

There's no such thing as a national popular vote. This isn't homogeneous America, it's the United STATES of America and in every state there is a POPULAR vote to determine who that state elects. The states elect the president and you get a say in how your state votes.

You safety pin crybabies can scream "unfair!" all you want, but it's perfectly fair.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If so, according to your logic thats why Dems hate the Constitution.

Proclaiming that Hillary received more votes is simple-minded and not looking at the whole picture.

Most of the time the candidate that receives the most electoral votes, ALSO receives the most popular votes.
However, this doesn't have to be the case at all, and in fact it's now happened FIVE times where the electoral college winner did NOT receive the most popular votes.

As we all know the goal is to reach 270 electoral votes. All campaigns map out a strategy that gives them the best chance to reach that goal. The campaigns then concentrate most of their resources on the areas inside the map they've created.
States where the candidate has a very little chance of winning, will therefore mostly be ignored.
States where the candidate already is likely to win will simply be shored up, but will see fewer campaign visits, and fewer advertising dollars.
States that could easily swing either way, will be heavily attacked with a continual blitz of campaign rallies, and non-stop commercials being ran throughout the campaigning days.

Now If the goal was simply to receive the most overall votes, all campaigns would have MUCH DIFFERENT strategies if the electoral college wasn't involved.
States and cities that have large populations will be primarily concentrated on. These areas will see the overwhelming majority of a campaigns resources.

In the end, the final vote count would likely look different under the electoral college system versus a popular vote only system.

Electing the president by popular vote would increase turnout, and that always favors Democrats.

That's one good reason conservatives hate democracy.

Do conservatives hate the Constitution because they would, if they could, amend it with an anti-abortion amendment, and amend it with an anti-same sex marriage amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How can you call the truth over rated? She won the popular vote. You can call it anything you like except a lie.

There's no such thing as a national popular vote. This isn't homogeneous America, it's the United STATES of America and in every state there is a POPULAR vote to determine who that state elects. The states elect the president and you get a say in how your state votes.

You safety pin crybabies can scream "unfair!" all you want, but it's perfectly fair.

The system is patently unfair.

The idea that your vote should have more value because your neighbor is a prairie dog instead of a person is absurdly unfair.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

How can you call the truth over rated? She won the popular vote. You can call it anything you like except a lie.

There's no such thing as a national popular vote. This isn't homogeneous America, it's the United STATES of America and in every state there is a POPULAR vote to determine who that state elects. The states elect the president and you get a say in how your state votes.

You safety pin crybabies can scream "unfair!" all you want, but it's perfectly fair.

The system is patently unfair.

The idea that your vote should have more value because your neighbor is a prairie dog instead of a person is absurdly unfair.

Keep screaming "unfair!", safety pin. It only validates that the country thinks of you as overgrown children.

 

[jillian]

Proclaiming that Hillary received more votes is simple-minded and not looking at the whole picture.

Most of the time the candidate that receives the most electoral votes, ALSO receives the most popular votes.
However, this doesn't have to be the case at all, and in fact it's now happened FIVE times where the electoral college winner did NOT receive the most popular votes.

As we all know the goal is to reach 270 electoral votes. All campaigns map out a strategy that gives them the best chance to reach that goal. The campaigns then concentrate most of their resources on the areas inside the map they've created.
States where the candidate has a very little chance of winning, will therefore mostly be ignored.
States where the candidate already is likely to win will simply be shored up, but will see fewer campaign visits, and fewer advertising dollars.
States that could easily swing either way, will be heavily attacked with a continual blitz of campaign rallies, and non-stop commercials being ran throughout the campaigning days.

Now If the goal was simply to receive the most overall votes, all campaigns would have MUCH DIFFERENT strategies if the electoral college wasn't involved.
States and cities that have large populations will be primarily concentrated on. These areas will see the overwhelming majority of a campaigns resources.

In the end, the final vote count would likely look different under the electoral college system versus a popular vote only system.

poor baby. you can ignore it...but it does mean that he doesn't have a free hand to advance your bigotry

 

[The Breeze]

How can you call the truth over rated? She won the popular vote. You can call it anything you like except a lie.

Morning snowflake.