Proclaiming Hillary received the most popular votes is HIGHLY overrated

[Cecilie1200]

Had the outcome been reversed and Clinton won the EV and Trump the PV, this conversation would be precisely reversed.

We're a split country, obviously, and anyone who doesn't govern with that in mind will accomplish little in the long term. Back and forth, back and forth.

Partisans are so silly.
.

I think there would be some three-toothed twits out there bitching if the results were reversed, but I think that, in general, people on the right comprehend the system and how it works a bit better than people on the left seem to. Of course, left-think has permeated our population to such an alarming degree that people of all groups have the "precious snowflake" entitlement mentality, so . . .

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

So now it's "no such thing in our electoral system". We've moved the goal posts.

A reasonable, curious, honest person will look at those numbers and see that we are split down the middle. And a reasonable legislator will take that into account as they legislate. That is my point. The numbers do matter.

If the GOP wants to pretend they have a "mandate" a chooses to cram a hard right agenda down our throats, they will deservedly pay a price for being so blind.
.

Media fictions have no bearing on whether Republicans have a mandate. We won, therefore we have a mandate.

You crybabies did the exact same thing after getting control of government, cramming Obamacare down our throats and shutting Republicans out of the process. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Now we're going to do the same thing to you no matter how much you weep about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hillary Clinton, the People's choice.

Donald Trump, the guys in the powdered wigs choice.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Did any illegal aliens or dead folks vote?

Yes or no.




How many?

That is the question you should answer, you are the one supporting the claim that three million illegals voted. How many have been charged, indicted or accused by name and voting district during this election? I have found one, a Republican in Texas.

Are you denying that Obama ordered illegals to vote...?

Are you denying that illegals voted?

How about denying that there are millions of illegals....deny that?




Waiting.

How about if you answer the question you have been repeatedly asked. Show some evidence where illegals actually voted.
Your first question is a distortion and misrepresentation. Your second question is yes, I deny three million or even three thousand or even three hundred illegals voted. I have read about one person being charged, a registered Republican in Texas. Your third question is just stupid. Everyone knows there are millions of illegals. You have yet to show they voted.
Now show us the link to support the lie that three million illegals voted in the last election. Otherwise you have to continue to wear that "LIAR" sign around your neck.

You have any evidence that the Nigerian prince who e-mailed you that he wanted to give you $ millions was a scam?

No?

Sooo....did you send him the money he asked for?



Now....Are you denying that Obama ordered illegals to vote...?

Are you denying that illegals voted?

How about denying that there are millions of illegals....deny that?

Your post is a sewer full of lies.

Obama NEVER ordered illegals to vote.

Ok.

Encouraged.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

So now it's "no such thing in our electoral system". We've moved the goal posts.

A reasonable, curious, honest person will look at those numbers and see that we are split down the middle. And a reasonable legislator will take that into account as they legislate. That is my point. The numbers do matter.

If the GOP wants to pretend they have a "mandate" a chooses to cram a hard right agenda down our throats, they will deservedly pay a price for being so blind.
.

Media fictions have no bearing on whether Republicans have a mandate. We won, therefore we have a mandate.

You crybabies did the exact same thing after getting control of government, cramming Obamacare down our throats and shutting Republicans out of the process. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Now we're going to do the same thing to you no matter how much you weep about it.

Ramming Obamacare down your throats?

lol, by your measure, Obama had a far greater mandate than Trump has.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf

Page 2.

No "national popular vote", Safety pin.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The point to change the system is to lead to more political parties, and more choice for the electorate. Right now there's two choice, why should people only have 2 choices?

 

[namvet]

you have to get someone else. the ole bird is shot to hell

 

[Freewill]

Had the outcome been reversed and Clinton won the EV and Trump the PV, this conversation would be precisely reversed.

We're a split country, obviously, and anyone who doesn't govern with that in mind will accomplish little in the long term. Back and forth, back and forth.

Partisans are so silly.
.

We are not OBVIOUSLY a split country. It was predicted that the large number of illegals entering the country and being encouraged to vote by Obama was going to effect the election. The only thing that saves the nation from such an unfair advantage is the electoral college. Trump lost one or two states by a large margin. That means in the other 48 he either did well or didn't lose by much. He even turn some very blue states red.

It is only fair that the election be run as it has from the beginning. There were 51 popularity contest run on Nov 8, Trump won, I think, 30, and Hillary 21. Trump is president.

But you are right, if it had gone the way George Soros had said, or if what he said is still true and the electoral college elects Hillary, the discussion would be the opposite.

The electoral college makes the whole election fair to all, not to just a mass of voters in one or two states, and isn't that what the liberals bitch about?

The democrats cheated, lied and encouraged cheating and lying they just couldn't do it in enough states to win.

You really don't think the popular vote totals indicate that we're a split country?
.

Is the country always split? When did someone win 100 percent? Reagan came damn close but still not 100 percent.

The discussion, as you said, would be different if the election would be turned around. It would be said that Hillary won the election it is time to come together. Not so with Trump the left can't stand rejection, even though they should be getting used to it.

Your post in this thread has offered some sanity and honesty to your side. They are mostly logical, factual and of intellectual merit. Some of the subjective opinions may be debated, but everyone has a right to offer analytical opinions. Why some on your side need to use fake news and the lie about three million illegal voters is just weird and disturbing.

I think that when the President of the United States stands before the nation and tells those who are here illegally to vote it is not illogical to assume that they may have in fact voted. Maybe in fact they didn't but I would think that if my benefactor asked me to do something then I just might try.

So although 3 million might be high, the difference in the popular vote was about half of that amount. Therefore in an election of 130 million a .1 percent difference I could contribute to election fraud.

 

[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.

The point to change the system is to lead to more political parties, and more choice for the electorate. Right now there's two choice, why should people only have 2 choices?

People choose to have only two choices. In everything.

If you start out looking at 5 juice makers, very quickly you'll eliminate 3 of them and decide which of the remaining 2 you like best.

Sanders and Stein had their chance and they lost.

 

[Camp]

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

So now it's "no such thing in our electoral system". We've moved the goal posts.

A reasonable, curious, honest person will look at those numbers and see that we are split down the middle. And a reasonable legislator will take that into account as they legislate. That is my point. The numbers do matter.

If the GOP wants to pretend they have a "mandate" a chooses to cram a hard right agenda down our throats, they will deservedly pay a price for being so blind.
.

Media fictions have no bearing on whether Republicans have a mandate. We won, therefore we have a mandate.

You crybabies did the exact same thing after getting control of government, cramming Obamacare down our throats and shutting Republicans out of the process. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Now we're going to do the same thing to you no matter how much you weep about it.

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

So now it's "no such thing in our electoral system". We've moved the goal posts.

A reasonable, curious, honest person will look at those numbers and see that we are split down the middle. And a reasonable legislator will take that into account as they legislate. That is my point. The numbers do matter.

If the GOP wants to pretend they have a "mandate" a chooses to cram a hard right agenda down our throats, they will deservedly pay a price for being so blind.
.

Media fictions have no bearing on whether Republicans have a mandate. We won, therefore we have a mandate.

You crybabies did the exact same thing after getting control of government, cramming Obamacare down our throats and shutting Republicans out of the process. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Now we're going to do the same thing to you no matter how much you weep about it.

The 2008 election gave Obama a genuine mandate. He won the EC vote 365-173. In addition he won the popular vote by about 9 1/2 millions, 69,498,516 vs. 59,948,323. See the difference. Trump won the EC by far less and lost the PV by what is turning out to look like millions.

 

[Mac1958]

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

So now it's "no such thing in our electoral system". We've moved the goal posts.

A reasonable, curious, honest person will look at those numbers and see that we are split down the middle. And a reasonable legislator will take that into account as they legislate. That is my point. The numbers do matter.

If the GOP wants to pretend they have a "mandate" a chooses to cram a hard right agenda down our throats, they will deservedly pay a price for being so blind.
.

Media fictions have no bearing on whether Republicans have a mandate. We won, therefore we have a mandate.

You crybabies did the exact same thing after getting control of government, cramming Obamacare down our throats and shutting Republicans out of the process. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Now we're going to do the same thing to you no matter how much you weep about it.

You just made my point.

The Dems overreached and paid the price. Looks like the GOP is proudly gearing up to do the same thing.

Partisans don't learn, they're blinded by their ideology, they're convinced they have all the answers. Both sides.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf

Page 2.

No "national popular vote", Safety pin.

You lie. page 6. total vote at bottom.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Had the outcome been reversed and Clinton won the EV and Trump the PV, this conversation would be precisely reversed.

We're a split country, obviously, and anyone who doesn't govern with that in mind will accomplish little in the long term. Back and forth, back and forth.

Partisans are so silly.
.

We are not OBVIOUSLY a split country. It was predicted that the large number of illegals entering the country and being encouraged to vote by Obama was going to effect the election. The only thing that saves the nation from such an unfair advantage is the electoral college. Trump lost one or two states by a large margin. That means in the other 48 he either did well or didn't lose by much. He even turn some very blue states red.

It is only fair that the election be run as it has from the beginning. There were 51 popularity contest run on Nov 8, Trump won, I think, 30, and Hillary 21. Trump is president.

But you are right, if it had gone the way George Soros had said, or if what he said is still true and the electoral college elects Hillary, the discussion would be the opposite.

The electoral college makes the whole election fair to all, not to just a mass of voters in one or two states, and isn't that what the liberals bitch about?

The democrats cheated, lied and encouraged cheating and lying they just couldn't do it in enough states to win.

You really don't think the popular vote totals indicate that we're a split country?
.

Is the country always split? When did someone win 100 percent? Reagan came damn close but still not 100 percent.

The discussion, as you said, would be different if the election would be turned around. It would be said that Hillary won the election it is time to come together. Not so with Trump the left can't stand rejection, even though they should be getting used to it.

Your post in this thread has offered some sanity and honesty to your side. They are mostly logical, factual and of intellectual merit. Some of the subjective opinions may be debated, but everyone has a right to offer analytical opinions. Why some on your side need to use fake news and the lie about three million illegal voters is just weird and disturbing.

I think that when the President of the United States stands before the nation and tells those who are here illegally to vote it is not illogical to assume that they may have in fact voted. Maybe in fact they didn't but I would think that if my benefactor asked me to do something then I just might try.

So although 3 million might be high, the difference in the popular vote was about half of that amount. Therefore in an election of 130 million a .1 percent difference I could contribute to election fraud.

The president did no such thing.

 

[Freewill]

Think about it folks, does anyone want ONE state deciding who is president?

In California, Clinton is ahead by over 3 million votes, while Trump is in the lead by more than 177,000 in Utah. In California, the law requires for final results to be submitted within 30 days of the election. Meanwhile, Clinton is winning by more than 481,000 votes in Washington.

From this site:Clinton, Trump Latest 2016 Election Results: Popular Vote Final Tally Depends On Michigan, California, Washington, Utah

 

[Freewill]

We are not OBVIOUSLY a split country. It was predicted that the large number of illegals entering the country and being encouraged to vote by Obama was going to effect the election. The only thing that saves the nation from such an unfair advantage is the electoral college. Trump lost one or two states by a large margin. That means in the other 48 he either did well or didn't lose by much. He even turn some very blue states red.

It is only fair that the election be run as it has from the beginning. There were 51 popularity contest run on Nov 8, Trump won, I think, 30, and Hillary 21. Trump is president.

But you are right, if it had gone the way George Soros had said, or if what he said is still true and the electoral college elects Hillary, the discussion would be the opposite.

The electoral college makes the whole election fair to all, not to just a mass of voters in one or two states, and isn't that what the liberals bitch about?

The democrats cheated, lied and encouraged cheating and lying they just couldn't do it in enough states to win.

You really don't think the popular vote totals indicate that we're a split country?
.

Is the country always split? When did someone win 100 percent? Reagan came damn close but still not 100 percent.

The discussion, as you said, would be different if the election would be turned around. It would be said that Hillary won the election it is time to come together. Not so with Trump the left can't stand rejection, even though they should be getting used to it.

Your post in this thread has offered some sanity and honesty to your side. They are mostly logical, factual and of intellectual merit. Some of the subjective opinions may be debated, but everyone has a right to offer analytical opinions. Why some on your side need to use fake news and the lie about three million illegal voters is just weird and disturbing.

I think that when the President of the United States stands before the nation and tells those who are here illegally to vote it is not illogical to assume that they may have in fact voted. Maybe in fact they didn't but I would think that if my benefactor asked me to do something then I just might try.

So although 3 million might be high, the difference in the popular vote was about half of that amount. Therefore in an election of 130 million a .1 percent difference I could contribute to election fraud.

The president did no such thing.

The truth lies somewhere in the shade:

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don't want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you're not just speaking for yourself. You're speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school...

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: ... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

So now it's "no such thing in our electoral system". We've moved the goal posts.

A reasonable, curious, honest person will look at those numbers and see that we are split down the middle. And a reasonable legislator will take that into account as they legislate. That is my point. The numbers do matter.

If the GOP wants to pretend they have a "mandate" a chooses to cram a hard right agenda down our throats, they will deservedly pay a price for being so blind.
.

Media fictions have no bearing on whether Republicans have a mandate. We won, therefore we have a mandate.

You crybabies did the exact same thing after getting control of government, cramming Obamacare down our throats and shutting Republicans out of the process. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Now we're going to do the same thing to you no matter how much you weep about it.

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

So now it's "no such thing in our electoral system". We've moved the goal posts.

A reasonable, curious, honest person will look at those numbers and see that we are split down the middle. And a reasonable legislator will take that into account as they legislate. That is my point. The numbers do matter.

If the GOP wants to pretend they have a "mandate" a chooses to cram a hard right agenda down our throats, they will deservedly pay a price for being so blind.
.

Media fictions have no bearing on whether Republicans have a mandate. We won, therefore we have a mandate.

You crybabies did the exact same thing after getting control of government, cramming Obamacare down our throats and shutting Republicans out of the process. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Now we're going to do the same thing to you no matter how much you weep about it.

The 2008 election gave Obama a genuine mandate. He won the EC vote 365-173. In addition he won the popular vote by about 9 1/2 millions, 69,498,516 vs. 59,948,323. See the difference. Trump won the EC by far less and lost the PV by what is turning out to look like millions.

You don't get to decide who has a mandate based on a media phantom, Safety pin. All you have is an opinion because you got your ass kicked and you don't want the GOP to pursue our own objectives.

TFB. Suck it up buttercup.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf

Page 2.

No "national popular vote", Safety pin.

You lie. page 6. total vote at bottom.

There is no "national popular vote" in federal law, Safety pin. It's a tally for informational purposes and nothing more. It has zero bearing on who is elected.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The "national popular vote" doesn't exist.

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

So now it's "no such thing in our electoral system". We've moved the goal posts.

A reasonable, curious, honest person will look at those numbers and see that we are split down the middle. And a reasonable legislator will take that into account as they legislate. That is my point. The numbers do matter.

If the GOP wants to pretend they have a "mandate" a chooses to cram a hard right agenda down our throats, they will deservedly pay a price for being so blind.
.

Media fictions have no bearing on whether Republicans have a mandate. We won, therefore we have a mandate.

You crybabies did the exact same thing after getting control of government, cramming Obamacare down our throats and shutting Republicans out of the process. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Now we're going to do the same thing to you no matter how much you weep about it.

You just made my point.

The Dems overreached and paid the price. Looks like the GOP is proudly gearing up to do the same thing.

Partisans don't learn, they're blinded by their ideology, they're convinced they have all the answers. Both sides.
.

Because of all the damage done by you safe space dwellers, we have a lot to fix. Obamacare needs to be repealed, the border secured, our military brought back to primacy, and our economy to grow more than a pathetic 1%. You assholes did this to America and now we have to fix it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Holy crap.

Clinton, votes to date: 63,049,607
Trump, votes to date: 61,610,484

Bing. There it is. It exists.

There are left wingers here who actually claim that PC doesn't exist. Now we've got right wingers who actually claim the popular vote doesn't exist.

Come on. Is any of this stuff supposed to be taken seriously?
.

There's no such thing in our electoral system. It's a media tallying of votes nationwide that has nothing to do with our federal elections.

Prove me wrong.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf

Page 2.

No "national popular vote", Safety pin.

You lie. page 6. total vote at bottom.

There is no "national popular vote" in federal law, Safety pin. It's a tally for informational purposes and nothing more. It has zero bearing on who is elected.

The FEC isn't part of the federal government? good one.