Proclaiming Hillary received the most popular votes is HIGHLY overrated

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

The states with a lower population density get cheated on that. If Alaska had the same density as New Jersey, it would have 700 million people! There is a large block of states like that. Farms and ranches would represent a lot more of the popular vote if turned into apartment complexes.

The more relevant mistake, which the pundits are too stupid to talk about much, is the winner-take-all apportionment. States should divide their electoral votes down to one tenth of one percent. So in 2000, Bush and Gore would have both received 12.4 votes and Nader around .2.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

Maybe the team that gets the most runs in 7 games (popular vote) should win the world series and not the team that wins the most games (EC votes) Go whine to MLB.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's up to winning by 1.4 MILLION now....should surpass 2 million when the count is done on absentee voters.

there has been just one case of voter fraud by an illegal that has been prosecuted recently, it took place in Texas, an illegal Mexican woman that voted in 3 or 4 elections/primaries over a few years, and she was a registered REPUBLICAN, who was married to an American man...

"Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, according to Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.

If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote.

“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations."
Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens

Fake news being promoted by Info Wars Alex Jones.
Folks should keep a list of the perpetrators and posters that spread this kind of misinformation and lies or risk wasting time and resources being propagandized and misled.

"Claims of votes by the dead, felons cloud North Carolina governor race"
Claims of votes by the dead, felons cloud North Carolina governor race



I wonder who they voted for.....

I too wonder who they voted for....

All 50 counties, with each election Supervisor Republican in all counties, found:

Protests being filed by registered voters in some 50 counties argue that up to 200 ballots should be thrown out because they were cast under the names of dead people or by felons or individuals who voted more than once, according to the campaign.

The challenger to the governor received 6000 more votes than the sitting governor in the race....

the 200 are not enough to make the difference in the election results.

So you're agreeing that illegals and dead people voted?

Good start!

Do you know how many?

No?

Did Obama encouraging same up the numbers?

And....you know who they voted for.

Exactly my point.


Let's wait and see if more information comes out....


And, remember this: the same folks who are hanging on by the fingernails, hoping to save some cachet for the career criminal and congenital liar topping the Democrat ticket....
....are the very same dunces who are trying to retain some semblance of victory for the loser...and the loser's loser voters....
...are the very same fools who try to grace Gorbachev with ending the Cold War so they don't have to admit that all kudos go to Reagan.



More good news:

"Donald Trump and the U.N.: Signs of Clashing Views on Many Issues"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/world/americas/united-nations-trump-climate-change-iran-cuba.html

Is the Cold War even over?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Maybe the team that gets the most runs in 7 games (popular vote) should win the world series and not the team that wins the most games (EC votes) Go whine to MLB.

The team with the most runs wins the game dumbass.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The word mandate has a definition that can be found in dictionaries. The definition that applies here is the one that defines the meaning as a voice or instructions from the electorate. The electorate is comprised of the individual voters. Since the individual voters in the electorate did not give a majority vote , a mandate was not voiced. Perhaps you have done like so many on the far right and invented a new definition of mandate to fit your agenda, but I think I will stick with the one that has been used for hundreds of years.

Political rhetoric in this country has become so fucked up that people can't even agree on the meaning of words at this point.

Add that to the fact that we also can't even agree on facts, and it's no wonder we're so dysfunctional.
.

Word definitions are not things we should compromise on. This is just one main factor in the dumbing down of America.

Parrots Are Birdbrains

Oxymoron means almost the opposite of what the media have brainwashed the people into believing it means. Those know-it-all nobodies copy words from books without finding out their exact meaning, pronunciation, or whether they are singular or plural. Also, "clueless" is illogical. I could go on, but people have been trained to let the broadcasters become role models for language, and hypnotically listen to them drone on and on.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

Maybe the team that gets the most runs in 7 games (popular vote) should win the world series and not the team that wins the most games (EC votes) Go whine to MLB.

The team with the most runs wins the game dumbass.

Every game has rules to determine the winner and only losers whine about the rules after losing.

Dumbass.

 

[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?

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.

No, people don't choose. The system chooses. Because of the mentality of people, the system plays off the mentality.

Yes, if you start out with 5 juice makers, you might get down to two you like. However the people don't feel they have 5 options. They feel there are 5 but know three of them are impossible because they're not actually juice makers.

Look at other countries. What countries only have two choices?

If you look at systems with PR, for example, you'll not find a single one (unless it's corrupt).

Just some random looks, Columbia has PR, and you see something quite different from the US.

Elections in Colombia - Wikipedia

The top party got 16%, the 2nd part 14%, the 3rd party 13%. 9 parties got over 2% of the vote. People had real choice.

They could choose between conservative/social liberalism (two parties), liberalism, Conservatism, center right, a green party, nationalism, center left and Christian democracy.

This has a massive impact on the presidential election too (which has a run off system), where the party that came 5th in the parliamentary election came first in the first round of the presidential election with 29% and then came 2nd in the second round.

Here there is lots of choice, both in the presidential and the parliamentary elections. In the US the system forces people to choose between two candidates in the presidential election, rather five candidates in Columbia, and then not fearing that one candidate would get elected so having to vote for someone you don't like in order to stop the other based on polls.

The US system forces people to choose, and negative choosing is more likely.

Back to the juicers, some people might one a juicer that can do this, one might one that is green, etc. But in the US it's like Ford. You can choose a car in any color, as long as it's black (or white I suppose).

 

[JoeB131]

It will be up to the Democrats to extend that olive branch without the insults toward the American people.

No, they don't. ALl they have to do is wait around for the Republicans to do what they do absolutely best...

Fuck thing up.

The real problem is, we have too short of memories. It only takes 8 years to forget how badly Republicans fuck things up when they are in charge.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

It will be up to the Democrats to extend that olive branch without the insults toward the American people.

No, they don't. ALl they have to do is wait around for the Republicans to do what they do absolutely best...

Fuck thing up.

The real problem is, we have too short of memories. It only takes 8 years to forget how badly Republicans fuck things up when they are in charge.

What's this "WE" shit?

We've had Presidents fucking up from both parties as far back as history provides.

 

[Mac1958]

Just as the Republicans did with Obama, the Democrats are going to hope that Trump causes great damage.

Party over country. Hope for the worst.

And somehow, like good and obedient partisan ideologues, they have convinced themselves they can swoop back in and fix the carnage.

If only the wingers on both ends could find another hobby.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

Maybe the team that gets the most runs in 7 games (popular vote) should win the world series and not the team that wins the most games (EC votes) Go whine to MLB.

The team with the most runs wins the game dumbass.

Every game has rules to determine the winner and only losers whine about the rules after losing.

Dumbass.

The rules of this game state that the electors can choose Clinton if they so desire. Would you whine if they did that? Be honest.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just as the Republicans did with Obama, the Democrats are going to hope that Trump causes great damage.

Party over country. Hope for the worst.

And somehow, like good and obedient partisan ideologues, they have convinced themselves they can swoop back in and fix the carnage.

If only the wingers on both ends could find another hobby.
.

Who are you talking about? What democrat have you heard say that they hope Trump causes great damage? Can you name anyone?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Just as the Republicans did with Obama, the Democrats are going to hope that Trump causes great damage.

Party over country. Hope for the worst.

And somehow, like good and obedient partisan ideologues, they have convinced themselves they can swoop back in and fix the carnage.

If only the wingers on both ends could find another hobby.
.

Thank you.

I refrain from talking politics in my personal life, especially with strangers.

Most are not ideologues, and you can have a civil conversation.

Living in Maryland, most are and claim superiority and take a hard line.

There is no middle ground and it's all or nothing.

They do not see that their ideas alone are not the solution. We all don't think alike.

I have supported our Presidents and wish them well.

Until they violate the Constitution.

Many times I come here just to laugh and poke fun at what these ideologues post.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

No, people don't choose. The system chooses. Because of the mentality of people, the system plays off the mentality.

Yes, if you start out with 5 juice makers, you might get down to two you like. However the people don't feel they have 5 options. They feel there are 5 but know three of them are impossible because they're not actually juice makers.

Look at other countries. What countries only have two choices?

The US system forces people to choose, and negative choosing is more likely.

Back to the juicers, some people might one a juicer that can do this, one might one that is green, etc. But in the US it's like Ford. You can choose a car in any color, as long as it's black (or white I suppose).

There were four choices on my ballot. You need to contact your state rep and find out what happened.

I don't recall all this hand wringing when obama won, twice! Liberals are little crybabies, pure and simple.

 

[Mac1958]

Just as the Republicans did with Obama, the Democrats are going to hope that Trump causes great damage.

Party over country. Hope for the worst.

And somehow, like good and obedient partisan ideologues, they have convinced themselves they can swoop back in and fix the carnage.

If only the wingers on both ends could find another hobby.
.

Thank you.

I refrain from talking politics in my personal life, especially with strangers.

Most are not ideologues, and you can have a civil conversation.

Living in Maryland, most are and claim superiority and take a hard line.

There is no middle ground and it's all or nothing.

They do not see that their ideas alone are not the solution. We all don't think alike.

I have supported our Presidents and wish them well.

Until they violate the Constitution.

Many times I come here just to laugh and poke fun at what these ideologues post.

They're a challenging dichotomy for me.

On one hand, I have to admit they're a fascinating amateur psychological / sociological / anthropological study.

On the other, they continue to cause this country great damage, and their influence is only getting worse.

It is what it is, they sure as hell won't be listening to ME any time soon.


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just as the Republicans did with Obama, the Democrats are going to hope that Trump causes great damage.

Party over country. Hope for the worst.

And somehow, like good and obedient partisan ideologues, they have convinced themselves they can swoop back in and fix the carnage.

If only the wingers on both ends could find another hobby.
.

Thank you.

I refrain from talking politics in my personal life, especially with strangers.

Most are not ideologues, and you can have a civil conversation.

Living in Maryland, most are and claim superiority and take a hard line.

There is no middle ground and it's all or nothing.

They do not see that their ideas alone are not the solution. We all don't think alike.

I have supported our Presidents and wish them well.

Until they violate the Constitution.

Many times I come here just to laugh and poke fun at what these ideologues post.

I know, right! If every conservative could exhibit the calm, common sense approach that you show here, we'd be far better off. You never say anything that is crazy and you always stick to the facts. It must be so hard for you being stuck in the middle. Keep up the good work.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Just as the Republicans did with Obama, the Democrats are going to hope that Trump causes great damage.

Party over country. Hope for the worst.

And somehow, like good and obedient partisan ideologues, they have convinced themselves they can swoop back in and fix the carnage.

If only the wingers on both ends could find another hobby.
.

Thank you.

I refrain from talking politics in my personal life, especially with strangers.

Most are not ideologues, and you can have a civil conversation.

Living in Maryland, most are and claim superiority and take a hard line.

There is no middle ground and it's all or nothing.

They do not see that their ideas alone are not the solution. We all don't think alike.

I have supported our Presidents and wish them well.

Until they violate the Constitution.

Many times I come here just to laugh and poke fun at what these ideologues post.

I know, right! If every conservative could exhibit the calm, common sense approach that you show here, we'd be far better off. You never say anything that is crazy and you always stick to the facts. It must be so hard for you being stuck in the middle. Keep up the good work.

Conservative. Fiscally.

Liberal. Socially.

Calm and common sense? No.

I'm just having fun.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't get it. When Obama was president we had a government we didn't deserve? And, presumably of course, if Hillary had won the case would be the same?

Yes. Nations always get the government they deserve. It's not a hard quote to figure out. Either the people in the nation outright support the government they have, or they are to apethetic or weak to change it. Either way, they get the government they deserve.

WRONG! The media lies and manipulates the news, largely controlled by one political party. obama would never had been elected in the first place if they had not demonized Bush and then pinned all the economic problems on him and the Republicans, while not vetting obama at all. Then the second time they simply let him get away with all his lies. ALMOST forced Hillary on us but thank God enough people finally woke up to how corrupt they are.

There was an election, people voted, and we elected Obama, same as we elected Bush, same as we elected Clinton, same as we elected Bush Sr., same as we elected Reagan, etc.

If people neither wanted nor deserved Governments lead by these men, they'd have risen up and changed it. This time we elected Trump and we will get the government we deserve.

Nations ALWAYS have the governments they deserve.

I agree. But what about the people who didn't vote for him who got screwed? Or if he does good, what about us who said he would suck? LOL

I've thought about that for a while, thanks to my time in Louisiana. In the end, I've come to the conclusion we deserve this government too. We can vote with our feet and leave, or we'd have convinced our fellow Americans not to head down this path. Or to rise against it.

While I was in Louisiana I saw a lot of folks give up and leave under Jindal. Some went as far as leaving the country for good, many left the state, some retired early and left the workforce. Those that stayed were implicitly accepting the crappy state government by staying, myself included. I eventually left the State too, though to be honest I stayed way too long.

I feel they drove democratic voters out with Katrina and Detroit's bankruptcy. Now both States are red

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

Maybe the team that gets the most runs in 7 games (popular vote) should win the world series and not the team that wins the most games (EC votes) Go whine to MLB.

The team with the most runs wins the game dumbass.

Every game has rules to determine the winner and only losers whine about the rules after losing.

Dumbass.

The rules of this game state that the electors can choose Clinton if they so desire. Would you whine if they did that? Be honest.

Every state has different laws regarding the binding of votes and those with unbound electors still have a tradition of the will of the people respected. Your efforts to subvert democracy are not only pathetic, it won't work. Donald J. Trump is our next president. Suck it up, buttercup.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just as the Republicans did with Obama, the Democrats are going to hope that Trump causes great damage.

Party over country. Hope for the worst.

And somehow, like good and obedient partisan ideologues, they have convinced themselves they can swoop back in and fix the carnage.

If only the wingers on both ends could find another hobby.
.

Thank you.

I refrain from talking politics in my personal life, especially with strangers.

Most are not ideologues, and you can have a civil conversation.

Living in Maryland, most are and claim superiority and take a hard line.

There is no middle ground and it's all or nothing.

They do not see that their ideas alone are not the solution. We all don't think alike.

I have supported our Presidents and wish them well.

Until they violate the Constitution.

Many times I come here just to laugh and poke fun at what these ideologues post.

I know, right! If every conservative could exhibit the calm, common sense approach that you show here, we'd be far better off. You never say anything that is crazy and you always stick to the facts. It must be so hard for you being stuck in the middle. Keep up the good work.

Conservative. Fiscally.

Liberal. Socially.

Calm and common sense? No.

I'm just having fun.

Of course. You are just a casual observer. You and Mac are just scientists conducting lab experiments.

I wonder. If you are, as you say, fiscally conservative, does the fact that we have had more responsible stewardship of the nation's tax revenues under democratic leadership than republcan leadership interest you?

Or...are you simply going to claim that it isn't a fact? Most "fiscal conservatives" deny this reality.

Of course, you might define fiscal conservatism as simply calling for lower taxes and reduced regulations....coupled with calls for austerity when it comes to discretionary spending.....which would lead you to believe that republicans are more fiscally conservative in their proclamations.

You would, as an example, fail to see that spending on renewable energy solutions, which is discretionary, is entirely responsible, fiscally.