Proclaiming Hillary received the most popular votes is HIGHLY overrated

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

How is $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities more fiscally responsible, safety pin?

 

[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.

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.

I knew you'd see my simple question that way. That's because the honest answer is to it is inconvenient for you.

I, in no way, suggested that any elector should be faithless. I have not attempted to subvert democracy. I have never suggested for a moment that Trump is not going to be my president. I've nothing to suck up.

You, on the other hand, couldn't be man enough to admit that you would whine like a bitch if electors did select Clinton...which is ENTIRELY WITHIN THE RULES OF THE GAME.

 

[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.

How is $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities more fiscally responsible, safety pin?

Please stop. You aren't talking with an idiot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Honestly depends on whether the laws of their particular state allow them to do so. If they come from a state that prohibits them doing so, then I think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, like any lawbreaker. I also think it's reasonable to expect a backlash from the voters of the faithless elector's state, because they have every right to be outraged.

 

[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.

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.

Responsible stewardship is the operative phrase.

We've experienced waste, fraud and abuse under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

It is irresponsible and has not been addressed. Instead of increasing the burdens on the lower and middle class, I would find it reasonable for our bureaucracy to tighten their belts and weed out this waste.

Any tax increase should be specific in reducing our debt until it is manageable.

I'm all for renewable energy. I'd prefer that those who receive these grants use this money wisely and are vetted properly. We should not be propping up companies like the Solyndra scandal, leaving taxpayers with the liability for their failure.

So much for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not asking for much. Just good stewardship of the Treasury.

 

[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.

Responsible stewardship is the operative phrase.

We've experienced waste, fraud and abuse under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

It is irresponsible and has not been addressed. Instead of increasing the burdens on the lower and middle class, I would find it reasonable for our bureaucracy to tighten their belts and weed out this waste.

Any tax increase should be specific in reducing our debt until it is manageable.

I'm all for renewable energy. I'd prefer that those who receive these grants use this money wisely and are vetted properly. We should not be propping up companies like the Solyndra scandal, leaving taxpayers with the liability for their failure.

So much for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not asking for much. Just good stewardship of the Treasury.

You just said that both sides are fiscally irresponsible.

Are both sides socially liberal?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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.

Responsible stewardship is the operative phrase.

We've experienced waste, fraud and abuse under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

It is irresponsible and has not been addressed. Instead of increasing the burdens on the lower and middle class, I would find it reasonable for our bureaucracy to tighten their belts and weed out this waste.

Any tax increase should be specific in reducing our debt until it is manageable.

I'm all for renewable energy. I'd prefer that those who receive these grants use this money wisely and are vetted properly. We should not be propping up companies like the Solyndra scandal, leaving taxpayers with the liability for their failure.

So much for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not asking for much. Just good stewardship of the Treasury.

You just said that both sides are fiscally irresponsible.

Are both sides socially liberal?

Our Representatives have been fiscally irresponsible.

As far as individuals, I've met conservatives who are socially liberal, especially living in Southern California. When it comes to political parties. No.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Trump won Michigan by cutting the Democrats' union vote by about 2/3rds. Trump's narrow victory is all about the Democratic party's failure to be America's true, unabashed Liberal party.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Responsible stewardship is the operative phrase.

We've experienced waste, fraud and abuse under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

It is irresponsible and has not been addressed. Instead of increasing the burdens on the lower and middle class, I would find it reasonable for our bureaucracy to tighten their belts and weed out this waste.

Any tax increase should be specific in reducing our debt until it is manageable.

I'm all for renewable energy. I'd prefer that those who receive these grants use this money wisely and are vetted properly. We should not be propping up companies like the Solyndra scandal, leaving taxpayers with the liability for their failure.

So much for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not asking for much. Just good stewardship of the Treasury.

You just said that both sides are fiscally irresponsible.

Are both sides socially liberal?

Our Representatives have been fiscally irresponsible.

As far as individuals, I've met conservatives who are socially liberal, especially living in Southern California. When it comes to political parties. No.

So....you lean democrat, then? Excellent.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

Did you write that DigitalDrifter?

 

[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.

Did you write that?

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

No, I typed it.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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.

Responsible stewardship is the operative phrase.

We've experienced waste, fraud and abuse under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

It is irresponsible and has not been addressed. Instead of increasing the burdens on the lower and middle class, I would find it reasonable for our bureaucracy to tighten their belts and weed out this waste.

Any tax increase should be specific in reducing our debt until it is manageable.

I'm all for renewable energy. I'd prefer that those who receive these grants use this money wisely and are vetted properly. We should not be propping up companies like the Solyndra scandal, leaving taxpayers with the liability for their failure.

So much for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not asking for much. Just good stewardship of the Treasury.

You just said that both sides are fiscally irresponsible.

Are both sides socially liberal?

Our Representatives have been fiscally irresponsible.

As far as individuals, I've met conservatives who are socially liberal, especially living in Southern California. When it comes to political parties. No.

So....you lean democrat, then? Excellent.

For almost 40 years as an adult.

Multiple generations as Democrat.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

Did you write that?

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

No, I typed it.

I was asking OP as he provided no link

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

 

[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.

Is this your way of praising Obama's two electoral LANDSLIDES?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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

Katrina did destroy the Democratic block in New Orleans. That's part of why Louisiana has gone red, along with Term limits engineered by Vitter with an eye towards specifically flipping the state legislature. But following Katrina there wasn't much effort at all for the DNC to rebuild in Louisiana, which was a major mistake. The Governor in that state is currently a Democrat, but that happened almost by accident. He's likely just a one term reaction to Jindal.

Michigan I'm completely clueless about. I meet former Michiganders all over the nation, but the folks I'm meeting probably didn't vote Democrat. The collapse of the auto industry in Michigan dispersed a lot of folks, not all of whom were union.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Hillalulu

That would be the winning strategy of conceding the games with your worst pitcher in order to give the better pitchers enough rest to win the tight games. The fact that Hillary couldn't come up with the right strategy to win the electoral college shows that despite all her credentials, she's been incompetent in every high position she's held. That is more important than being such a nasty woman, which she is. I could put up with nasty if it got the job done.

 

[hadit]

So if Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote is highly overrated,

I guess it's fair to say that the Republicans winning all those governorships and state legislatures is highly overrated,

given that they were all elected by the POPULAR VOTE.

Well sure, except that they actually have governing power now while Hillary has none. You know, that.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You can drive from sea to sea and always be in a red county.

 

[Cowman]

You can drive from sea to sea and always be in a red county.

You can also buy conservative toothpaste, conservative phone plan, conservative baby vitamins.

Live your life completely conservatively like the mark you are!