Proclaiming Hillary received the most popular votes is HIGHLY overrated

[Fueri]

It's irrelevant and is being continuously cited by the sore loser crowd to legitimize the way they're acting, as if it makes it much different from any close election, which leaves about half the country unhappy with the winner.

Nobody changed the rules on the little babies, they just don't like it when they don't get their way, so now they want to change them.

And they're realizing that their vaunted demographic gains are somewhat concentrated in cities, which may not translate into electoral college magic, so just breeding their way into perpetual power might not work as well as they thought, so, again, let's change the rules.

Fuck em. it's been a week. time to put on the big boy pants and deal with reality, which includes losing sometimes.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

The system is patently unfair.

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

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

You're the one have an amusing fit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We'll see how much RWnuts think majorities don't matter once the Democrats in the Senate start filibustering the GOP's agenda.

lol, you watch. You heard it here.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

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

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

The system is patently unfair.

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

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

You're the one have an amusing fit.

Fit? Did you not see the last election? I'm as giddy as a school girl.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Popular vote isn't in the Constitution

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

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

I did and it was just an explanation of why he thinks the truth is over rated. But the truth doesn't care if you call it names...it's still the truth.

 

[depotoo]

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

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

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

The system is patently unfair.

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

So you believe the red and pink on this map should be governed by the blue. Now that is unfair. Thus why we have an electoral college.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not "ignoring" it. I'm just saying because of the rules we have always worked with, it's inconclusive.
It's possible under a popular only election, Hillary may have received even more votes. Maybe less.
The point here, the goal is not to receive the MOST overall votes, and because of this, strategies are different.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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

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

I did and it was just an explanation of why he thinks the truth is over rated. But the truth doesn't care if you call it names...it's still the truth.

Oh boy. Well if you read it, then you failed to get it.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

who knew 2 Million dead people came back from the dead to vote? i didnt see any at my precinct.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

The system is patently unfair.

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

View attachment 98696
So you believe the red and pink on this map should be governed by the blue. Now that is unfair. Thus why we have an electoral college.

That map doesn't represent a government of the people.

That map represents a government of the dirt.

 

[Tilly]

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

At the moment she has less than .5% more of the pv, and they haven't all been counted. Since the election was not fought on the basis of securing the PV, as pointed out by OP, it is meaningless.

Here, have some Play Doh:

 

[NYcarbineer]

So why then do RWnuts complain that Supreme Court judges aren't elected?

 

[cnm]

That means you think the founders hated democracy

They made sure with the Electoral College that the US wouldn't have too much of it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Popular vote isn't in the Constitution

actually while the republicans are ahead in all areas of the country

might be a good time to repeal the 17th amendment

imagine the headie explodie that would cause with leftards --LOL

 

[jillian]

That means you think the founders hated democracy

They made sure with the Electoral College that the US wouldn't have too much of it.

they made sure they would protect slavery...and that's why the rural states have far more power than they should.

 

[jon_berzerk]

proof in point already

--LOL

 

[jillian]

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

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

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

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

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

Popular vote isn't in the Constitution

actually while the republicans are ahead in all areas of the country

might be a good time to repeal the 17th amendment

they barely have a majority..... you might want to go back and look at how the constitution is amended. you're a very good argument for schools having civics courses again. maybe then you'd learn something.

but thanks for continuing to express your hatred for people who are smarter than you.

rightwingnuts always want to take away the ability of anyone who isn't a nutcase winger to vote. *shrug*

 

[Alex.]

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

She lost the election.

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

Rather than get into an in depth discussion, I am providing a reliable source to demonstrate the democratic party is rife with what your post is accusing the Republicans of doing

"Stanford University confirms evidence of election fraud during the 2016 Democratic Party primaries.


According to a paper released this week entitled, “Are we witnessing a dishonest election?,” a state comparison based on the voting procedures used during the election reveals endemic election fraud within the system."

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud


Now, please stop with the water works.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

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

She lost the election.

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

Rather than get into an in depth discussion, I am providing a reliable source to demonstrate the democratic party is rife with what your post is accusing the Republicans of doing

"Stanford University confirms evidence of election fraud during the 2016 Democratic Party primaries.


According to a paper released this week entitled, “Are we witnessing a dishonest election?,” a state comparison based on the voting procedures used during the election reveals endemic election fraud within the system."

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud


Now, please stop with the water works.

and now we are learning of fraud in the Carolina guber race? I find it odd that Trump won, and the dem just squeeks by as Govenor?