Proclaiming Hillary received the most popular votes is HIGHLY overrated

[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

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.

thanks for the headie explodie post

--LOL

now is a good chance to get the ball rolling more republican state legislatures then ever

most likely more to come if the dummycrats place ellison as the dnc chair

no really now is the time for states to take back their rights

 

[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.

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?

It goes so deep. Bottom line Hillary did not fool enough people.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The electoral college was made to protect slavery?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Truth?

The truth is we don't have one popular election, we have 53. And you get to vote in your state's popular election and you have a say in how your state allocates electoral votes. That's perfectly fair.

But you safety pins just keep screaming "unfair" like the safe space warriors you are.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

Who complained about that?

Stop lying, safety pins!

 

[CowboyTed]

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?

This post sums up this election... The tin foil hat brigade managed to paint a false narrative and scared enough people...

What he said here has no backing and pure horseshit... They are not even bothering to source anything...

 

[Camp]

The popular vote gives a mathematical element into determining whether a mandate has been achieved. More importantly, it weighs heavily on influencing positions and policies supported by politicians facing elections in the next election. While many elements are subjective, the mathematical element is objective. The national numbers are less important than the numbers obtained from individual districts and individual states. Hence, in some cases, the margins of popular votes may be generally irrelevant, but in other cases, could be extremely relevant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

The States formed the Federal government

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

Rules are what the rules are. And the fact is, each state regulates and runs their elections differently. You can't have a national popular vote without federalizing the election process, something I for one and NOT in favor of.

That said, the fact Hillary did win the popular vote by a pretty comfortable margin isn't something to overlook. There's a lot of folks screaming "MANDATE!" and the fact Hillary won the popular calls BS on that. The Republicans have an opportunity to implement their agenda, but not a mandate to do so.

It also highlights the fact that the dialogue in the future has to go both ways. I've seen a lot of Trump supporters gleefully bragging that Democrats are out of touch. Not so. Democrats were the majority of voters in the election. The whole "out of touch" argument is also BS. Trump supporters need to reach out to Democrats just as much as Democrats need to reach out Trump supporters.

 

[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.

Rules are what the rules are. And the fact is, each state regulates and runs their elections differently. You can't have a national popular vote without federalizing the election process, something I for one and NOT in favor of.

That said, the fact Hillary did win the popular vote by a pretty comfortable margin isn't something to overlook. There's a lot of folks screaming "MANDATE!" and the fact Hillary won the popular calls BS on that. The Republicans have an opportunity to implement their agenda, but not a mandate to do so.

It also highlights the fact that the dialogue in the future has to go both ways. I've seen a lot of Trump supporters gleefully bragging that Democrats are out of touch. Not so. Democrats were the majority of voters in the election. The whole "out of touch" argument is also BS. Trump supporters need to reach out to Democrats just as much as Democrats need to reach out Trump supporters.

There's no such thing as a national popular vote. It's a made up thing and has no bearing on whether or not Trump has a mandate. All it means is that the heavily populated Democrat states voted in strong majorities in their state, but its significance doesn't extend beyond that. Electoral votes are awarded whether the majority was strong or weak. It really doesn't matter.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

Rules are what the rules are. And the fact is, each state regulates and runs their elections differently. You can't have a national popular vote without federalizing the election process, something I for one and NOT in favor of.

That said, the fact Hillary did win the popular vote by a pretty comfortable margin isn't something to overlook. There's a lot of folks screaming "MANDATE!" and the fact Hillary won the popular calls BS on that. The Republicans have an opportunity to implement their agenda, but not a mandate to do so.

It also highlights the fact that the dialogue in the future has to go both ways. I've seen a lot of Trump supporters gleefully bragging that Democrats are out of touch. Not so. Democrats were the majority of voters in the election. The whole "out of touch" argument is also BS. Trump supporters need to reach out to Democrats just as much as Democrats need to reach out Trump supporters.

There's no such thing as a national popular vote. It's a made up thing and has no bearing on whether or not Trump has a mandate. All it means is that the heavily populated Democrat states voted in strong majorities in their state, but its significance doesn't extend beyond that. Electoral votes are awarded whether the majority was strong or weak. It really doesn't matter.

First up, I don't actually believe in mandates at all in Democracies, especially when ran like ours was. Winning an election in the United States doesn't mean folks actually like you.

But there is a reason to talk about the national popular vote. It implies that among a those that cared enough to vote, maneuvered through their state's voting laws, and weighed the options, a majority did not vote for Trump. That absolutely does have meaning. A lot of folks have tried to claim that Trump's win was a mandate or that it meant Democrats are out of touch. When the majority that voted cast their vote for Clinton, that means those two points are completely out of touch.

Trump did win though. The rules are what the rules are. When Trump felt he was being robbed in the primaries, I called BS on that. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

 

[jc456]

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

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

Danger, danger.
.

Mandate bubba. Can't spin it tard (trump acceptance resistance disorder)

 

[jc456]

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.

Rules are what the rules are. And the fact is, each state regulates and runs their elections differently. You can't have a national popular vote without federalizing the election process, something I for one and NOT in favor of.

That said, the fact Hillary did win the popular vote by a pretty comfortable margin isn't something to overlook. There's a lot of folks screaming "MANDATE!" and the fact Hillary won the popular calls BS on that. The Republicans have an opportunity to implement their agenda, but not a mandate to do so.

It also highlights the fact that the dialogue in the future has to go both ways. I've seen a lot of Trump supporters gleefully bragging that Democrats are out of touch. Not so. Democrats were the majority of voters in the election. The whole "out of touch" argument is also BS. Trump supporters need to reach out to Democrats just as much as Democrats need to reach out Trump supporters.

There's no such thing as a national popular vote. It's a made up thing and has no bearing on whether or not Trump has a mandate. All it means is that the heavily populated Democrat states voted in strong majorities in their state, but its significance doesn't extend beyond that. Electoral votes are awarded whether the majority was strong or weak. It really doesn't matter.

First up, I don't actually believe in mandates at all in Democracies, especially when ran like ours was. Winning an election in the United States doesn't mean folks actually like you.

But there is a reason to talk about the national popular vote. It implies that among a those that cared enough to vote, maneuvered through their state's voting laws, and weighed the options, a majority did not vote for Trump. That absolutely does have meaning. A lot of folks have tried to claim that Trump's win was a mandate or that it meant Democrats are out of touch. When the majority that voted cast their vote for Clinton, that means those two points are completely out of touch.

Trump did win though. The rules are what the rules are. When Trump felt he was being robbed in the primaries, I called BS on that. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

no, no it doesn't.

BTW, who cares what you believe, Can you say mandate? Who owns all three houses? MANDATE

 

[Mac1958]

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

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

Danger, danger.
.

Mandate bubba. Can't spin it tard (trump acceptance resistance disorder)

To put that in English, you appear to be saying that Trump has a mandate, even though he didn't get more votes.

Is that correct?
.

 

[jc456]

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

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

Danger, danger.
.

Mandate bubba. Can't spin it tard (trump acceptance resistance disorder)

To put that in English, you appear to be saying that Trump has a mandate, even though he didn't get more votes.

Is that correct?
.

he did, he got 306 to 232, isn't that more? or do you have some new math?

 

[Mac1958]

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

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

Danger, danger.
.

Mandate bubba. Can't spin it tard (trump acceptance resistance disorder)

To put that in English, you appear to be saying that Trump has a mandate, even though he didn't get more votes.

Is that correct?
.

he did, he got 306 to 232, isn't that more? or do you have some new math?

Oh, I see, you're going to ignore the actual vote totals.

Okay, never mind, I'm not interested in playing games.
.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

Rules are what the rules are. And the fact is, each state regulates and runs their elections differently. You can't have a national popular vote without federalizing the election process, something I for one and NOT in favor of.

That said, the fact Hillary did win the popular vote by a pretty comfortable margin isn't something to overlook. There's a lot of folks screaming "MANDATE!" and the fact Hillary won the popular calls BS on that. The Republicans have an opportunity to implement their agenda, but not a mandate to do so.

It also highlights the fact that the dialogue in the future has to go both ways. I've seen a lot of Trump supporters gleefully bragging that Democrats are out of touch. Not so. Democrats were the majority of voters in the election. The whole "out of touch" argument is also BS. Trump supporters need to reach out to Democrats just as much as Democrats need to reach out Trump supporters.

There's no such thing as a national popular vote. It's a made up thing and has no bearing on whether or not Trump has a mandate. All it means is that the heavily populated Democrat states voted in strong majorities in their state, but its significance doesn't extend beyond that. Electoral votes are awarded whether the majority was strong or weak. It really doesn't matter.

First up, I don't actually believe in mandates at all in Democracies, especially when ran like ours was. Winning an election in the United States doesn't mean folks actually like you.

But there is a reason to talk about the national popular vote. It implies that among a those that cared enough to vote, maneuvered through their state's voting laws, and weighed the options, a majority did not vote for Trump. That absolutely does have meaning. A lot of folks have tried to claim that Trump's win was a mandate or that it meant Democrats are out of touch. When the majority that voted cast their vote for Clinton, that means those two points are completely out of touch.

Trump did win though. The rules are what the rules are. When Trump felt he was being robbed in the primaries, I called BS on that. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

no, no it doesn't.

BTW, who cares what you believe, Can you say mandate? Who owns all three houses? MANDATE

Opportunity, not mandate. Again, I don't believe in Mandates. But I'll concede that the GOP has a major opportunity and they'd be fools to squander it. They have a chance to show people how they'd govern and prove it will work. So go to town.

But mandate? No. You still lost a majority of Americans. And the GOP should keep an eye on that. The Electoral college gets readjusted every census year and 2020 isn't that far away.

 

[jc456]

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

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

Danger, danger.
.

Mandate bubba. Can't spin it tard (trump acceptance resistance disorder)

To put that in English, you appear to be saying that Trump has a mandate, even though he didn't get more votes.

Is that correct?
.

he did, he got 306 to 232, isn't that more? or do you have some new math?

Oh, I see, you're going to ignore the actual vote totals.

Okay, never mind, I'm not interested in playing games.
.

How is that, he won 306 to 232 I ignore nothing.

 

[jc456]

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.

Rules are what the rules are. And the fact is, each state regulates and runs their elections differently. You can't have a national popular vote without federalizing the election process, something I for one and NOT in favor of.

That said, the fact Hillary did win the popular vote by a pretty comfortable margin isn't something to overlook. There's a lot of folks screaming "MANDATE!" and the fact Hillary won the popular calls BS on that. The Republicans have an opportunity to implement their agenda, but not a mandate to do so.

It also highlights the fact that the dialogue in the future has to go both ways. I've seen a lot of Trump supporters gleefully bragging that Democrats are out of touch. Not so. Democrats were the majority of voters in the election. The whole "out of touch" argument is also BS. Trump supporters need to reach out to Democrats just as much as Democrats need to reach out Trump supporters.

There's no such thing as a national popular vote. It's a made up thing and has no bearing on whether or not Trump has a mandate. All it means is that the heavily populated Democrat states voted in strong majorities in their state, but its significance doesn't extend beyond that. Electoral votes are awarded whether the majority was strong or weak. It really doesn't matter.

First up, I don't actually believe in mandates at all in Democracies, especially when ran like ours was. Winning an election in the United States doesn't mean folks actually like you.

But there is a reason to talk about the national popular vote. It implies that among a those that cared enough to vote, maneuvered through their state's voting laws, and weighed the options, a majority did not vote for Trump. That absolutely does have meaning. A lot of folks have tried to claim that Trump's win was a mandate or that it meant Democrats are out of touch. When the majority that voted cast their vote for Clinton, that means those two points are completely out of touch.

Trump did win though. The rules are what the rules are. When Trump felt he was being robbed in the primaries, I called BS on that. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

no, no it doesn't.

BTW, who cares what you believe, Can you say mandate? Who owns all three houses? MANDATE

Opportunity, not mandate. Again, I don't believe in Mandates. But I'll concede that the GOP has a major opportunity and they'd be fools to squander it. They have a chance to show people how they'd govern and prove it will work. So go to town.

But mandate? No. You still lost a majority of Americans. And the GOP should keep an eye on that. The Electoral college gets readjusted every census year and 2020 isn't that far away.

MANDATE bubba, MANDATE

BTW the win was 306 to 232 landslide.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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

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

Danger, danger.
.

Mandate bubba. Can't spin it tard (trump acceptance resistance disorder)

To put that in English, you appear to be saying that Trump has a mandate, even though he didn't get more votes.

Is that correct?
.

he did, he got 306 to 232, isn't that more? or do you have some new math?

Oh, I see, you're going to ignore the actual vote totals.

Okay, never mind, I'm not interested in playing games.
.

How is that, he won 306 to 232 I ignore nothing.

Technical point: Michigan isn't in yet. It's probably going to give its electors to Trump, but it isn't in yet.

And again, that means Trump won, but that's all it means. If you want to dig deeper into it and claim mandate you need more than winning. Did he win by a historic margin? No. Did he win the popular vote? No. Does he enjoy high favorable ratings? No. Did the Republicans increase their margins in the House? No. Did they increase their margin in the Senate? No.

They control the House and Senate, but actually lost ground in both. They had 54 seats in the prior Senate, and now have 52. They had 247 House seats before, and now have 238.

In short, there's no landslide or mandate here. Trump eeked out a victory and the GOP managed to hold onto Congress despite losing seats. It's a win. And that's about it.