Proclaiming Hillary received the most popular votes is HIGHLY overrated

[Coyote]

Trump won the Presidency.
Clinton won the Popular Vote.

Deal with it whiners.

 

[Jroc]

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.

You're living proof that a collage education is highly overrated in some cases

 

[BluesLegend]

Lets be honest, the votes of kids born to illegals should not really count hence Trump won the popular vote.

 

[Jroc]

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*

 

[Lakhota]

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.

This may all change on December 19.

Clinton's lead in the popular vote passes 1 million - POLITICO

 

[oreo]

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.

Proclaiming??? Hillary Clinton is over 1 million popular votes ahead of Donald Trump, and it looks like there's still more to be counted.
Hillary Clinton collects over 1M popular votes ahead of Trump
Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump in popular vote by more than 1.1 million

Clearly Americans did not want Trump as their President. Which results in a three fold problem for Trump.

1. Trump doesn't have a mandate. (Unlike Reagan who won both elections in massive landslides, Democrats were forced to work with him.)
2. With these protests going on all over the country, it makes it very difficult for Trump to convince Republicans to go along with a lot of his campaign promises. Republicans already know they're at risk during the 2018 midterms--so they're going to do everything they can to save their own seats first, even if that means going against Trump.
3. Republicans don't have a strong majority (super majorities) in either house which makes it impossible to repeal Obamacare. They lost 2 senate seats and 6 house seats. We got Obamacare because they're was a sitting Democrat President, and he had super majorities in both houses. That's what it will require to repeal it. They'll be lucky if they can get Democrats to go along to restructuring it making it more affordable. Trump's other proposals, trade, taxes, wall, immigration will also meet very strong opposition.

 

[Nia88]

Every other 1st world country rules by the majority. For example britexit was decided by the people. We as a Ameirca who is suppose to the leader and example of democracy should do the same.

We rule by the majority too, safety pin. The majority in each state appoints the electors and the majority of those electors determines the next president.

Too complicated? Then just stick to crying in the streets with you fellow safe spacers.

The whole safety pin and crying insult is played out please come up with another one.

Im the baby but you stoop to childish insults instead of refuting me using logic and reasoning.

 

[ding]

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

Clearly you are unfamiliar with ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the CONSTITUTION which states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Every other 1st world country rules by the majority. For example britexit was decided by the people. We as a Ameirca who is suppose to the leader and example of democracy should do the same.

We rule by the majority too, safety pin. The majority in each state appoints the electors and the majority of those electors determines the next president.

Too complicated? Then just stick to crying in the streets with you fellow safe spacers.

The whole safety pin and crying insult is played out please come up with another one.

Im the baby but you stoop to childish insults instead of refuting me using logic and reasoning.

 

[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.

This may all change on December 19.

Clinton's lead in the popular vote passes 1 million - POLITICO

There's no such thing as a "national popular vote". It's a media fiction.

Like global warming.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

and the other four times it happened, we got awful presidents who did awful things.

That's the point.

The people got this one right. Donald Trump has no business in the White House.

 

[JoeB131]

Trump won the Presidency.
Clinton won the Popular Vote.

Deal with it whiners.

trump won the electoral college. Assuming they don't have a fit of good sense on Dec. 19th, they'll probably make him President, but the people said otherwise.

Therefore, we are under no obligation to respect the result, just acknowledge it.

 

[JoeB131]

This may all change on December 19.

Not really. They didn't select these electors for their ability to show initiative. Now, if there is some revelation about Trump between now and then, maybe.. but I still doubt it.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Only one president in the history of America ever got more votes than hillary. Know who? Obama

 

[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.

Proclaiming??? Hillary Clinton is over 1 million popular votes ahead of Donald Trump, and it looks like there's still more to be counted.
Hillary Clinton collects over 1M popular votes ahead of Trump
Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump in popular vote by more than 1.1 million

Clearly Americans did not want Trump as their President. Which results in a three fold problem for Trump.

1. Trump doesn't have a mandate. (Unlike Reagan who won both elections in massive landslides, Democrats were forced to work with him.)
2. With these protests going on all over the country, it makes it very difficult for Trump to convince Republicans to go along with a lot of his campaign promises. Republicans already know they're at risk during the 2018 midterms--so they're going to do everything they can to save their own seats first, even if that means going against Trump.
3. Republicans don't have a strong majority (super majorities) in either house which makes it impossible to repeal Obamacare. They lost 2 senate seats and 6 house seats. We got Obamacare because they're was a sitting Democrat President, and he had super majorities in both houses. That's what it will require to repeal it. They'll be lucky if they can get Democrats to go along to restructuring it making it more affordable. Trump's other proposals, trade, taxes, wall, immigration will also meet very strong opposition.

I think you're missing the original point I was making.

 

[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.

This may all change on December 19.

Clinton's lead in the popular vote passes 1 million - POLITICO

It's fine to work to change the system for "next" time, but not to carry out the rules we currently have, IMO would be nearly traitorous.

By the way Lakhota, how'd that election work out for you?

 

[JoeB131]

It's fine to work to change the system for "next" time, but not to carry out the rules we currently have, IMO would be nearly traitorous.

so what will you do if 38 Trump electors decide to vote for Hillary next month? Will you still be praising the system?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It's fine to work to change the system for "next" time, but not to carry out the rules we currently have, IMO would be nearly traitorous.

so what will you do if 38 Trump electors decide to vote for Hillary next month? Will you still be praising the system?

I'm not necessarily praising the system NOW much less then. I'm simply saying these are the rules laid out in front of us, and we should abide by them all during the current process.
If we choose to dismantle the electoral process going forward, so be it, but you don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

 

[Meathead]

so what will you do if 38 Trump electors decide to vote for Hillary next month? Will you still be praising the system?

Me, Me, Me! I want to play!

What would you do if Crooked Hillary lost the election?

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not necessarily praising the system NOW much less then. I'm simply saying these are the rules laid out in front of us, and we should abide by them all during the current process.
If we choose to dismantle the electoral process going forward, so be it, but you don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Why not? frankly, as I said, the rules allow for electors to vote their conscience. If you want to go to the original intent, electors were supposed to show judgement.

So here are the two facts that the electors should judge.

1) Nationally, more people wanted Mrs. Clinton.
2) Donald Trump has shown himself intellectually and morally unfit for the Presidency.

You know, this is the RNC all over again. EVERYONE knows this is a horrible idea, but no one wants to man up and pull the trigger and prevent this from happening.